Intelligent Design Examples

[DaveC426913]

actually, you are incorrect. the hillbilly is just bigger technically and in that way superior. but considering it's larger brainmass and power, it's inferior to the ant by having degenerate inclinations and using his abilities to just torture an ant.

Or rescue it.

The point is, the hillbilly has a preponderance of options that the ant does not. Partly due to size, but also due to intelligence. He could move the ant out of the sun, or place it back with its queen or feed it to a spider or crash it. These are all thoughtful actions, if not necessarily moral actions.

The issue of moral superiority is something else altogether.

I suspect that you are weighing moral superiority heavily in this discussion.

think about it. if that analogy is still superior to you, then you are admitting 'superiority' doesn't necessarily equate to 'better', now does it?

Correct. 'Better' is an arbitrary criterion.

is trump superior to you? is he more intelligent than you? is he a better person than you? better looking than you? a better husband/father/son/friend than you? better dresser? better ethically? better athletically? better at chess? better cook? better ad infinitum? even though he has way more power than you and nuclear launch codes? lmao.

In many ways he is.

But you have sort of answered your own argument. Since, as we have established, superiority is a semantic thing, we can assign some criteria to superiority that makes God superior.
Like the hillbilly is preponderantly superior to the ant, so would God be preponderantly superior to humans - having far more options than we. We may choose to squish us, or he may choose to spare us. but the one thing in which he is unequivocably superior to us is his sheer depth and breadth of options to act (or not act).



Apropos of nothing (just because it came up):

range of options is a criterion I consider an absolute (as opposed to relative) test of progress. when someone asks if we as a civilization have really advanced, my answer is that, whether or not we choose to be good or evil, rich or poor, life a long healthy life or a short chaotic life, work 80 hours a week or 10, live in the tropics or the arctic ... whatever we choose - the key is that we absolutely have more choices than ever before. That is an absolute criteria for progress. Whatever my idea for a "good" and "superior" life might be, I can more feasibly enact it now than ever before.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

that would make sense if children were the only assholes but adults can be the same. so, not necessarily. take a look around today and at history, are children causing all the problems? there is your answer to that speculation.

I did not intend anything negative about children.

<>

 

[Michael 345]

"The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes,[26]:74–75 is cited as evidence of evolution.

Nonsense

It's gods clever way of making us think why did he design it like that?

Umm better use 4 Poe's

 

[Cris]

The concept of ID is based on a flawed premise - that complexity instantly arises from something intelligent. There is no evidence for this. Our only meaningful example of intelligence is from humans, and while it would appear we can build complex objects, in actuality we do not. Everything complex we have built has been based on something simpler. Probably the best example is the modern computer - undeniably complex. Yet there is no point in time when a single being "created" the modern computer. It has come into existence through decades and centuries of trial and error, perhaps going back to the early cavemen who first marked a stick with their kill count. This example of modern complexity is the result of a long evolutionary process. It is not that "intelligence" designed the modern computer but more that "intelligence" was just a component of the process.

The ID concept is claimed as proof of a god, that complexity must arise from intelligence - there is no precedent for such a claim and plenty to support the reverse.

 

[Michael 345]

The ID concept is claimed as proof of a god, that complexity must arise from intelligence - there is no precedent for such a claim and plenty to support the reverse.

Agree

Truly who would believe the stupidity of

the design of some entities was put

together by someone with a smattering

of intelligence

Blind selection of advantageous traits

leads to the observed complexity which

in so many cases is MORE complex than

required