Intelligent Design Question

Lets put it this way. There are many forms of ID in part because different religionists have different needs. Some can accept common descent, such as I think Behe et al. Others prefer other things. The whole ID thing is a big mess precisely because there is no scientific work going on. As a hypothesis, the idea that life on earth is designed etc cannot be proven to be completely and utterly wrong, but since there is no cinvincing evidence for it and theres plenty fo evolution, then it is not correct.

If you go to Pandasthumb.org you will find a variety of ID'ists pontificating about what htey think, some of them claim not to even be Christians. We, as commentatotrs on teh problem will have to define ID'ers by what they say, and since there is no unifying principle of ID, we will egt different answers from different people. All we can do is maul each different idea as it presents itself, as has been done by evoloutionary biologists already.
 
As a hypothesis, the idea that life on earth is designed etc cannot be proven to be completely and utterly wrong
Click to expand...
It's not even a hypothesis. It doesn't have a shred of science in it.
If you go to Pandasthumb.org you will find a variety of ID'ists pontificating about what htey think, some of them claim not to even be Christians.
Click to expand...
well, they could be muslims or something... just like there are creationist muslims and stuff.
 
one of the main things i dont get about the intelligent design thing is why would humans/animals be so complicated?why would we need organs,neurons etc etc.why not just a big blob inside which mysteriously works?does god have limitations?
 
kenworth said:
does god have limitations?
Click to expand...

No, he's just watching the changes in life that he's created and having fun watching them all try to kill each other!

In fact, watching all of it while enjoying a cold beer would probably be a lot like a video game is to us! You like some video games, don't you? :)

Baron Max
 
kenworth said:
one of the main things i dont get about the intelligent design thing is why would humans/animals be so complicated?why would we need organs,neurons etc etc.why not just a big blob inside which mysteriously works?does god have limitations?
Click to expand...
Is a blob of putty or clay the same as a living organism? Now come on now. The more organisms evolve with different multicellular specialized functions, the more they are able to survive in different ecosystems and environments. Some simple organisms (bacteria, prions) do not have neurons, but they cannot survive in the environments where other organisms can't.

What would you suggest be inside a "big blob" to even consider it as a form of life?
 
Baron Max said:
No, he's just watching the changes in life that he's created and having fun watching them all try to kill each other!

In fact, watching all of it while enjoying a cold beer would probably be a lot like a video game is to us! You like some video games, don't you? :)

Baron Max
Click to expand...

wow,sounds like god is a bastard.i dont think id enjoy gta so much if i knew that the old ladies i was pummeling were feeling the pain....then again old people do annoy me.
 
valich said:
Is a blob of putty or clay the same as a living organism? Now come on now. The more organisms evolve with different multicellular specialized functions, the more they are able to survive in different ecosystems and environments. Some simple organisms (bacteria, prions) do not have neurons, but they cannot survive in the environments where other organisms can't.

What would you suggest be inside a "big blob" to even consider it as a form of life?
Click to expand...


you seem to be missing the point.the point is:god is god and can do whatever he wants supposedly.so he could make a blob of putty act in exactly the same way as us organisms do.
 
I came accross this when reading the wikipedia definition of science for another thread:

The goals of science:
'Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to answer all questions. The goal of the physical sciences is to answer only those that pertain to reality. Also, science cannot possibly address nonsensical, or untestable questions, so the choice of which questions to answer becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth. Rather, physical science often tests hypotheses about some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it in light of new observations or data.'

Now place ID within this context. You can already see the problem in light of what was mentioned earlier in this thread. The ID proponents don't seem to be able to agree with each other. They all put the ID input on a different level of influence. That in itself is already a bad sign.

Is the presence of ID testable? In some ways it is. When I mentioned the case of hemmroids I gave an example of extremely bad design. Evolution can easily explain this situation. We were once not walking upright, but changed into animals that walk upright. Hips, bones, muscles adjusted, but it was just developmentally impossible to put valves in the bloodvessels of our ass. They were never needed when we were still on 4 legs walking around or hanging in trees. Nevertheless, hemmroids are only a minor infliction and hence didn't prevent walking upright from evolving.

Now, form ID standpoint you have a problem. The ass is not designed intelligently. There should have been valves in the 'ass' bloodvessels. There aren't. Bad design. Intelligent designer? Logically the ID idea has now been tested and proven to be awkward and out of place. Now pile up thousands of examples of bad design, which all can be explained by evolution and not by ID and you must accept the fact that ID is not up to standard.

Unless you grab another skyhook and state that ID was only active in the beginning. But then you have lost. ID was introduced as an alternative to evolution. Which it seizes to be if it is only active during the early origin of life. And it becomes untestable in a scientific manner. Not part of reality. That makes it unscientific. Then it becomes creation.
 
Dear [___________@___.com]

We do not send out general physiology information. But here is the
correct answer. It is vestigial and not necessary. These links support
the argument.
If you have any further questions you may contact Kathleen Heneghan at the
address below.

External links
"The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix: A Modern Reappraisal"
-- evolutionary biology argument that the appendix is vestigial
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
A professor of physiology claims the appendix has a known function
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3


Kathleen Heneghan MSN, RN
[took out contact info]
Sincerely,
Ms. Patti Duke
[took out contact info]
Click to expand...

well gee, I didn't really need my link regurgitated at me. But anyway, that last link is interesting. Not really what Valich was saying, but ok.
However... it doesn't really clarify if it's the appendix itself, or the lymphoid tissue running through it. This quote seems to suggest it's the lymphoid tissue "The appendix--like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract--takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents"
I'm still waiting for the others to reply
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Now, form ID standpoint you have a problem. The ass is not designed intelligently. There should have been valves in the 'ass' bloodvessels. There aren't. Bad design. Intelligent designer?
Click to expand...

Why do you think that the design is completed? Perhaps we have another gazillion years for it all to become "perfect"?

spuriousmonkey said:
ID was introduced as an alternative to evolution.
Click to expand...

Spurious, I still don't think that ID is an "alternative" to evolution. To my understanding, ID is simply the idea/theory/belief that god created all of this crap on the planet, ...AND THEN evolution began to change things.

I don't think anyone, anywhere, believes that god made everything just the way it is today!? God created the earth and started the ball rolling ...what we have now is the combination of "creation" and "evolution". He did all of that is six days (including creating the principles of evolution!), then mixed himself a nice cool mint julep and he's sitting up there now sipping the cooling drink and watching all the shit hit the fan - and watching evolution at work.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Spurious, I still don't think that ID is an "alternative" to evolution. To my understanding, ID is simply the idea/theory/belief that god created all of this crap on the planet, ...AND THEN evolution began to change things.
Click to expand...

Obviously it isn't an alternative to evolution ;)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."[1] Proponents claim that Intelligent Design stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[2]

The scientific community largely views Intelligent Design not as valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.[3] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[4]
 
I don't think anyone, anywhere, believes that god made everything just the way it is today!?
Click to expand...
if you can imagine it, there are people who belive it. For pete's sake, there are people who believe the world is flat.
so in short yeah plenty of people believe god made everything just as it is today.

but of course when it comes to religion, there are many beliefs about it. ID/religion is not unified.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Obviously it isn't an alternative to evolution ;)
Click to expand...

??? Ye're a strange one, Spurious??? You say the above, but then you put in the little "winky-wink" thing as if ye're only joking or something?????

But then you post the following, which is exactly or damned close to what I posted in my comments:

"... resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."

All that says is that the process of evolution may, by virtue of an intelligent force, be GUIDED, rather than totally random or accidental. Evolution could work exactly the same way it has for gazillions of years, but be GUIDED ...and you nor anyone else could or would know about it.

So ..unless you've really confused me more than I think, please explain yourself a bit more thoroughly!

Baron Max
 
i think guided is misleading here. Things might seem guided. Doesn't mean they are.

And honestly who knows what ID people are thinking. They can't even agree on the basics.

edit- but honestly I haven't really been sharp in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Baron Max said:
??? Ye're a strange one, Spurious??? You say the above, but then you put in the little "winky-wink" thing as if ye're only joking or something?????

But then you post the following, which is exactly or damned close to what I posted in my comments:

"... resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."

All that says is that the process of evolution may, by virtue of an intelligent force, be GUIDED, rather than totally random or accidental. Evolution could work exactly the same way it has for gazillions of years, but be GUIDED ...and you nor anyone else could or would know about it.

So ..unless you've really confused me more than I think, please explain yourself a bit more thoroughly!

Baron Max
Click to expand...
Spurious has explained it very clearly: your replies to his posts are "the strange ones." He has admitted ID as a possibility, but highly inlikely, given the factual conditions now present in biological structures.

We KNOW that genetic mutations take place according to RANDOM CHANCE events. They don't even occur with statistical probabilities.

There is absolutely NO indication OR EVIDENCE of an intelligent force involved. None at all.
 
What about the possibility that eating certain enzymes say from fish has
stimulated growth in the brain and then we humans, er modern man could then think and feel deeply. We then had stronger feelings and understanding but we seeked out a reason for our "being" and that is where religion came in.
(just a thought mind you). As far as intelligent design, since we gained intelligence, and had understanding we know some scientific facts that are fascinating but no proof that there are invisible gods. (that's faith)
And I do think we are a WORK IN PROGRESS.. of the Evolutionary type.
Since everything that we are each and every cell is made from "stars"
it's all very cool and chasing findings on the matter is better than sex!
er, (excluding the screaming and yelling kind of sex).
 
"eating certin enzymes...."
And? What are you trying to say here?

"but no proof that there are invisible gods. (that's faith)"

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Faith in what?

"Since everything that we are each and every cell is made from "stars""
Sources please.

Then you go off on a tangent about the difference in "findings on matter is better than sex"?

Hello? I anybody out there?
 
Baron Max:
All that says is that the process of evolution may, by virtue of an intelligent force, be GUIDED, rather than totally random or accidental.
Click to expand...
NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM!!! MERELY BECAUSE A CONSCIOUS FORCE DID NOT GUIDE EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE IT RANDOM!!!

FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND?!

Mutation is random. Natural selection is non-random.
 
I understand it. Mutations are chance random events.

Natural selection or evolution is determined by the accumulation of these chance random mutations over a longterm process involving millions of years, and depends on if these mutations lead to phentotype traits within a population of a species that make it more apt to survive in its changing environment.

If mutations are chance random events, then why would anyone want to postulate a "guiding" conscious force? Seems like a contradiction here to me: guiding vs. random?
 
Repeating what Spurious posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent Design (ID) is the resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection....Intelligent Design is viewed not as a valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that Intelligent Design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life, are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top