IOW, you refuse to elaborate on your previous claim, and expect that it be taken for granted.
Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
IOW, you refuse to elaborate on your previous claim, and expect that it be taken for granted.
Yes, it would be nice if those who are pro-ID as well as the opposing camp would clarify what they mean by "design."
But I think that the crucial issue is actually the qualifier, namely "intelligent."
Both camps will probably agree that living beings came from somewhere, somehow.
But why, for what purpose - this is the core of their disagreement.
ID'ers are likely to argue that living beings are the way they are for a specific purpose, especially in reference to The Grand Scheme of Things.
The opposing camp might argue that there is no such purpose.
Of course, with this, the opposing camp runs into nihilism, and has to answer for it somehow.
Neverfly,
Apart from outside information, what makes you think that we were'nt a product of ID?
jan.
Apart from outside information, what makes you think that we were'nt a product of ID?
jan.
I'm sorry, that really seems vague. Can you expand upon that a bit? How does scientific research depend upon design?
If a designer isn't intelligent, is it design? I would say not, but rather just an assemblage.
And evolution is the process by which assemblages that work remain, and those that do not eventually fade away.
With regard life, the assemblage has become self-replicating... but that does not, to me, imply design... it is merely a trait that has allowed one type of assemblage to survive.
Agreed.
Why? Or probably better: what do you mean by "answer for it"? What do you see as being wrong with nihilism?
Our conceptualization of it - whether we conceive of it as "design" or as "assemblage" - is our projection, led by our motives.
We cannot make definitive claims about that which we believe contextualizes us and the very act of our conceptualization about it.
Which is how these discussions are actually first and foremost about people's motives - even if that is rarely explicitly stated.
Just try to live it consistently for a week, and then get back to us.
That's not necessarily true. (Nor would I use the word "Motives" in this context, but I suppose I know what you mean by it.) Certainly if a Christian sees the world as a grand design, they do so because they are seeing the world through a Christian lens.
However, if someone sees nature as simply the result of a natural process, they see it as such because the evidence points to that conclusion.
Perhaps not definitive claims, as in "This is the way it is, and there is no room for disagreement." But the ones making those claims tend to be theists or seekers. For example, you made the definitive claim earlier that we all must believe in design or go mad. This statement absolutely relies on your preconception that we are designed and that there is one god.
They can be about motives, but not necessarily.
What do you understand by nihilism? The philosophy that we have no objective purpose, intrinsic value or meaning?
And what do you mean to "live it"?
Do you expect those who hold such a nihilistic philosophy to somehow be able to override their instinctive traits of self-preservation, such as the self-creation of a subjective purpose, or to break the "addiction" to the feeling of being alive etc?
Do you expect nihilists to think "we're ultimately of no value... what's the point in living" (or at least along that vein)?
Do you expect nihilists, who might hold life of no obective value, not to assign a subjective value?
I'm just struggling to understand what/how you expect nihilists to act.
only religious ignoramuses claim this something from nothing Nonsense
Universe always existed,in some form or shape..no gods needed
www.bigthink.com/michiokaku
One cannot prove a negative and that you are even asking for 'proof,' is hilarious.
Jan Ardena, you need to clarify what you mean by "outside information."
I set forth links, questions and statements that you chose to ignore, rather than have to question a belief.
This speaks volumes.
wynn
Modelling something does not mean designing something, the body came into existence before the model was made, NEITHER were designed in any way(though the process for producing the model was designed). Design requires a plan to build something to, a goal you are trying to reach, an end goal that does not exist prior to the start of a process and does exist at it's end. None of these things are present in Nature, there is no goal, no plan, no final outcome, everything in Nature continues to evolve to this minute.
wellwisher
Civilization had been going on for thousands of years before 10,000 years ago, that was just the point where man started writing things down in a form accessible to us today. Man was basically us all the way back to 40,000 years ago with fire, skin cloths, musical instruments, jewelry, cave paintings(a form of record that is itself far older than 10,000 years), ritualistic burial, communal living, engineered tools and weapons...IE civilization. There was no big shift in man's nature, only in his tools, among them writing.
Jan Ardena
Why do you think we are?
Looking at the built in flaws in almost every lifeform indicates that even if we conceed design(and I do not), he/she/it was far from intelligent, not even competent. The giraffe has no voice because the nerve going from the brain to the voice box passed behind a main artery in the ancient predecessor species(in fact in all mammals). As the neck of the girraffe got longer the nerve had to pass all the way down the neck, around the artery and then all the way back up the neck to the voice box. In modern girraffes the nerve is over 40 feet long and does not function due to signal loss. A competent designer would simply have put the nerve on the other side of the artery and today's girraffe would have a nerve about ten inches long and a voice. It would not have made any difference at all in the other mammals, but Nature had no way to change the arraingment it started with to better meet the design requirements of the girraffe. This is just one of the flaws that we find thousands of throughout Nature. Hardly a resume that indicates an "Intelligent" designer.
Grumpy
Modelling something does not mean designing something, the body came into existence before the model was made, NEITHER were designed in any way(though the process for producing the model was designed). Design requires a plan to build something to, a goal you are trying to reach, an end goal that does not exist prior to the start of a process and does exist at it's end. None of these things are present in Nature, there is no goal, no plan, no final outcome, everything in Nature continues to evolve to this minute.
wellwisher
Civilization had been going on for thousands of years before 10,000 years ago, that was just the point where man started writing things down in a form accessible to us today. Man was basically us all the way back to 40,000 years ago with fire, skin cloths, musical instruments, jewelry, cave paintings(a form of record that is itself far older than 10,000 years), ritualistic burial, communal living, engineered tools and weapons...IE civilization. There was no big shift in man's nature, only in his tools, among them writing.
Jan Ardena
Why do you think we are?
Looking at the built in flaws in almost every lifeform indicates that even if we conceed design(and I do not), he/she/it was far from intelligent, not even competent. The giraffe has no voice because the nerve going from the brain to the voice box passed behind a main artery in the ancient predecessor species(in fact in all mammals). As the neck of the girraffe got longer the nerve had to pass all the way down the neck, around the artery and then all the way back up the neck to the voice box. In modern girraffes the nerve is over 40 feet long and does not function due to signal loss. A competent designer would simply have put the nerve on the other side of the artery and today's girraffe would have a nerve about ten inches long and a voice. It would not have made any difference at all in the other mammals, but Nature had no way to change the arraingment it started with to better meet the design requirements of the girraffe. This is just one of the flaws that we find thousands of throughout Nature. Hardly a resume that indicates an "Intelligent" designer.
Grumpy
<cough> our testicles do this too. Thankfully to the species, we're not long torso-ed.
You mean something else, of course, since we all know we are the product of the relations between our parents.
We know that we carry the DNA of all of our ancestry even before the emergence of mammals. We have ancestors who were yeast, and before them, bacteria.
The question of intelligent design pales under the weight of all the natural evidence. It begins to push so hard against logic that it's harder to address seriously than many highly absurd ideas that no one is even asking.
With evolution, there is no need to insert the idea of intelligence or planning. Mutations are random, not planned. We see this in birth defects. The mechanics of evolution are only about survival, nothing more. There is no plan in having a lioness give birth to a cute little kitten, only for a canine to come along later and thrash it to threads while she is away on the hunt. but there is a survival reason for this behavior. The parasitic infections that decimated Europe during the Plague weren't planned. They were the consequence of an evolved behavior of a pathogen, long before a cure was available. It's a behavior that merely seeks to give that creature a foothold in a niche that opened when people congregated in cities without safe hygienic practices. Again, no plan in that, just bad luck, ignorance, and lack of water and soap.
Even DNA itself wasn't planned. It took inconceivably vast periods of time for the random collisions between molecules to form the particular molecule that is able to replicate itself. But once it did, there was no stopping it. It had no predator.
Bacteria took up more than half of the entire span of life just to refine this innate asexual reproductive capability (clones) to adapt for predation, to adapt for competition, to adapt for changes in the atmosphere, and so on. All of that was random. But once it got resolved, there was an explosion of speciation - and almost immediately sexual reproduction appeared, a feature that helps speciation in new ways, ways that include adapting better to hew habitats, etc. But sexual reproduction came about randomly, through evolution, while cells were landing on group behaviors that favored survival and while they were beginning to produce spores, to encapsulate the DNA and preserve it through harsh conditions, such as winter.
It takes years of study just to catch up with the most basic principles of evolutionary biology. But the cause boils down to some basic principles from related physical sciences like chemistry, geology and elementary physics plus a few principles from probability and statistics. In short, there is a vast storehouse of accumulated knowledge which explains origins of the species to minute detail. By contrast, there is not even one aspect of life sciences that supports any kind of planning.
It is by preponderance of the evidence that most people conclude that we're not the product of intelligent design.
Aha! Teeth have become a double-edged sword! Touché!
shh: The better to bite you with, my dear.
That would be the central fallacy that ID-ists fail to understand that they are committing. Modelling before the fact is indeed synthesis or design, and after the fact it's simply analysis. This would be good tutorial for a person who doesn't understand the nuance. Nature doesn't use AutoCAD or a Dremel tool. It's strictly random, with selection culling out the infeasible combinations.
superstring01
Moderator
Wait. Why are we still arguing about whether or not evolution is true? It's like arguing over Germ Theory or Gravitational Theory. Those who are "for" it, do you really think any creationist is going to admit that they are delusional, that a magic fairy god did it all, that the scientific record--irrefutably proven--is somehow wrong because we lack a holographic record containing 76 million years of quantum dating from some Star Trek device.
The argument was settled a long time ago. You're not going to convince the residents of Jonestown otherwise. Ignore them. They'll be mostly dead in a generation.
~String
The argument was settled a long time ago. You're not going to convince the residents of Jonestown otherwise. Ignore them. They'll be mostly dead in a generation.
~String
This is a wonderful explanation. I wonder, do you think it's the ID-er's inability to really understand this concept that prevents them from agreeing, or is it simply that they don't want to?
superstring01
Moderator
I always wondered why God included the DNA for Vitamin C production in our genome but just turned it off!
Or why he included the genes for a prehensile tale? (as has been in births in the Mideast--mostly in the "Children of God" funny to say)
Or why he included the DNA for feet in cetaceans . . . and we're talking, five toes and five fingers with nails type "feet". Not flippers, but feet. 1 in every thousand or so cetaceans is born with the atavistic feet because the old junk DNA just turns back on. They die quickly, but we find their corpses.
Or why he included the DNA for teeth in birds? (a tiny fraction of Chickens get born with teeth, we've actually intentionally turn the gene on to see how it works)
Or the circuitous route that our laryngeal nerve takes (efficient if you're a fish, but really unorganized as we crept onto land and grew longer and longer necks).
Was god just stupid and lazy? Did he lack the genetic capabilities to be just a bit more creative when he crafted the terrestrial genome? Huh.
~String
Or why he included the genes for a prehensile tale? (as has been in births in the Mideast--mostly in the "Children of God" funny to say)
Or why he included the DNA for feet in cetaceans . . . and we're talking, five toes and five fingers with nails type "feet". Not flippers, but feet. 1 in every thousand or so cetaceans is born with the atavistic feet because the old junk DNA just turns back on. They die quickly, but we find their corpses.
Or why he included the DNA for teeth in birds? (a tiny fraction of Chickens get born with teeth, we've actually intentionally turn the gene on to see how it works)
Or the circuitous route that our laryngeal nerve takes (efficient if you're a fish, but really unorganized as we crept onto land and grew longer and longer necks).
Was god just stupid and lazy? Did he lack the genetic capabilities to be just a bit more creative when he crafted the terrestrial genome? Huh.
~String
- Status