Question for believers in ID.

[SciWriter]

Modern atheists, however, are baffled by the notion that the Universe could be intelligently designed.

No, since for aliens, who could have planted a microbe, it can be accepted, bearing in mind that evolution has triple confirmation from there, plus the aliens had to evolve, giving them no designer. For a 'God' type notion, it can be refuted, for, outside of evolution, a Designer would require a higher DESIGNER, and so forth. An there are more reasons, too.

Faulty actions taken only because of being upset could be shot down in an instant, as with all such lame attempts.

Unless and until ID can undo its contradictions, it is a non-starter.

 

[Balerion]

The moment you use a term like "beneficial," you're actually in the domain of intelligent design.
Using qualifiers like "beneficial" or "detrimental" suggests you are working with the idea of teleological determination, and that puts you right into the middle of intelligent design.

False. You're only working with that idea if you propose that there is purpose behind the benefit or detriment.

But again, a cursory glance of the Wikipedia article on teleology would tell you that. It's obviously too much to ask you to understand any of the concepts you insist on discussing.

 

[gmilam]

Modern atheists, however, are baffled by the notion that the Universe could be intelligently designed.

Not at all. But that doesn't really answer any questions does it? How can one stop there and not ask where the designer came from?

But they also cannot refute this. Not being able to refute it, they are upset. In order to deal with that upset, they look for ways to discredit the idea of intelligent design, so that there'd be nothing to be upset about. Since in their view, "religion" has a history of being woo-woo and lacking scientific credibility, they connect "religion" and intelligent design, so that along with dismissing "religion," they can also dismiss intelligent design, and thus be rid of the upset.

(I brought in the notion of "upset" here, because there has to be some way of accounting for why modern atheists would want to discredit religion or intelligent design.)

?

The movement in the US is most definitely a "religious" movement. And they are most definitely trying to shove their mythology into the science textbooks. I originally came to science forums during the Dover trials trying to find out what this ID "theory" is. There isn't one.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Because they know, as you cannot refute them in argument, that is your only line of attack.

What? You can't be serious. You think I can't refute a bunch of Creationists in an argument about science?

Bring it on, Jan. Let's test your claim.

And when they explain that although they may believe in God, or even be religious, it doesn't take anything away from the science, it falls on deaf ears. You want them to be operating from a religious perspective so much, you accuse them of being so in their work. Very dishonest and underhanded tactics. That alone, amongst other things, casts doubt on your whole campaign, AFAIC.

The fact is, all claimed examples of "intelligent design" in nature have failed to measure up. IDers like to talk about "irreducible complexity" and similar concepts, but all purported examples of irreducible complexity advanced by IDers have been shown (by those pesky "evolutionists") to be reducible after all.

By the way, I have no campaign. On the other hand, the whole of ID is a campaign to try to get Christianity taught in US schools as if it were science. The reason such a strategy is deemed necessary is the separation of church and state embedded in the Bill of Rights. IDers and Creationists have to pretend they are doing science in order to try to drive their creationist "wedge" (as they call it) into the school curriculum.

Most if not all evangelical evolutionist, darwinists, neo-darwinists, and naturalists, are atheist. Thus you are in exactly the same position as they. Even though you wouldn't think it the way you talk.

The difference between Creationism/ID and evolution is that one is a scientific theory while the other is not. That puts me in quite a different position from the preachers. I don't pretend that evolution is a sign from God, but IDers try to tell me that ID is science. See?


wynn:

Modern atheists, however, are baffled by the notion that the Universe could be intelligently designed. But they also cannot refute this. Not being able to refute it, they are upset.

Scientists are quite ready to consider the possibility of intelligent design. But the simple fact is that there is no convincing evidence of intelligent design in the natural world. This tends to upset IDers more than it upsets scientists and atheists, I'm fairly sure.

Since in their view, "religion" has a history of being woo-woo and lacking scientific credibility, they connect "religion" and intelligent design, so that along with dismissing "religion," they can also dismiss intelligent design, and thus be rid of the upset.

Intelligent design is demonstrably and unarguably an offshoot of the Creationist movement in the United States. In the Dover court case, there was a clear example of that, in which an intelligent design textbook promoted for use in schools differed from a similar Creationist textbook published a few years earlier only by the replacement of the term "Creation" with "Intelligent Design", "God" by "Intelligent Designer" and similar other substitutions.

(I brought in the notion of "upset" here, because there has to be some way of accounting for why modern atheists would want to discredit religion or intelligent design.)

It might seem obvious why atheists might want to discredit religion. Think about it.

As for intelligent design, the main gripe comes from scientists who don't want pseudoscience presented as science.

 

[wynn]

Beneficial in terms of the ability of genes to create an organism that projects those genes into the future.

And what is that beneficial for?

False. You're only working with that idea if you propose that there is purpose behind the benefit or detriment.

But again, a cursory glance of the Wikipedia article on teleology would tell you that. It's obviously too much to ask you to understand any of the concepts you insist on discussing.

The concepts of "benefit" and "detriment" are meaningless unless they are used in reference to some purpose.

"X is benficial for Y, while Z is detrimental for Y."

Without reference to a particular purpose, it is pointless to talk about "design" of any kind.

 

[wynn]

Not at all. But that doesn't really answer any questions does it? How can one stop there and not ask where the designer came from?

By consistently keeping to the definitions one has chosen to work with.
Changing definitions midstream is intellectually dishonest.

The movement in the US is most definitely a "religious" movement. And they are most definitely trying to shove their mythology into the science textbooks. I originally came to science forums during the Dover trials trying to find out what this ID "theory" is. There isn't one.

Well, if there is no ID theory, what then are you fighting against ...

 

[wynn]

What? You can't be serious. You think I can't refute a bunch of Creationists in an argument about science?

Bring it on, Jan. Let's test your claim.

The fact is, all claimed examples of "intelligent design" in nature have failed to measure up. IDers like to talk about "irreducible complexity" and similar concepts, but all purported examples of irreducible complexity advanced by IDers have been shown (by those pesky "evolutionists") to be reducible after all.

If you fudge definitions long enough, you can prove or refute anything ...

By the way, I have no campaign. On the other hand, the whole of ID is a campaign to try to get Christianity taught in US schools as if it were science. The reason such a strategy is deemed necessary is the separation of church and state embedded in the Bill of Rights. IDers and Creationists have to pretend they are doing science in order to try to drive their creationist "wedge" (as they call it) into the school curriculum.

You mean that IDers in the US genuinely know that what they do isn't science, but they push ID anyway?

The difference between Creationism/ID and evolution is that one is a scientific theory while the other is not. That puts me in quite a different position from the preachers. I don't pretend that evolution is a sign from God, but IDers try to tell me that ID is science. See?

The difference is also that one has some chance to help people get a happy and meaningful life, and the other demands a dumbing-down (at least for some).

Scientists are quite ready to consider the possibility of intelligent design. But the simple fact is that there is no convincing evidence of intelligent design in the natural world.

Fudging definitions ...

Intelligent design is demonstrably and unarguably an offshoot of the Creationist movement in the United States.

I don't think so. Some notion of intelligent design - of some kind of teleology - seems to be deeply embedded in all discourse, including the scientific one.

As noted earlier, we commonly operate with qualifiers such as "beneficial" and "detrimental". And as I noted earlier, without reference to a particular purpose, those terms are meaningless.

It might seem obvious why atheists might want to discredit religion. Think about it.

I don't know why atheists want to discredit religion. As an atheist, you will have to tell me about it.

As for intelligent design, the main gripe comes from scientists who don't want pseudoscience presented as science.

Why not? What is the reasoning behind that?


You see, I don't feel particularly warmly about theism and theists; in fact, I feel quite intimidated by them. So then come atheists and say they offer a viable alternative, and a good defense, a good refutation of theism. And yet - that atheist defense requires that one practice a considerable measure of emotions and attitudes that I really do not wish to take part in.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

So you're saying that there are people who look at the Universe, and consider it designed. (And for this, they don't necessarily need to be theists nor religious.)

''Religion'' isn't even a part of that equation.
Religious folk, who have a philosophical basis, will draw upon the analogy, in a bid to explain why they believe
in God. But it is not a reason to believe in God, it's just obvious that there is an intelligence behind it. And they attribute that intelligence to God, but if you were an atheist, and saw intelligent design in the cosmos, you wouldn't necessarily have to conclude that God is the intelligence.

The atheist, regardless of what they say, see intelligence, but they cannot attribute it to God, because they don't believe in God. So they replace it with the big-bang, abiogenesis, and evolution by natural selection, because they are of a materialist mindset.
The modaths, take atheism further by asserting there is no God, even though they will try to convince us that they are actually agnostic, probably because it makes them seem rational and reasoned. But everything about their dialogue implies God does not exist.

Modern atheists, however, are baffled by the notion that the Universe could be intelligently designed.

I don't think ''baffle-ment'' has anything to do with it.
They CANNOT allow a divine foot in the door, on account that matter is absolute. There is NOTHING else.
So when people posit something else they become very aggitated. They don't mind if the percieved threat is from the Judeo-Roman-Greek quater, because that interpretation isn't whole. The ID movement makes them feel uneasy because it targets the credibility of Darwinism (or whatever you want to call it), and shows the gaping holes containd therein. If nothing else it's embarassing for them.


jan.

 

[gmilam]

By consistently keeping to the definitions one has chosen to work with.
Changing definitions midstream is intellectually dishonest.

Who's changing definitions?

EDIT: Oh! That's right! I forgot about the whole "Cdesign Proponentists" crap. Thanks for reminding me.

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

Well, if there is no ID theory, what then are you fighting against ...

BS in the science class. Pay attention.

http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-science-education-texas-004710
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...y-again-slips-into-texas-textbook-debate?lite

 

[SciWriter]

‘God’ on Trial—A Comedy

Inspired by all of you.


Mini Book:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdotal-stories/6217-god-trial.html


Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YHz2yzTU58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j065fjth9WM

 

[Yazata]

By consistently keeping to the definitions one has chosen to work with.
Changing definitions midstream is intellectually dishonest.

Accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" are both insulting and ad-hominem. You shouldn't make them, unless you are simply trying to anger your opponents.

If you believe that the people that you are battling (that group includes me) are changing the meaning of the words they are working with in mid-argument in order to try to make rhetorical points, perhaps you should provide some examples of where you see that happening.

This whole thread (at least originally) revolved around one such inconsistency: namely the idea that instances of what appear to be functional form should be interpreted as if they were instances of intelligent design (a leap that's highly debatable for several reasons). Then by definition, instances of intelligent design point beyond themselves, implying the existence of some intelligent designer.

But... and here's the shift that creates the inconsistency... this hypothetical intelligent designer is where all such explanatory regresses must then stop, because the designer is supposed to be sufficient unto itself in all possible ways (a gratuitous assumption, seemingly adopted for entirely religious reasons).

That is a very dramatic change in, and seemingly a contradiction of, the original argument -- forms that perform functions must (for some reason) be interpreted as examples of intelligent design, and designs must in turn point inexorably beyond themselves to the existence of a separate intelligent designer.

 

[spidergoat]

...But it is not a reason to believe in God, it's just obvious that there is an intelligence behind it. ...

Just because it takes intelligence to discover the relationships between things doesn't mean that there was an intelligence as the basis for their origin.

 

[Yazata]

The fact is, all claimed examples of "intelligent design" in nature have failed to measure up. IDers like to talk about "irreducible complexity" and similar concepts, but all purported examples of irreducible complexity advanced by IDers have been shown (by those pesky "evolutionists") to be reducible after all.

'Complexity' isn't really a problematic concept, but 'irreducible' certainly is. It isn't just the idea that this or that observation hasn't received a naturalistic explanation at the present time. It's making the much stronger (and likely indefensible) assertion that the observation can never in principle receive a naturalistic explanation.

The difference between Creationism/ID and evolution is that one is a scientific theory while the other is not. That puts me in quite a different position from the preachers. I don't pretend that evolution is a sign from God, but IDers try to tell me that ID is science. See?

If "creation science" really wants to be accepted as a science, then it needs to start acting like a science. There need to be some creationist theories that are a little more informative than -- "Our omnipotent God did it! He can do anything! He works miracles!" -- Creation science needs to start making observational predictions, and then needs to be able to provide credible, persuasive and evidenced explanations for what's seen.

When it comes to biological evolution, I'm tremendously impressed by developments such as comparative genomics. When Darwin wrote in the middle 1800's, he had very little knowledge of the mechanisms of genetics. Today we know about DNA and can sequence the genomes of many diverse sorts of organisms. And this in turn has provided an absolute flood of new evidence concerning the evolutionary histories of these taxa. And by and large, it's confirming the broad outlines of taxonomies developed using methods like fossil evidence and comparative anatomy.

When separate lines of inquiry converge in leading to very similar conclusions, that's a very strong form of observational justification that philosophers of science call 'consilience'.

I think that many readers of Sciforums might be unaware of the fact that we are currently living in what will be remembered as a golden age of evolutionary biology, as absolute torrents of new genomic information is made available for scientists to examine.

That's the kind of thing that so-called "creation science" needs to match and surpass. I'm not holding my breath.

As for intelligent design, the main gripe comes from scientists who don't want pseudoscience presented as science.

Can you imagine the frenzied shrieking that you would hear if somebody proposed to compel evangelical churches to devote equal time to preaching scientific naturalism as they spend in preaching the Bible?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

Accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" are both insulting and ad-hominem. You shouldn't make them, unless you are simply trying to anger your opponents.

What if the accusations are warrented?

This whole thread (at least originally) revolved around one such inconsistency: namely the idea that instances of what appear to be functional form should be interpreted as if they were instances of intelligent design (a leap that's highly debatable for several reasons). Then by definition, instances of intelligent design point beyond themselves, implying the existence of some intelligent designer.

You're all being very coy about the reasons why things that look designed, and have a specific function, such as the bacterium flagellum, isn't the product of intelligent design. It seems to be more of ''it can't be designed by intelligence'' rather than ''I don't think, or believe it is designed by intelligence''. Why can't it be intelligently designed?

But... and here's the shift that creates the inconsistency... this hypothetical intelligent designer is where all such explanatory regresses must then stop, because the designer is supposed to be sufficient unto itself in all possible ways (a gratuitous assumption, seemingly adopted for entirely religious reasons).

Not correct. You're making the mistake of assuming the ID movement is a religious movement, and they posit that their god is the designer. They don't make that assumption, and they have to explain the same thing everytime, but still their opponents don't listen. The designer doesn't need to be God, it could be a highly advanced race of aliens. The point is they say when you observe the goings on in the cell, designed jumps right out at you. The question of who created God, is in regard to religion. And the answer is quite simple. At some point there must be an original cause responsible for everything, and that's what we call God, or Supreme Being.

That is a very dramatic change in, and seemingly a contradiction of, the original argument -- forms that perform functions must (for some reason) be interpreted as examples of intelligent design, and designs must in turn point inexorably beyond themselves to the existence of a separate intelligent designer.

What is the problem with there being an intelligent designer?
It seems to me that the problem goes beyond science, and more into the personal realm.

What is evidence of Intelligent design?
And how would you determine whether or not something may be designed?

I know you don't wish to talk with me, but I would really like your response to the questions I pose.

jan.

 

[gmilam]

The designer doesn't need to be God, it could be a highly advanced race of aliens.

Same question - where do the aliens come from if not by "natural" means? And if the designers can evolve by natural means, why couldn't we?

And how would you determine whether or not something may be designed?

Finally, an intelligent question. So, how would you?

 

[kx000]

Same question - where do the aliens come from if not by "natural" means?


Finally, an intelligent question. So, how would you?

Only nature exist. If I did fire hands, or lightning eyes it would be natural, no?

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

You're all being very coy about the reasons why things that look designed, and have a specific function, such as the bacterium flagellum, isn't the product of intelligent design.

What intelligence? Talk about coy, come out and name this supposed intelligence and show evidence he exists. I see none, nor do I see how things in Nature require one. Life appears to be so well designed for their place in Nature simply because all the similar, but slightly less fit, organisms did not survive to be observed. All were the result of evolution. BTW the flagellum was the result of evolution from an injection mechanism re-purposed, not created from scratch.

It seems to be more of ''it can't be designed by intelligence'' rather than ''I don't think, or believe it is designed by intelligence''. Why can't it be intelligently designed?

It's actually "It doesn't need to be designed by an intelligence, Natural forces accomplish it just fine" and applying Occam's Razor.

You're making the mistake of assuming the ID movement is a religious movement

It's not an assumption, it is a fact.

The point is they say when you observe the goings on in the cell, designed jumps right out at you.

The point is that intelligent design is the last thing we see in life, it's very clunky and has huge flaws.

The question of who created God, is in regard to religion. And the answer is quite simple. At some point there must be an original cause responsible for everything, and that's what we call God, or Supreme Being.

So you call the Big Bang the Supreme Being? Interesting, but not intelligent.

What is the problem with there being an intelligent designer?

Besides the complete lack of evidence for an intelligence, and the complete lack of intelligence of design(or design of any kind) in Nature or the fact that Natural forces do just fine at creating lifeforms, no intelligence required? Believe in any intelligence you like, but it does not have any scientific support.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

The atheist, regardless of what they say, see intelligence, but they cannot attribute it to God, because they don't believe in God.

Crap! The Atheist does not see any intelligence, that's why they don't accept theist claims of an intelligence of any kind, whatever name you give it.

So they replace it with the big-bang, abiogenesis, and evolution by natural selection, because they are of a materialist mindset.

Those are not replacements for a god, they are what the evidence shows to be true no matter what we believe.

wynn

The difference is also that one has some chance to help people get a happy and meaningful life, and the other demands a dumbing-down (at least for some).

Don't be so hard on yourself, lots of otherwise intelligent people believe in unevidenced things. But the search for scientific knowledge is the best route to a happy and meaningful life, it's increased our average lifespans by nearly 40 years, mostly healthy years at that.

Grumpy

 

[spidergoat]

Not correct. You're making the mistake of assuming the ID movement is a religious movement, and they posit that their god is the designer. They don't make that assumption, and they have to explain the same thing everytime, but still their opponents don't listen. The designer doesn't need to be God, it could be a highly advanced race of aliens.

US courts have determined definitively that ID is religious in origin. You are being disingenuous.

 

[Balerion]

The concepts of "benefit" and "detriment" are meaningless unless they are used in reference to some purpose.

"X is benficial for Y, while Z is detrimental for Y."

Without reference to a particular purpose, it is pointless to talk about "design" of any kind.

Absolute nonsense. The concepts of "benefit" and "detriment" do not inherently reference any design or purpose. Hard rain can be detrimental to flowers. The extinction of the dinosaurs was beneficial to the evolution of mammals. Which of these two examples requires reference to purpose or design to make sense?