Replies

I can't give you a statistical argument offhand, because the books aren't available on the web.

But here's a good introductory discussion by Dembski, first arguing that the insistence of Darwinists that design cannot even be considered is as unscientific as to say that only design can be considered; then raising the issue of "irreducible complexity," perhaps the main statistical argument of intelligent design theory. He cannot give mathematical details in a brief overview, but much greater detail is provided in Behe's book that he refers to.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html

Very briefly stated, "irreducible complexity" refers to complex systems which cannot be explained as gradually evolving because all of the parts are necessary for the system to be useful. Thus amino acids and lengthy, complicated DNA chains do not arise gradually. Typically, dozens of different, complex amino acids are not only necessary in higher species but even in one-celled creatures.

How do you explain how maybe 17 complex amino acids, all of which are necessary for life, came into being at the same time? A single amino acid, although extremely complex in itself, is of no use to anything. Neither are half a dozen. You need a certain minimal number before life exists. If you do the numbers on the likelihood of all of those complex chemicals coming together accidentally, you begin to find that twelve or twenty billion years is not long enough to account for it. Especially since entropy tends to break down, not build up, complex systems.

This, too, is only an overview. For details, you need to read the original work.

How do you explain how maybe 17 complex amino acids, all of which are necessary for life, came into being at the same time?

There are 20, not 17 amino acids in the basic set, plus a few more unusual ones. And nobody thinks they came into existence at the same time. Asparagine and glutamine, for instance, are clearly derived from aspartic and glutamic acids, since their tRNAs are synthesized from tRNA-Asp and tRNA-Glu. There is other good molecular evidence for a more limited set of original amino acids.

A single amino acid, although extremely complex in itself, is of no use to anything. Glycine is 'extremely complex'? It has fewer atoms than the butane in a cigarette lighter.

The amino acid argument is such a crock, it's hard to know where to begin:

Amino acids are readily created in aqueous solution containing simple organic molecules; this has been demonstrated over and over.
Amino acids assemble themselves into polypeptides very readily under the same conditions.
There's nothing magical about the set of commonly-observered amino acids; proteins would have assembled from other amino acids as well.
Once small molecules start self-assembling in aqueous solution over a very long period of time, there's no limit to the size and complexity of molecules that can and will be created.
The idea that an amino acid has 'to be of use' to be created is silly. They *will* be created if the chemical conditions are right. The creation of complex molecules and the necessary precursors for life is inevitable.

To clarify what I am asking for, no positive evidence for ID would need to reference arguments against another theory. IC doesn't pass this qualification as it is a test aimed at falsifying evolution, not ID.

Additionally, I am asking that you show me evidence that not only supports an intelligent designer, but would disprove that there was one if it that evidence had been different.