Intelligent Design

This article is 100% bullcrap

Creation scientists are always mocked and their opinions are thrown away because they are WRONG. It is true that Scientists who believe in Creation have made profound contributions to science, but there has never been a contribution to science from a Creationist scientist, because creation science is an oxymoron, it is NOT science.

Intelligent design is a relative idea, it may appear intelligent to simple people, but in reality it is very random and in some cases disorganized.

This paper makes tons of false accusations about evolution, too many to even begin to refute. The paper's discussion about Dawkins is particularly disgusting. The Theory of Macro Evolution is a theory, get that through your thick skulls creationalists.

Evolution is truth though:
Evolution Fact Faq

ZERO MASS
 
But because examples such as the British moths show physical changes, they are repeatedly used by evolutionists to promote the theory of macro-evolution, the fanciful idea that frogs changed so much in the distant past that today they have become princes.
Click to expand...

The British moth example shows evidence of micro-evolution. No prominant, educated Evolutionist will confuse the two.

Etinger is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your responses, especially EvilPoet. The links to the articles were quite interesting to read.
This thread would be boring if there was no opposing viewpoint. My response was to make you think. But if you have already presupposed that intelligent design had no part in the evolutionary process, then you may not be as open-minded as I thought. I see a lot of griping and condescending remarks, but no real counter arguments (except for EvilPoet).
The key argument is the transfer of specific complex information at the molecular level suggests intelligent design, i.e., a written code imbedded in DNA. Even the very structure of DNA also suggests intelligent design and not by random chance.

DefSkeptic wrote
The complexity that you see around today did not arise out of single-step selection. Your example implies that the chances for this particular arrangement is so astronomically small that something intelligent was at work, I would agree, but this is not the case with life on Earth. Life on Earth is a product of cumulative selection, mistaking the two is where your example took a wrong turn.

The essential difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection is this.....In single-step selection the entities selected or sorted, whatever the entity is, are sorted once and for all. In cumulative selection, on the other hand, they 'reproduce'; or in some other way the results of one seiving process are fed into a subsequent sieving, which is fed into.......and so on.
Click to expand...
So what is the mechanism, or cause, for the reproduction and consequent evolving to higher life forms? If I have misconstrued your response please explain it.

One raven wrote
I would like an explanation of that statement, please.
Preferably with a link to a reputable source, but without the link is OK too.
Click to expand...
“There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over” (The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, p. 115, 1986)

Or look under ‘Life’ at Encyclopedia Britannica Online

(An interesting article on DNA)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0224_030224_DNAcomputer.html

Zero Mass wrote
This article is 100% bullcrap

Creation scientists are always mocked and their opinions are thrown away because they are WRONG. It is true that Scientists who believe in Creation have made profound contributions to science, but there has never been a contribution to science from a Creationist scientist, because creation science is an oxymoron, it is NOT science.
Click to expand...
And presuppositions are not scientific.

http://www.arn.org/docs/thaxton/ct_newdesign3198.htm
 
Originally posted by SVRP
And presuppositions are not scientific.
Click to expand...

They are not, what I wrote was my opinion.
The theory of evolution IS however scientific, although the theory is not fact, evolution is a fact.
Creation science is niether theory nor fact, it is part of a belief.

ZERO MASS
 
Question

I have a couple questions. Anybody, please feel free to answer this. Did the presumed big band theory send the universe into an ever increasing state? How big was the universe when everything was just massed together? What\who created the stuff so that it could mass together in a specific\undefined space? Was there both cause and effect to create(by whatever means) the universe?

It is just a little mind boggling to think...how did the material exist to even mass together and then explode. Also, our logical brains that want to reason everything out has a hard time believing the God created because we then think who/what created God. This is my first post so please don't take a tonfa baton to me. I know the above are simplistic questions and are based upon my own thoughts and I don't have any documentation from the pyramids of Egypt to accompany this post. Thanks!
 
Re: Question

Originally posted by Quigly
Did the presumed big band theory send the universe into an ever increasing state? How big was the universe when everything was just massed together? What\who created the stuff so that it could mass together in a specific\undefined space? Was there both cause and effect to create(by whatever means) the universe?
Click to expand...

It is just a theory, whatever it hypothesizes is much better than what the bible teaches.

There is no evidence that the mass ever had to be created in the first place, it could have always existed. The creation of the universe could be an ongoing process, like the seasons, the universe could blossom, grow, whither, and then die only to be reborn again, we will never truly know, this we can only think about and observe evidence for.

When everything thing was massed together, the universe was probably as big as all that stuff, who knows...

The universe does not have to be created by a intelligent being, there are many chaotic events in the universe and in nature, and I have see no proof, posted on this thread or anywhere else, that suggests any sentient supernatural force has effected this natural world at all.

If you find any such evidence, please post it, everything else is just speculation and belief. All the material signs in this world point to a naturalistic universe, in my opinion.

ZERO MASS
 
SVRP-

So what is the mechanism, or cause, for the reproduction and consequent evolving to higher life forms? If I have misconstrued your response please explain it.
Click to expand...

Natural Selection, which amounts to the nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary characteristics.

Evolution under the influence of natural selection leads to adaptive improvement.

The modern genetic theory of natural selection can be summarized as follows. The genes of a population of sexually interbreeding animals or plants constitute a gene pool. The genes compete in the gene pool in something like the same way as the early replicating molecules competed in the primeval soup. In practice genes in the gene pool spend their time either sitting in individual bodies which they helped to build, or travelling from body to body via sperm or egg in the process of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction keeps the genes shuffled, and it is in this sense that the long-term habitat of a gene is the gene pool. Any given gene originates in the gene pool as a result of a mutation, a random error in the gene-copying process. Once a new mutation has been formed, it can spread through the gene pool by means of sexual mixing. Mutation is the ultimate origin of genetic variation. Sexual reproduction, and genetic recombination due to crossing over see to it that genetic variation is rapidly distributed and recombined in the gene pool.

Was this the answer you were looking for? Or was it more along the lines of why is there a 'struggle for existance'?
 
Last edited:
Have a view

Zero Mass,

I generaly hold your view. More specific is that if one look how nature (physics) functions our "design" is only one of potentially trillions, of which we see in inantimate as well as other organic constructs.

All are phenominal but a simple truth prevades the theme.

"If it wasn't this way it couldn't exist." For example electrons in attached to an atomic nucleus has restraints on their eisstance, it is called Pauli's Exclusion Principle". They can only exist in certain places, patterns and time relative to another charged particle.

Further any construct that is not such that it can survive, replicate and evolve becomes extinct. Over millions of years this simple process of elimination of ill constructed stuff simply vanishes.

There is no almost alive, or almost complete constructs. It is or it isn't.

And finally test have been done and I missed the particulars within the past week on the news but it has been said for many years that if you provide enough monkeys with enough typwritters one will write "The Constitution" or something like that.

The news story was about a number of monkeys put to the test and they wrote something but unfortunatley I missed the story.

Anybody see that and could share what happend there?
 
SVRP,

In everyday experience, people detect intelligent design all the time. For example, if a school teacher finds a sequence of lettered building blocks on the floor of a kindergarten classroom which spells out “THESE BLOCKS WERE NOT PUT HERE ON PURPOSE,” the teacher can safely assume that someone did arrange the letters in that order on purpose – no one would suppose they accidentally fell down that way. This arrangement of building blocks shows specified complexity (i.e., it contains meaningful information).
Click to expand...
This is still not evidence of intelligent design. Your example demonstrates the process of evolution once again. Primitive cave dwellers were just as intelligent as us, but they did not have a complex language. Language evolved just like everything else.
 
I think the process of evolution is an intelligent design. Doesn't mean I believe in a god at all, I just think it is an intelligent system.
 
Dr Lou-

I think the process of evolution is an intelligent design.
Click to expand...

Do you mean you think of it as an intelligent process? To say design implies something constructed or with an end in mind.

I just think it is an intelligent system.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, evolution is an ingenious process.
 
Intelligence implies cognition, e.g. awareness, understanding, and judgment. Evolutionary processes are independent of such attributes although intelligence can contribute to an evolutionary process. For example computers have been evolving since the 1940s. The rapid rate of computer evolutionary change is primarily due to the intelligence of man. But man has not designed the computer; man has only assisted in the evolutionary changes.

The term ‘intelligent design’ attempts to impose the idea that something complex is the result of intelligence, yet there is no precedent where that is true. Everything complex that appears to be the result of man’s intelligence is, when more closely examined, a result of an evolutionary process. Or rather intelligence has never resulted in a final complex object in a single step.

So no, evolutionary processes are neither intelligent nor ingenious.
 
No Belief But

I hold no belief what-so-ever in God as generally defined. But I have a quesion for the Creationists.

By what logic do you deny evolution as not being part of your Gods design or plan?
 
Originally posted by SVRP
But if you have already presupposed that intelligent design had no part in the evolutionary process, then you may not be as open-minded as I thought.
Click to expand...
If you presuppose intelligent design you may not be as open to science as one should expect in 2003.

Originally posted by SVRP
I see a lot of griping and condescending remarks, but no real counter arguments ...
Click to expand...
Stop griping. It's both puerile and condescending.

Originally posted by SVRP
The key argument is the transfer of specific complex information at the molecular level suggests intelligent design, ...
Click to expand...
That's a premise, not an argument.

DNA shows every indication of being the natural consequnce of natural processes. See, for example: "RNA-World". Once again, your God-of-the-Gaps finds itself ruling an ever-shrinking domaign.

If you wish to argue "intelligent design" you must first explain why the principal of parsimony would have any relevance to an omnipotent Deity.
 
Re: No Belief But

Originally posted by MacM
I hold no belief what-so-ever in God as generally defined. But I have a quesion for the Creationists. By what logic do you deny evolution as not being part of your Gods design or plan?
Click to expand...
Excellent!
 
Cris-

So no, evolutionary processes are neither intelligent nor ingenious.
Click to expand...

I meant ingenious in the sense that we can be amazed by the process, not that it has a "mind." Sorry for the confusion, I just couldnt think of the proper word to describe it.
 
Def,

No problem.

How about impressively fascinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top