Can we just assume that a Grand Piano exists due to Intelligent Design?

Question

Do we even need to consult science to come to this conclusion? Wouldn’t it be absurd to hypothesize it appeared out in the woods due to trees falling, lightening and erosion?

And if it is absurd to assume the Piano came about by random processes isn’t even more absurd to assume human beings did? Absurd, silly, strange, illogical, meaningless and bizarre!

I’m just so tired of the debate regarding Intelligent Design being treated as science. Of course we could study if life has evidence of design just like we could study if the piano has evidence of design. To say otherwise is just openly dishonest.

However, the design in life is so clearly obvious why bother with ID? Everyone can see this just as clearly as the Piano.

Paradox - The piano was designed and updated over time by people with intelligence.

Hey dude. Then you believe the piano is a result of random processes as well because the designers that created it are a result of such processes from your bizarre perspective.

Solly Claus you sound a little upset there. Is it something I said?

Equinox - Something coming to life without design makes sense to you? Ok. As for your theological question, God promised us all death and I expect He did a very good job.

Very funny Mr. E.

Answer 1

They will argue that the difference is the piano is not alive and can't reproduce, and so you can't invoke natural selection and mutation as your savior (which, by the way, requires an incredible amount of faith and has an abundance of problems; an obvious one is the fact that you first need a living organism that can already reproduce; where did that come from? Among plenty of other books, read "Icons of Evolution" by Dr. Jonathan Wells).

But I agree with you (for the most part). The brain makes the complex computer look like a child’s toy in comparison to complexity. If you were walking along a deserted Island and just so happen to come across a computer, the first thing you would think is, “Look what nature made,” right? Is it logical to believe that the brain designed the computer, but the brain is a product of time and chance and the laws of nature?

And as Dr. Stephen Meyer has said, “Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information—hardly the simple ‘globules of plasm’ envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.”

These elegant machines are of greater sophistication than we are capable of making. Dr. Michael Denton (a non-Christian molecular biologist) said, “Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.”

And life is more than just physics and chemistry; life is built on information. Tightly coiled up inside the center of every cell, this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, called “DNA” which has a digital code inscribed alone its spine. Evolutionists have not been able to explain the origin of information in cells; information has not been shown to spontaneously arise from matter and energy. The existence of the information can only be explained through a pre-existing intelligence that put it there (all experience indicates this). If you have a computer program, you need a computer programer. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription or a newspaper article, there was invariably an intelligent agent behind that information.

I have to agree with Wayne Jackson, “It is not reasonable to assume that chaos gave rise to order, that the nonrational produced the rational, that nonliving evolved into the living, that nonconscious became conscious, that amoral developed morality, etc. The simple fact is, people do not accept evolution because it is the logical thing to do; rather, many believe it because they have a vested interest in not wanting to acknowledge the Creator!”

===================================
Edit:
Oh, I know what they are going to say (among other things), "You are just ignorant, we have proof with bacteria." But as Dr. Carl Wieland has said, “Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilized in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.”

And most of the beneficial mutations (some scientists say all) that they point to (like antibiotic resistance in bacteria) are really only a rearrangement or loss of information, not a gain.

For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information. They have a survival advantage in a hospital, but are actually defective and can’t compete as well with ordinary bacteria. As Dr. Carl Wieland says, we shouldn’t call them “supergerms” but rather “superwimps.”

Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information. The protection against malaria comes at the high cost of a less functional hemoglobin molecule.

Wingless beetles on a windy island and blind cave fish may have a survival advantage, but it comes from a loss of information.

This kind of stuff is used as “evidence” for evolution, but in all these mutations (even the beneficial ones), this seems to always be the case. As Dr. Michael Behe (who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry) said, “...most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes—and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes.”

It’s pretty sad, but many of the so called “evidences of evolution” actually show the opposite of evolution—information decrease. All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3, headed in the wrong direction. As biologist Dr. Gary Parker said in his discussion of mutations, “Even more serious is the fact that mutations are ‘going the wrong way’ as far as evolution is concerned. Almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or abnormality that it causes . . . In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just what we normally expect: tear things down and make matters worse.”

Mutations are one of the consequences of God’s curse on creation because of Adam’s sin. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

Answer 2

The flaw in ID is that the "hand of God" is required to make things happen. That's not intelligent design at all. That's like saying I have an intelligently designed car, but I need to get out and push it all the time.

A truly intelligent design is one that can run from start to finish with NO outside intervention. A truly elegant ID argument would be that God designed the elements and laws of physics to culminate in Man.

God is omnipotent; why should he need to intervene in evolution? The flaw in the argument is that intervention is basically arguing that God wasn't smart or powerful enough to make evolution work without intervention.

Answer 3

If you genuinely knew nothing about the processes by which a piano came to be, then it's best not to make assumptions.

If you hypothesised it was through natural processes then you'd need to find some natural mechanisms by which this could occur. That's what Darwin did when he examined a similar question about the diversity of living things, which in crucial distinction to pianos are self replicating. The evidence accumulated since confirms that he was largely correct.

And "natural" processes (for the ten thousandth time) are not the same as "random" processes. How many times do we have to say it before you guys stop using "random" as a synonym for "natural"? Are you confusing the two concepts deliberately?

Answer 4

Wrong!

The difference between a piano and a human is that the human is alive. Alive things seek advantages and evolve, an inaminate object (i.e. the piano) does not. There is no push/pull factor for the formation of the piano BECAUSE IT IS NOT ALIVE!

But say if you're right for an instance. Why did God make our bodies so frail to cancers, disease, deformities, mutations? You'll find that the human body is quite sub-optimal, and for the work of an all powerful creator he didn't put much effort in.

added:
Yes. Scientists call it abiogenesis. Conditions that were just right to give life to something basic which eventually evolved into more complex organisms. Glad you agree.

So he promised us death through the most debilitating and horrifying diseases? I suppose he didn't want us to get bored, so he loved us enough to draw out the suffering huh?

Answer 5

The Piano is fine...it's the fingers that play it that are the problem. Anyone who knows piano knows the human hand is not the greatest design for the keys...unless the fingers were the same length!

Answer 6

Yes we can assume that a piano was designed.

No I do not see design from an intelligent source behind life on earth. nice try.

We eat thru the same orifice that we breathe thru. Our teeth get cavities if we don't brush them with some man-made brush. We get alzheimer's, cancer, we can't regrow limbs but a little newt can. We can;t regrow a spinal cord but an african knife fish can. It's so obvious that we are not designed that it's laughable.

Answer 7

Read this entire PBS presentation . Then come back with a more challenging question .


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

or just try this site ! :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

Here is a good link to get you started in understanding Intelligent Design vs Evolution :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Edit for "Question" :
Try this link :
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/willis_wieland_debate.htm

The only quotes you present that are actually supportive of creationism (regardless of YOUR desire to accept -or spin - them as such ) are from Dr. Willis ,who is a Medical Doctor ( who hasn't even practiced that in over 20 years .) and he NOT an expert in evolution sciences . Although he has done most of his work supporting the young earth concept through books and booklets as well as lectures ( mostly preaching to the choir ) as his beliefs are easily disproved .

Sorry I also see that you quote "lightweight Wayne Jackson . I saw the name and thought of the legendary Jazz Musician lol .
Jackson is an expert in presenting half truths and preaching the yec based on them .
See this link :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wjackson.html

Answer 8

Have you actually ever read a book, other than The Big Story Book? Maybe you ought to read how the piano developed and EVOLVED over time. Then you wouldn't look like such a total fool.

Answer 9

Substituting a piano for a watch doesn't make the Watchmaker Analogy any less flawed.

Answer 10

That's fine, Godboy. I promise not to make you think in church if you promise not to make me pray in school.

The SCOTUS has ruled that ID is Christian Theology, repackaged. As such, requiring public school students learn it as Science is a violation of the First Ammendment. Further, it would be a violation of that same First Ammendment to prohibit private schools from teaching whatever folderol they wanted.

If you don't like it, find a theocratic country, and move there.

--patriot

Answer 11

What's so intelligent about our design? Furthermore, if we were designed by God and only God can create life; why do we have viruses, bacteria, and flies to name a just a few of the unpleasant "life" we have on this planet. Real nice God, huh?