Objective wrote:The insistence for a teleological explanation for complexity is insistence that some God or power exists with intelligence who is able to CREATE with some purpose in mind, complex structures.
First, no ID advocate that I'm aware of has said that ID is required to produce "complexity". I certainly have never made that assertion.
Second, that humans intelligently design artifacts that cannot be sufficiently explained without reference to the involvement of the teleological capacity of humans to design those artifacts demonstrates factually that not only does ID exist, but that it is necessary to sufficiently epxlain the existence of certain real artifacts in the world, like computers and battleships.
Third, I haven't insisted on a teleological explanation; it is neo-Darwinists that have made the claim that non-teleological forces are sufficient to explain all biological systems. I am challenging anyone who wishes to support that claim to provide a model that demosntrates non-teleological forces to be up to the task. "Just so" narratives, bald assertions and shifting the burden are not strategies which will meet that challenge.
Thus you made the assertion.
No, I did not.
Did a god also make hydrogen and Oxygen in order to produce water so that "his biological creatures" would have something to cool them down when they burn sugars in their cells?
Nobody has claimed here (that I can see) that a
god has made anything. The scientific theory of intelligent design doesn't claim to able to identify the identity or nature of any putative "designer"; it only claims to be able to scientifically identify, as "best explanation" through abductive reasoning applied to the empirical evidence, some artifacts of intelligent design.
From your argument it would seem that nothing could exist unless there was some external purpose to their existence in the minds eye of someone who could have a purpose.
I've never made that argument.
Natural laws act all the time to generate and break down forms. See Einstein, Feinmann, Schrodinger, Dirac, Electricity, chemistry, biochemistry, gold, water etc. ad infinitum.
This is entirely non-responsive to my challenge. Nobody has claimed that natural laws do not describe the behavior of materials; what is claimed is that, as in the case of computers and battleships, natural laws are insufficient explanations for some artifacts. Unless, of course, you wish to argue that computers and battleships can come into existence without the aid of humans employing teleological planning and choices.
The choice of the concept "chance" in evolution to describe the process of selection is unfortunate because chemicals do not bind by change but by well known laws of physics. Any bubble for example have a polarity difference; hydrogen and oxygen combine differently under different circumstances.
Existentially there is no such thing as 'chance'. Everything responds to everything else depending on a number of different forces and contexts.
My challenge did not
require you to use "chance" as part of your falsifiable, predictive model. If chance isn't required, then it should be all the easier to provide the model necessary to demonstrate that known materials acting in accordance with known "natural laws" can produce what they are claimed as scientific fact to have produced in biology.
Every biological structure obeys every known law of physics and will obey any new laws if such were discovered.
Nobody has claimed otherwise, but your description here is a little erroneous. Natural laws are descriptive, not presriptive. Gravity, for example is not a "law" that particles "must obey", in the prescriptive sense; gravity is a stochastic description of our observations of the activity of particles under certain conditions. It would be a mistake to conceptualize gravity as a
absolute confinement on the behavior of anything in any situation, because quantum physics demonstrates that such confinements of the material properties of quanta simply doesn't exist in any fundamental sense.
That evolution is not directed toward a specific purpose is evident from the fact that millions of different species exist.
As far as I know, nobody has claimed that evolution, as a whole, is entirely teleological; all intelligent design claims is that
some biological artifacts require ID as part of their explanation - which is currently a factual claim, unless you wish to argue that genetically engineered life forms don't require human-employed ID as part of their explanation.
ID also claims that certain biological features not known to have been genetically engineered by modern humans also require ID as part of their explanation.
Reduce those "control programming/mechanisms" to a single cell and it becomes more manageable.
What does "more manageable" mean? The control programming/mechanisms of a single cell is still beyond the reach of human technology and programming skill. A single cell is like a city, containing millions of nano-machines called proteins. The DNA in each cell is a marvel of 3D encoding that decodes both forwards, backwards, and non-sequentially, which biologists and software programmers have called an "optimum" coding system.
Each cell has non-coding control mechanisms that organize the activity of millions of proteins into perfect concert. We also have the recursive problem that DNA instructions are necessary to generate the proteins necessary to transcript and decode DNA, which begs the question of how that system began in the first place, since those proteins are not known to exist outside of reproducing life.
I am stil waiting for a model that predicts how known materials acting according to known natural laws can, even in theory/principle, construct these systems.
To give you an example of the model requested, the cosmologists that predicted that the big bang had certain characteristics ran their known data, driven by known forces and materials, through a predictive simulation/model. The outcome wasn't anything like what we observe in our universe today, so they had to invent an entirely new commodity - dark matter - that the universe was mostly comprised of to make their model produce (in principle) what we actually see in the universe today.
If evolutionary biologists are going to claim as
scientific fact that non-teleological materials and forces
have produced the biological systems we see today, then the very least they should provide is a model/simulation, similar to the big bang simulation; that they run their descriptive data through, demonstrating their theoretical model sufficient, at least in principle, to produce what they claim it to have produced.
One can hardly claim that their theory is a
scientific fact if they cannot even produce a model that demonstrates their theory to be in principle up to the task of producing what they claim it to have produced.