Really? You believe that the function of an organism is self-evident, and not subject to interpretation?
They might fight against their extinction, esp. if we assume that their function is to survive.
Question for believers in ID.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Really? You believe that the function of an organism is self-evident, and not subject to interpretation?
They might fight against their extinction, esp. if we assume that their function is to survive.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm not convinced that's true. (It's typically part of how they imagine their "God", but nowhere close to exhausting the concept.) But even if it was definitive of the word 'God', how would that be relevant?
"Intelligent design" arguments don't begin with some theological definition of "God", and then proceed downward from there. Instead, they begin with what they claim are thoroughly scientific principles and observations in this world, and then argue that these lead upwards to the conclusion that some God-like being exists (somewhere).
Clearly the "ID" proponents are crafting their arguments so as to lead to their desired theological conclusions. But brazenly introducing those desired conclusions among their argument's initial premises would render the whole thing circular.
So what "ID" does is start with some this-worldly and ostensibly scientific observations that (they argue) can only be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design. It's rarely clear what kind of observed data is supposed to be evidence of design, unfortunately. I've suggested in earlier posts that what "ID" proponents often point to are examples of functional form, structures that can be said to perform functions and that lend themselves to functional explanations. We often encounter functional explanations in biology.
The problem is that if forms that perform functions must (for some reason that isn't entirely clear) point beyond themselves towards a different intelligent designer, then consistency and the logic of the whole argument would seem to demand that the hypothetical designer would need its own designer, and so on... in an infinite regress.
Obviously this isn't consistent with traditional theistic theological doctrines. You are right about that. The thing is, that shouldn't matter, unless those theological doctrines are really the starting point of the whole argument. They probably are in real life. But the "ID" argument is purporting to be something very different than religious special-pleading. It's purporting to be an entirely scientific and non-theological line of argument that (so its proponents insist) leads inexorably to something very much like their own desired theological conclusions.
But if we adopt somebody's theological definition of what the word "God" supposedly means as one of the "ID" arguments' initial premises, then the whole "ID" argument is rendered circular.
It also seemingly becomes inconsistent with the argument's supposed observational premise that instances of functional form (or whatever it is) point to something other than themselves, something that supposedly designed them. Once we have that (supposed) principle installed and up-and-running, the new problem appears of justifying why the design => designer principle should be shut-off again just because somebody's desired theological conclusions have been reached. If it isn't shut off, we have an infinite regress.
Nobody has implied that the dinosaurs might have thought this was a good idea. Or that the dinos voluntarily died out to make way for the mammals. But it's difficult to argue that the demise of one was not a lucky break for the other. :shrug:
wynn,
Why?
The world is the way it is because of intelligence (ours). If we were a purely a product of natural forces, you would have no need to feel, or believe that this world is below a certain level of expectation. The world would be exactly as it is, because everything is acting naturally. That you have an opinion, and most probably and ideal expectation, means you're acting separately to natural forces.
If their problem goes beyond the realm of science and the scientific method, then what they propose isn't science, at best it is speculation. If it was science, we wouldn't be here discussing it.
Here is a great oppotunity to demonstrate the real meaning of ''belief''. You say you don't ''believe'' in Intelligent Design''. So what is your position regarding the Pyramids, as to whether or not they were intelligently designed?
And there's nothing wrong with interpreting what you see, if there's no other means of obtaining knowledge.
It takes intelligence to decipher intelligence. I assume that intelligence was behind Stone Henge, because I wasn't present at their construction, but I could work out some explanation that says it was constructed by natural forces. Would you believe me?
The thing is, if I was a scientist, came out with a sparkling explanation, or even a stupid explanation, but could not be easily refuted because of lack of evidence (due to nobody present, witnessed it), then it could eventually become a theory, with the right backing.
And all this may be possible because no current living person was present at the time.
So then we'd have a intelligent desing camp, and now, a natural-forces camp.
So it boils down to belief. I can understand that. Now let's say you're having a ''non-designed'' day?
Explain to me why you would think they are ''non-designed''?
Good point. Does it really matter whether we are designed, or got here by some random methods?
Of course it's speculation, because unless we KNOW, we don't 'really' KNOW, and I we'll never KNOW (by KNOW I mean scientifically), so we have to draw upon our intelligence to decide how we feel about it at that moment.
Incidently, if you'd looked in the first sentence you'd realise that the word ''think'' was included.
If you're in a game, you can rely upon strategy to a point, but the best players are the one who use their intelligence.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with ''theist'' or ''atheist'', anymore than the Iraq invasion was about ''WMD's). I accept the fact that people are atheist, and people are theist. I think you'd be hard pushed to find any extremes. It's very hard to actually act upon belief in God, because the next stage is complete surrender through understanding that we are not this physical body, and nothing belongs to us, including spouse, children, property, physical body. Those are the thing of material nature, and as such they are illusory insofar as they are flickering. One minute they exist, the next, completely vanished. Knowing this one must prepare themselves for the transmigration of the spirit soul, the reality, that which neither comes into or goes out of being. This is the ultimate knowledge passed from God, through a spritual link, which can be accessed. The other extreme is to have absolutely no compassion, no empathy, to think that you are the body, and the body needs to feel pleasure and you don't care how that pleasure comes about. To act as though God does not exist, you are the only thing that matters, and anything that benefits your personal well-being. We know that there have been, and are people who represents both sides, though the former is diminishing because of the demands on the body.
Do you think I dismiss, or treat atheists harshly?
Do you actually read what these guys write?
jan.
Why?
The world is the way it is because of intelligence (ours). If we were a purely a product of natural forces, you would have no need to feel, or believe that this world is below a certain level of expectation. The world would be exactly as it is, because everything is acting naturally. That you have an opinion, and most probably and ideal expectation, means you're acting separately to natural forces.
If their problem goes beyond the realm of science and the scientific method, then what they propose isn't science, at best it is speculation. If it was science, we wouldn't be here discussing it.
Here is a great oppotunity to demonstrate the real meaning of ''belief''. You say you don't ''believe'' in Intelligent Design''. So what is your position regarding the Pyramids, as to whether or not they were intelligently designed?
And there's nothing wrong with interpreting what you see, if there's no other means of obtaining knowledge.
It takes intelligence to decipher intelligence. I assume that intelligence was behind Stone Henge, because I wasn't present at their construction, but I could work out some explanation that says it was constructed by natural forces. Would you believe me?
The thing is, if I was a scientist, came out with a sparkling explanation, or even a stupid explanation, but could not be easily refuted because of lack of evidence (due to nobody present, witnessed it), then it could eventually become a theory, with the right backing.
And all this may be possible because no current living person was present at the time.
So then we'd have a intelligent desing camp, and now, a natural-forces camp.
So it boils down to belief. I can understand that. Now let's say you're having a ''non-designed'' day?
Explain to me why you would think they are ''non-designed''?
Good point. Does it really matter whether we are designed, or got here by some random methods?
Of course it's speculation, because unless we KNOW, we don't 'really' KNOW, and I we'll never KNOW (by KNOW I mean scientifically), so we have to draw upon our intelligence to decide how we feel about it at that moment.
Incidently, if you'd looked in the first sentence you'd realise that the word ''think'' was included.
If you're in a game, you can rely upon strategy to a point, but the best players are the one who use their intelligence.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with ''theist'' or ''atheist'', anymore than the Iraq invasion was about ''WMD's). I accept the fact that people are atheist, and people are theist. I think you'd be hard pushed to find any extremes. It's very hard to actually act upon belief in God, because the next stage is complete surrender through understanding that we are not this physical body, and nothing belongs to us, including spouse, children, property, physical body. Those are the thing of material nature, and as such they are illusory insofar as they are flickering. One minute they exist, the next, completely vanished. Knowing this one must prepare themselves for the transmigration of the spirit soul, the reality, that which neither comes into or goes out of being. This is the ultimate knowledge passed from God, through a spritual link, which can be accessed. The other extreme is to have absolutely no compassion, no empathy, to think that you are the body, and the body needs to feel pleasure and you don't care how that pleasure comes about. To act as though God does not exist, you are the only thing that matters, and anything that benefits your personal well-being. We know that there have been, and are people who represents both sides, though the former is diminishing because of the demands on the body.
Do you think I dismiss, or treat atheists harshly?
Do you actually read what these guys write?
jan.
Yazata,
Instead, they begin with what they claim are thoroughly scientific principles and observations in this world, and then argue that these lead upwards to the conclusion that some God-like being exists (somewhere).
Links please?
If he has me on ignore, can someone inform him, or respond for him.
jan.
Instead, they begin with what they claim are thoroughly scientific principles and observations in this world, and then argue that these lead upwards to the conclusion that some God-like being exists (somewhere).
Links please?
If he has me on ignore, can someone inform him, or respond for him.
jan.
Sarkus,
I'm not saying it MUST be intelligent, it's just obvious (imo), so that doesn't apply to me.
And I've never, ever, read or seen anything from official ID movement that uses that kind of language.
It's the kind of language that Dawkins uses though, when he goes on his evangelical missions.
The sad thing is when he presents his propoganda, there is never a balance, i.e someone to oppose him.
Pretty unfair what?
Who say's there's no need to invoke an intelligent designer?
What other explantion is there? A non intelligent designer?
Why should we invoke a non-intelligent designer?
Occams Razor?
ID, is a far simpler, and feasible explanation.
Who created the designer is something else, and needn't be
tagged to it.
Doesn't matter. That is a separate issue as I said. But design is a much simpler explanation, as opposed to invoking something that only really explains something that is already in existence, then somehow try to extend that to a region of time we have very limited access to, if any, in real terms not speculation, hypothesis, theory, or even what is regarded as fact. In the search for trutth we have use our intelligence, it's not just a case of following system be it science or religion.
The complexity of the cell, seems more designed than some random, chance process.
Of course in Darwins day they thought the cell was comprised of some jelly type stuff, so it might have been a good explanation.
But as technology improves we see that it is an exquisite design by all accounts.
Because infinite regress is illogical, and silly.
I don't know, and I don't think it matters.
Why does it matter to you?
Reason or rhyme doesn't enter into it. I identify it as intelligent because things look intelligently designed. I'd be lying if I said they didn't.
I don't see why that matters. We'll cross that bridge when we need to.
I had no idea we had any rights to the universe.
Do you think this zeal could be distorting your intelligence?
Why do people feel the need to create some mad idea that we came about through a non-conscious, non-intelligent source, while we, part of that madness, have consciousness and intelligence. How does consciousness and intelligence come about?
Then you must be a blind man with no independant intelligence.
Do you think Stone Henge was designed, or came about through natural forces?
jan.
I'm not saying it MUST be intelligent, it's just obvious (imo), so that doesn't apply to me.
And I've never, ever, read or seen anything from official ID movement that uses that kind of language.
It's the kind of language that Dawkins uses though, when he goes on his evangelical missions.
The sad thing is when he presents his propoganda, there is never a balance, i.e someone to oppose him.
Pretty unfair what?
Who say's there's no need to invoke an intelligent designer?
What other explantion is there? A non intelligent designer?
Why should we invoke a non-intelligent designer?
Occams Razor?
ID, is a far simpler, and feasible explanation.
Who created the designer is something else, and needn't be
tagged to it.
Doesn't matter. That is a separate issue as I said. But design is a much simpler explanation, as opposed to invoking something that only really explains something that is already in existence, then somehow try to extend that to a region of time we have very limited access to, if any, in real terms not speculation, hypothesis, theory, or even what is regarded as fact. In the search for trutth we have use our intelligence, it's not just a case of following system be it science or religion.
The complexity of the cell, seems more designed than some random, chance process.
Of course in Darwins day they thought the cell was comprised of some jelly type stuff, so it might have been a good explanation.
But as technology improves we see that it is an exquisite design by all accounts.
Because infinite regress is illogical, and silly.
I don't know, and I don't think it matters.
Why does it matter to you?
Reason or rhyme doesn't enter into it. I identify it as intelligent because things look intelligently designed. I'd be lying if I said they didn't.
I don't see why that matters. We'll cross that bridge when we need to.
I had no idea we had any rights to the universe.
Do you think this zeal could be distorting your intelligence?
Why do people feel the need to create some mad idea that we came about through a non-conscious, non-intelligent source, while we, part of that madness, have consciousness and intelligence. How does consciousness and intelligence come about?
Then you must be a blind man with no independant intelligence.
Do you think Stone Henge was designed, or came about through natural forces?
jan.
Last edited:
Jan said:
I guess you never saw any of his debates on Youtube? LOL
Anyway, evolution isn't random or chance, because it includes natural selection, which isn't random.
No, but what other function do you propose a flower has?
What does this have to do with the question I asked? I'll try again: "In what way does their preference to live impact whether or not their death was beneficial to mammals?" Do you understand? I didn't ask "What would dinosaurs do if they knew their extinction would benefit another species," I asked you how their natural desire to survive makes any difference to the fact that their extinction is beneficial to another species. Are you telling me you can't understand the question, or are you just being difficult again?
Jan Ardena said:
They evolve, as the nerve net evolves from the simplest form in the cnidaria, to the primitive ganglia in lower worms, then to primitive brains without much more than a stem and perhaps a sensory lobe, and so on, into the higher animals with more complexity, and increasing volume of the cerebrum.
Consciousness and intelligence are both brain functions. There can be neither without a brain. Intelligence usually always means human intelligence. It requires a human experience, living in the world, and in particular, learning.
So far none of these attributes are possible without actually being a human, possessing a brain, having human life and experience, and learning.
It brings us back to your point "Why do people feel the need to create some mad idea...?" which summarizes pretty well how atheists feel about creationism.
Jan said:
Are sperms and eggs intelligent?
This is just a misunderstanding. You're probably thinking of modern cells, which are relatively complex. But primitive cells were simple. The simplest would be a spherical lipid, which occurs naturally. Here's a pretty good explanation of how you get from chemicals to primitive cells. I skipped over the section arguing against creationism and went straight to the science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=player_detailpage#t=168s
Since this explanation doesn't require supernatural forces, it's the best evidence available for how life arose out if the primordial soup. Atheists, especially those who love science, prefer this kind of explanation, since it doesn't require violating the laws of nature.
Jelly might refer to the cell membrane or the protoplasm, but it's not likely Darwin had much info on this subject. He wasn't investigating abiogenesis either. But when we take into consideration what he discovered about evolution, it's pretty straightforward getting from the primitive cell to the modern cell you're probably referring to. This is the scientific way to account for modern complexity.
wynn:
Your latest reply to me seems to be another attempt to go off on a tangent from the thread topic with irrelevancies. Are you unable to address the points that have been raised, or just unwilling to engage honestly with the topic?
This is non-specific rubbish from you, aimed to distract.
You have mentioned no definitions. I have mentioned no definitions. So, what you have here is just a vague motherhood statement about how it's nice to own a dictionary. Big deal. Let's discuss the topic, shall we?
What are you talking about? Be specific. Try to address the topic. This unfocussed rambling from you is just useless filler. Can't you see that?
This is what is called a non sequitur.
It doesn't follow from anything that I have said to you so far. You haven't specified which ideas of ID you are referring to, and you have made no connection to the thread topic (again). You haven't specified which critics you're referring to, or why it is a good thing that ID ideas aren't as alien yada yada yada.
Can't you see that this is useless? Please try to discusss the topic.
I thought you'd read at least some of the writings of atheists? Have you read The God Delusion? Have you read God is not Great? Have you read The End of Faith?
If not, go out and read at least one of those books. Get back to me when you have something useful to add to the conversation. I can't afford to waste my limited time trying to bring you up to speed.
More useless rubbish from you. And more distraction.
What basic tenets of science are you talking about? Why is it important that they be shown to be "scientific"? And is this not a
meta-question - a philosophical issue - rather than something that is relevant to the topic of discussion?
Please try to discuss the topic. If you want to discuss the above as a philosophical question, then I suggest you start a new thread on it in the Philosophy forum. The current thread is about Intelligent Design.
Your latest reply to me seems to be another attempt to go off on a tangent from the thread topic with irrelevancies. Are you unable to address the points that have been raised, or just unwilling to engage honestly with the topic?
This is non-specific rubbish from you, aimed to distract.
You have mentioned no definitions. I have mentioned no definitions. So, what you have here is just a vague motherhood statement about how it's nice to own a dictionary. Big deal. Let's discuss the topic, shall we?
What are you talking about? Be specific. Try to address the topic. This unfocussed rambling from you is just useless filler. Can't you see that?
This is what is called a non sequitur.
It doesn't follow from anything that I have said to you so far. You haven't specified which ideas of ID you are referring to, and you have made no connection to the thread topic (again). You haven't specified which critics you're referring to, or why it is a good thing that ID ideas aren't as alien yada yada yada.
Can't you see that this is useless? Please try to discusss the topic.
I thought you'd read at least some of the writings of atheists? Have you read The God Delusion? Have you read God is not Great? Have you read The End of Faith?
If not, go out and read at least one of those books. Get back to me when you have something useful to add to the conversation. I can't afford to waste my limited time trying to bring you up to speed.
More useless rubbish from you. And more distraction.
What basic tenets of science are you talking about? Why is it important that they be shown to be "scientific"? And is this not a
meta-question - a philosophical issue - rather than something that is relevant to the topic of discussion?
Please try to discuss the topic. If you want to discuss the above as a philosophical question, then I suggest you start a new thread on it in the Philosophy forum. The current thread is about Intelligent Design.
Jan Ardena:
See, the problem is that in science, common sense turns out not always to be correct. Things that seemed blindingly "obvious" to common sense have turned out time and again in the history of science to be complicated than that. In other words, common sense turns out to be a fairly lousy guide as to what is True in the natural world.
Bottom line is: your gut instinct as to what is "designed" and what isn't in nature is useless. It gets us precisely nowhere in the investigation of the truth.
You seem woefully uninformed about the extent and resources of the ID movement. ID proponents are all over the web (for one) trying to get foot in the door with their ID. And Creationists in general who oppose all of evolutionary theory are ubiquitous. Dawkins doesn't lack for opponents, believe me, even if those who oppose science lack credibility. That's their fault, not his.
The explanation for the development of life on earth is available to anybody who puts in a bare minimum of effort. It's called "evolution".
Why won't you take a moment or two to learn what evolution is and how it works, Jan? Why do you insist on keeping yourself wilfully ignorant of this area of science? Don't you think you owe it to yourself to learn about what you so despise and oppose, if for no other reason that so you can better fight the forces of darkness that propound such nonsense?
No.
Like I said earlier, in a post that your pointedly ignored (disingenuous like wynn?), ID postulates the existence of an immensely complex entity to design the universe and all of life. It is a "top down" process, with maximum complexity at the start of the process. Evolution, on the other hand, is a "bottom up" process, where complexity arises naturally from simplicity.
Again, your gut feeling isn't enough to establish design. You'll need to do better than that.
And yet your Grand Designer requires another, grander Designer, or else how did he arise?
He was always there, you say? Well, why couldn't the universe (/multiverse) always have been there?
I think life looks designed too. But I know it isn't. That was Darwin's great insight. The man was a genius.
It evolved, of course.
We know Stone Henge was designed. The evidence for its design is overwhelming.
But there's no evidence that the bacterial flagellum was designed.
See, the problem is that in science, common sense turns out not always to be correct. Things that seemed blindingly "obvious" to common sense have turned out time and again in the history of science to be complicated than that. In other words, common sense turns out to be a fairly lousy guide as to what is True in the natural world.
Bottom line is: your gut instinct as to what is "designed" and what isn't in nature is useless. It gets us precisely nowhere in the investigation of the truth.
You seem woefully uninformed about the extent and resources of the ID movement. ID proponents are all over the web (for one) trying to get foot in the door with their ID. And Creationists in general who oppose all of evolutionary theory are ubiquitous. Dawkins doesn't lack for opponents, believe me, even if those who oppose science lack credibility. That's their fault, not his.
The explanation for the development of life on earth is available to anybody who puts in a bare minimum of effort. It's called "evolution".
Why won't you take a moment or two to learn what evolution is and how it works, Jan? Why do you insist on keeping yourself wilfully ignorant of this area of science? Don't you think you owe it to yourself to learn about what you so despise and oppose, if for no other reason that so you can better fight the forces of darkness that propound such nonsense?
No.
Like I said earlier, in a post that your pointedly ignored (disingenuous like wynn?), ID postulates the existence of an immensely complex entity to design the universe and all of life. It is a "top down" process, with maximum complexity at the start of the process. Evolution, on the other hand, is a "bottom up" process, where complexity arises naturally from simplicity.
Again, your gut feeling isn't enough to establish design. You'll need to do better than that.
And yet your Grand Designer requires another, grander Designer, or else how did he arise?
He was always there, you say? Well, why couldn't the universe (/multiverse) always have been there?
I think life looks designed too. But I know it isn't. That was Darwin's great insight. The man was a genius.
It evolved, of course.
We know Stone Henge was designed. The evidence for its design is overwhelming.
But there's no evidence that the bacterial flagellum was designed.
Not much more to say, for James R and others have shown the total ineffectiveness of the ID stance, along with showing worse ineffective examples of posts here that not only go nowhere, betraying a lack of reason and no seeing ahead to their subsequent undoing, but are a complete waste of space. So, all the more this points to what makes people fail and flail in persisting, such as brain wires that fire together wire more closely together until they are so much grooved that the person can't do anything else but persist in the thought, with even this explanation not being able to get through.
James R,
I'm well aware of that, things aint always how they seem. That stands to reason.
But we're not discussing what's true IN the natural world. We can detect intelligence, especially when it's laid out in front of you. All the ID'ists are saying is that these phenomena are best explained by intelligent design, using the scientific method.
Of course in science things may change, new discoveries, more sophisticated explanations of data and so on,
but for now that is the best explanation.
Well, I don't regard my gut instinct as useless, even when they turn out to be wrong, I simply learn from it.
But this is a two pronged discussion. On one side we're talking about intelligent design, and on the other side, our personal reasons, beliefs, or lack of. I'm mature, and experienced enough to know that my gut instinct isn't always right, but I also know when it is right especially as time passes.
I explained above, what the ID movement propose, that's what I agree with. I don't see any religion in their
proposal, and I don't care whether or not they're religious, as it has nothing to do with their proposal. The extra baggage that has been attatched to them such as they are a different wing of ''Creationism'', and they want to teach about the biblical god in schools, and they want to brainwash our children, has nothing to do with their actual proposal.
As far as I know ID'ists accept the evolutionary theory as a good explanation for origins, but in light of new discoveries, is outdated. They believe they're explanations best describe the data. As for Creationists, they openly admit that they want to teach genesis as a scientific explanation for origins. Now I can understand your beef with that.
During the launch of ''The God Delusion'', Dawkins had alot of exposure on british tv. He has hosted a couple of tv shows in which he had full reign with no opposition. And there was never a follow up programme to show opposition to his damaging views.
We don't oppose Dawkins on science, that's what he does. We oppose his views and oppinions on religion, more so the underlying emotional disgust, and the fact that he gets away with it, without being challenged.
So unless someone accepts ''evolution'' as the explanation, they're not putting any effort at all into finding an
good explanation? That's like saying: "unless you come to my church and accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, you're a lost sheep in the wilderness''? I don't think you're aware of how ''religious'' you sound, or how religious, the drive to push ''evolution'' on the public, is.
I don't accept your explanation simply because it is full of holes, plus there seems to be religious zeal about the way you go about things. It makes wonder why you have to be like that. I feel the same way about institutionalised religion.
James, why do you insist I don't know how it works. I have the same access as you. I may not understand the technical aspect, but I understand the basic concept of evolution through natural selection.
Does one have to have a very advanced knowledge of evolution to accept it?
I'm not ignorant in this area of science. As I said I may not be as enlightened as some, even alot, but I'm not ignorant in this area.
Why do you insist on keeping yourself woefully ignorant of ID (that area of science)?
Don't you think you owe it to yourself, myself, and other selves to refrain from resorting to ad-hominems, especially with you moderator status?
It postulates that ''intelligence'' best explains the data.
The complexity, and identity of said intelligence, does not need to be known, for their explanation to have teeth.
That is a difficult, and complex process, much more so than the alternative.
But what is the problem with a top down process?
And that's the good thing about the ID movement - they're doing the science.
Only viewed from your stubborn perspective. If it is illogical to assume ''infinite regression'', why do you keep using it? There must be a point where everything come from, therefore the original cause just is, the begining and end of everything. That is a logical conclusion. Whether we call this God, the universe, it doesn't matter, there must be a point where comes from.
So now we're back to ''personal belief''. You don't call the cause God, and I do.
You don't KNOW. You can't KNOW unless you actually KNOW. You believe.
Of course!
What is the evidence?
Okay. So what do you regard as evidence of design?
jan.
I'm well aware of that, things aint always how they seem. That stands to reason.
But we're not discussing what's true IN the natural world. We can detect intelligence, especially when it's laid out in front of you. All the ID'ists are saying is that these phenomena are best explained by intelligent design, using the scientific method.
Of course in science things may change, new discoveries, more sophisticated explanations of data and so on,
but for now that is the best explanation.
Well, I don't regard my gut instinct as useless, even when they turn out to be wrong, I simply learn from it.
But this is a two pronged discussion. On one side we're talking about intelligent design, and on the other side, our personal reasons, beliefs, or lack of. I'm mature, and experienced enough to know that my gut instinct isn't always right, but I also know when it is right especially as time passes.
I explained above, what the ID movement propose, that's what I agree with. I don't see any religion in their
proposal, and I don't care whether or not they're religious, as it has nothing to do with their proposal. The extra baggage that has been attatched to them such as they are a different wing of ''Creationism'', and they want to teach about the biblical god in schools, and they want to brainwash our children, has nothing to do with their actual proposal.
As far as I know ID'ists accept the evolutionary theory as a good explanation for origins, but in light of new discoveries, is outdated. They believe they're explanations best describe the data. As for Creationists, they openly admit that they want to teach genesis as a scientific explanation for origins. Now I can understand your beef with that.
During the launch of ''The God Delusion'', Dawkins had alot of exposure on british tv. He has hosted a couple of tv shows in which he had full reign with no opposition. And there was never a follow up programme to show opposition to his damaging views.
We don't oppose Dawkins on science, that's what he does. We oppose his views and oppinions on religion, more so the underlying emotional disgust, and the fact that he gets away with it, without being challenged.
So unless someone accepts ''evolution'' as the explanation, they're not putting any effort at all into finding an
good explanation? That's like saying: "unless you come to my church and accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, you're a lost sheep in the wilderness''? I don't think you're aware of how ''religious'' you sound, or how religious, the drive to push ''evolution'' on the public, is.
I don't accept your explanation simply because it is full of holes, plus there seems to be religious zeal about the way you go about things. It makes wonder why you have to be like that. I feel the same way about institutionalised religion.
James, why do you insist I don't know how it works. I have the same access as you. I may not understand the technical aspect, but I understand the basic concept of evolution through natural selection.
Does one have to have a very advanced knowledge of evolution to accept it?
I'm not ignorant in this area of science. As I said I may not be as enlightened as some, even alot, but I'm not ignorant in this area.
Why do you insist on keeping yourself woefully ignorant of ID (that area of science)?
Don't you think you owe it to yourself, myself, and other selves to refrain from resorting to ad-hominems, especially with you moderator status?
It postulates that ''intelligence'' best explains the data.
The complexity, and identity of said intelligence, does not need to be known, for their explanation to have teeth.
That is a difficult, and complex process, much more so than the alternative.
But what is the problem with a top down process?
And that's the good thing about the ID movement - they're doing the science.
Only viewed from your stubborn perspective. If it is illogical to assume ''infinite regression'', why do you keep using it? There must be a point where everything come from, therefore the original cause just is, the begining and end of everything. That is a logical conclusion. Whether we call this God, the universe, it doesn't matter, there must be a point where comes from.
So now we're back to ''personal belief''. You don't call the cause God, and I do.
You don't KNOW. You can't KNOW unless you actually KNOW. You believe.
Of course!
What is the evidence?
Okay. So what do you regard as evidence of design?
jan.
Jan Ardena,
My discussions with you (and also with wynn) remind me of a term coined by Douglas Adams to refer to a particular type of discussion. He called it a "clabby" conversation. The aim of such a conversation is just to prolong discussion for as long as possible, rather than to actually discuss an issue. Therefore, if you can introduce tangents and irrelevancies and thereby bamboozle your opponent you "win". Douglas gives as an example of an opening gambit of such a conversation: "Oh, hello Mr Smith. I didn't know you'd had your leg off!" If you get sucked in by the clabby gambit, you might respond with something like "Hello ... er... I haven't", in which case you've already lost. Douglas advises that the appropriate response to avoid this particular clabby gambit is "Good."
In your case, I find that it usually doesn't take much discussion of science until you're completely at sea. Your comfort zone is your religious scriptures and your faith in the inerrancy of the Vedas etc. And yet, you do not shrink from pronouncing on the truth or falsity of well-established scientific principles, of which you so obvious lack basic knowledge.
wynn is another one for the clabby gambit, as can be seen from the above exchange between the two of us.
I think that what irks me the most about the two of you is that you are obviously both bright enough to investigate things when you want to. You both write clearly. You both possess the skills to express yourselves and to argue a point. And yet, when it comes to topics such as the current one, you both prevaricate and divert and run away and dissemble. And when you're backed against a wall, you opt out of the conversation and pretend it never happened, only to pop up in a different thread days or weeks or months later making the same arguments you made last time. In wynn's case, you also cry to the moderators that you're being personally insulted because somebody dared to call you out on your clabbiness.
But I digress.
A couple of points here. First, I'm not at all convinced that your "gut feeling" intelligence detector is reliable, especially when you apply it in the non-human realm. Second, as I said earlier, one major problem with ID is that its proponents have never put forward any natural phenomenon that is best explained by intelligent design. All claims they have made of things like "irreducible complexity" have been debunked.
And you assessed this how?
This is just a personal preference for you, given your lack of knowledge. Isn't it?
Why do you agree with it? Do you think there is some lifeform that is "irreducibly complex", as the IDers require, such that it could not have evolved via accepted Darwinian processes? If so, what is it?
Oh please. I spent a little time above informing you that ID is just the next line of attack on science by Creationists. And if you don't believe me, go and read the judgement in the Dover, Pennsylvania decision (search "Kitzmiller"). ID has everything to do with the religion of its proponents.
Why is it, Jan, that all supporters of ID also just happen to be fundamentalist Christians, and why do the leaders of the movement all have Creationist links?
Those things are all issues with ID. But, if you want to restrict the discussion to the science, then the bottom line is simply that ID is bad science. What little work and "research" that has been done in the field is invariably shoddy and has been shown to be flawed without exception.
Which new discoveries? And how do they make evolutionary theory "outdated"?
You do realise, I hope, Jan, that evolutionary theory is an ongoing area of research, without which nothing in biology makes any sense at all. It isn't a dead topic confined to the annals of the history of science. There are many evolutionary biologists beavering away as you read this.
I don't think you do understand my beef with that, because it is essentially the same beef I have with ID.
Probably, you think that I don't like Creationism because I'm an atheist who despises religion and anything that might point to God. In fact, I don't like Creationism because it is unscientific, dishonest and just plain wrong, as are its proponents. It offends not my religious sensibilities, but my scientific ones. ID is, admittedly, slightly more sophisticated than Young Earth Creationism, but it's still lousy science.
Poor you. Too much exposure to nasty atheists on TV. How often does Alistair McGrath appear on British TV? How often do priests and other clergy get to express their views on British TV? I wonder if there's really such an imbalance, and whether it leans the way you claim it does. I know what Australian TV is like. And I have some idea of what US TV is like. I seldom see atheists proselitising uncontested in either of those countries. But maybe in the UK atheists have their own pay TV network or something (like those wall to wall religious ones in the US). Is that right?
Who is this "we" you are suddenly speaking for?
Dawkins is just one guy, by the way. He isn't the God of atheism, though you could be forgiven for thinking that he was the way some religious people get all riled up by him.
No.
Here's what I expect from you (and wynn), Jan. I expect that if somebody of your intelligence is seriously going to try to argue against the theory of evolution, you'll first go away and learn about it. You don't need to be an expert, necessarily. But you really do need to get a grip on the basics. If you haven't done that, as you so obviously have not, then I think it's fair to say that you are not putting any effort into finding the best explanation.
As far as I can tell, you've decided between ID and evolution one the basis of a religious bias you have. ID postulates a Creator who might fit your conception of God, whereas evolution has no need for your God. Hence, you reject evolution out of hand and desperately cling onto the straw of ID. I'm not sure why you need this crutch. But then, was it you who said you'd rather by happy than know the truth?
I don't think it is unreasonable for somebody who wishes to debate a scientific theory to first have a basic understanding of it, Jan.
My explanaton of what?
Please point out the holes for the benefit of the readers, Jan. I'd hate to think this was just an empty claim from you.
Ok, just to convince me that you understand the basics, how about you post a one or two sentence precis (paragraph, maximum) of how evolution works for me? i.e. tell me how things evolve, according to the theory.
No. It can be taught to school kids so they can understand it.
To refute evolution, though, you'd need either a real-world counter-example or an advanced knowledge of the theory such as to enable you to pick holes in it.
I'm an expert when it comes to ID, Jan. (I am NOT an expert in evolutionary biology, I hasten to add.)
An ad hominem attack would involve me ignoring your arguments (such as they are) in favour of ID in order to attack you or the people whose arguments you rely on. My claim is not that ID is wrong because religious people are being it. My claim is that it is wrong because its main claims are demonstrably unsupported.
Do you disagree with my contention that an Intelligent Designer of a human being, say, would necessarily have to be more complex than a human being?
The problem is that you are trying to explain the origin and development of all forms of life - an amazing complex thing - by postulating something that is even more complex. In essence, you're claiming that all the information necessary to create the world as we know it existed from the word go, in yourGod Intelligent Designer. But all the evidence shows that life evolved from the simple to the complex in a step-by-step fashion.
By assuming that all the information was there at the start, you simply beg the question and invite another one - where did the Intelligent Designer come from? How did all that information get there? And why did your Intelligent Designer act in such a way to make his actions effectively invisible, in the sense of being indistinguishable from the bottom-up alternative given by evolution?
Occam's razor suggests strongly that there is no justification for introducing a complex "Intelligent Designer" to explain the development of life. There is simply no evidence that life needed any help from such a Designer.
No, they aren't.
Peer-reviewed publications in legitimate scientific journals are very few and far between, especially when compared to the output of scientists working in evolutionary biology and related fields.
It is telling that the proponents of ID spend the vast majority of their time trying to pick holes in existing evolutionary science, rather than going out and looking for positive evidence for their own claims.
You make my point for me. It is illogical to assume infinite regression, yet your Designer requires it, by your own arguments.
So, why not call it the universe? Why do you postulate a God who loves you, who answers your prayers, who is fixated on one small planet in a very large cosmos and so on? It is precisely because you think your God has all these other attributes that you are so keen on him also being the Grand Designer of the universe.
If our only point of difference was with the word we use, then we wouldn't be continuing this discussion. Your God carries a lot more baggage than just being a catalyst for the beginning of the universe and life. Your God is not equivalent to the Big Bang. You want to claim a lot more of him than that.
I concede the point.
However, I believe this about as strongly as I believe that that electrons exist, that the Sun is a star, that your body contains carbon atoms and that you can't create free energy from nothing. And - here's the clincher - I believe ALL of those things for the same reasons.
There's too much to list. There's archeological evidence, historical evidence, anthopological evidence ... the list goes on and on. Try googling "Stone Henge" and see what you can find.
That's a very complicated question to try to answer briefly. Rather than to attempt to give a general response, I think perhaps the best thing might be for you to give me an example. If you like, I can elaborate on Stone Henge for you as an example.
But maybe it would be more productive if you could tell me what you regard as good evidence for design of some living thing, such as a worm or a bacterium or a flower. Because I don't think any of those things are designed. So far, the only argument I have seen from you on such matters is that they look designed to you, which is just an appeal to that infallible gut of yours.
My discussions with you (and also with wynn) remind me of a term coined by Douglas Adams to refer to a particular type of discussion. He called it a "clabby" conversation. The aim of such a conversation is just to prolong discussion for as long as possible, rather than to actually discuss an issue. Therefore, if you can introduce tangents and irrelevancies and thereby bamboozle your opponent you "win". Douglas gives as an example of an opening gambit of such a conversation: "Oh, hello Mr Smith. I didn't know you'd had your leg off!" If you get sucked in by the clabby gambit, you might respond with something like "Hello ... er... I haven't", in which case you've already lost. Douglas advises that the appropriate response to avoid this particular clabby gambit is "Good."
In your case, I find that it usually doesn't take much discussion of science until you're completely at sea. Your comfort zone is your religious scriptures and your faith in the inerrancy of the Vedas etc. And yet, you do not shrink from pronouncing on the truth or falsity of well-established scientific principles, of which you so obvious lack basic knowledge.
wynn is another one for the clabby gambit, as can be seen from the above exchange between the two of us.
I think that what irks me the most about the two of you is that you are obviously both bright enough to investigate things when you want to. You both write clearly. You both possess the skills to express yourselves and to argue a point. And yet, when it comes to topics such as the current one, you both prevaricate and divert and run away and dissemble. And when you're backed against a wall, you opt out of the conversation and pretend it never happened, only to pop up in a different thread days or weeks or months later making the same arguments you made last time. In wynn's case, you also cry to the moderators that you're being personally insulted because somebody dared to call you out on your clabbiness.
But I digress.
A couple of points here. First, I'm not at all convinced that your "gut feeling" intelligence detector is reliable, especially when you apply it in the non-human realm. Second, as I said earlier, one major problem with ID is that its proponents have never put forward any natural phenomenon that is best explained by intelligent design. All claims they have made of things like "irreducible complexity" have been debunked.
And you assessed this how?
This is just a personal preference for you, given your lack of knowledge. Isn't it?
Why do you agree with it? Do you think there is some lifeform that is "irreducibly complex", as the IDers require, such that it could not have evolved via accepted Darwinian processes? If so, what is it?
Oh please. I spent a little time above informing you that ID is just the next line of attack on science by Creationists. And if you don't believe me, go and read the judgement in the Dover, Pennsylvania decision (search "Kitzmiller"). ID has everything to do with the religion of its proponents.
Why is it, Jan, that all supporters of ID also just happen to be fundamentalist Christians, and why do the leaders of the movement all have Creationist links?
Those things are all issues with ID. But, if you want to restrict the discussion to the science, then the bottom line is simply that ID is bad science. What little work and "research" that has been done in the field is invariably shoddy and has been shown to be flawed without exception.
Which new discoveries? And how do they make evolutionary theory "outdated"?
You do realise, I hope, Jan, that evolutionary theory is an ongoing area of research, without which nothing in biology makes any sense at all. It isn't a dead topic confined to the annals of the history of science. There are many evolutionary biologists beavering away as you read this.
I don't think you do understand my beef with that, because it is essentially the same beef I have with ID.
Probably, you think that I don't like Creationism because I'm an atheist who despises religion and anything that might point to God. In fact, I don't like Creationism because it is unscientific, dishonest and just plain wrong, as are its proponents. It offends not my religious sensibilities, but my scientific ones. ID is, admittedly, slightly more sophisticated than Young Earth Creationism, but it's still lousy science.
Poor you. Too much exposure to nasty atheists on TV. How often does Alistair McGrath appear on British TV? How often do priests and other clergy get to express their views on British TV? I wonder if there's really such an imbalance, and whether it leans the way you claim it does. I know what Australian TV is like. And I have some idea of what US TV is like. I seldom see atheists proselitising uncontested in either of those countries. But maybe in the UK atheists have their own pay TV network or something (like those wall to wall religious ones in the US). Is that right?
Who is this "we" you are suddenly speaking for?
Dawkins is just one guy, by the way. He isn't the God of atheism, though you could be forgiven for thinking that he was the way some religious people get all riled up by him.
No.
Here's what I expect from you (and wynn), Jan. I expect that if somebody of your intelligence is seriously going to try to argue against the theory of evolution, you'll first go away and learn about it. You don't need to be an expert, necessarily. But you really do need to get a grip on the basics. If you haven't done that, as you so obviously have not, then I think it's fair to say that you are not putting any effort into finding the best explanation.
As far as I can tell, you've decided between ID and evolution one the basis of a religious bias you have. ID postulates a Creator who might fit your conception of God, whereas evolution has no need for your God. Hence, you reject evolution out of hand and desperately cling onto the straw of ID. I'm not sure why you need this crutch. But then, was it you who said you'd rather by happy than know the truth?
I don't think it is unreasonable for somebody who wishes to debate a scientific theory to first have a basic understanding of it, Jan.
My explanaton of what?
Please point out the holes for the benefit of the readers, Jan. I'd hate to think this was just an empty claim from you.
Ok, just to convince me that you understand the basics, how about you post a one or two sentence precis (paragraph, maximum) of how evolution works for me? i.e. tell me how things evolve, according to the theory.
No. It can be taught to school kids so they can understand it.
To refute evolution, though, you'd need either a real-world counter-example or an advanced knowledge of the theory such as to enable you to pick holes in it.
I'm an expert when it comes to ID, Jan. (I am NOT an expert in evolutionary biology, I hasten to add.)
An ad hominem attack would involve me ignoring your arguments (such as they are) in favour of ID in order to attack you or the people whose arguments you rely on. My claim is not that ID is wrong because religious people are being it. My claim is that it is wrong because its main claims are demonstrably unsupported.
Do you disagree with my contention that an Intelligent Designer of a human being, say, would necessarily have to be more complex than a human being?
The problem is that you are trying to explain the origin and development of all forms of life - an amazing complex thing - by postulating something that is even more complex. In essence, you're claiming that all the information necessary to create the world as we know it existed from the word go, in your
By assuming that all the information was there at the start, you simply beg the question and invite another one - where did the Intelligent Designer come from? How did all that information get there? And why did your Intelligent Designer act in such a way to make his actions effectively invisible, in the sense of being indistinguishable from the bottom-up alternative given by evolution?
Occam's razor suggests strongly that there is no justification for introducing a complex "Intelligent Designer" to explain the development of life. There is simply no evidence that life needed any help from such a Designer.
No, they aren't.
Peer-reviewed publications in legitimate scientific journals are very few and far between, especially when compared to the output of scientists working in evolutionary biology and related fields.
It is telling that the proponents of ID spend the vast majority of their time trying to pick holes in existing evolutionary science, rather than going out and looking for positive evidence for their own claims.
You make my point for me. It is illogical to assume infinite regression, yet your Designer requires it, by your own arguments.
So, why not call it the universe? Why do you postulate a God who loves you, who answers your prayers, who is fixated on one small planet in a very large cosmos and so on? It is precisely because you think your God has all these other attributes that you are so keen on him also being the Grand Designer of the universe.
If our only point of difference was with the word we use, then we wouldn't be continuing this discussion. Your God carries a lot more baggage than just being a catalyst for the beginning of the universe and life. Your God is not equivalent to the Big Bang. You want to claim a lot more of him than that.
I concede the point.
However, I believe this about as strongly as I believe that that electrons exist, that the Sun is a star, that your body contains carbon atoms and that you can't create free energy from nothing. And - here's the clincher - I believe ALL of those things for the same reasons.
There's too much to list. There's archeological evidence, historical evidence, anthopological evidence ... the list goes on and on. Try googling "Stone Henge" and see what you can find.
That's a very complicated question to try to answer briefly. Rather than to attempt to give a general response, I think perhaps the best thing might be for you to give me an example. If you like, I can elaborate on Stone Henge for you as an example.
But maybe it would be more productive if you could tell me what you regard as good evidence for design of some living thing, such as a worm or a bacterium or a flower. Because I don't think any of those things are designed. So far, the only argument I have seen from you on such matters is that they look designed to you, which is just an appeal to that infallible gut of yours.
ID is unfalsifiable, and thus an unscientific "theory". As such the scientific method can not be applied.
Whatever IDers claim to be using to support their arguments, it is not the scientific method.
If you wish to say that they are using science... it as at best bad science.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
In real life, it isn't always clear which features of the environment are naturally occurring, and which are products of intentional design.
For example, there's tessellated pavement. This purely geological phenomenon occurs worldwide, but some of the best examples are in Australia's island state of Tasmania. Even professional archaeologists are occasionally fooled by its appearance, falsely interpreting it as archaeological evidence of some unknown ancient civilization.
Google images here:
https://www.google.com/search?num=1...tessellated+pavement&sa=X&as_q=&nfpr=&spell=1
Hehe - I was going to give a very similar example of things that look designed but aren't:
Giants causeway: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gi...Pp4DIAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQ_AUoAQ&biw=986&bih=621
Giants causeway: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gi...Pp4DIAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQ_AUoAQ&biw=986&bih=621
Furthermore, there is evidence in animals that they were NOT designed, or designed intelligently, and every sign that the only way those structures could have come about is if the design was limited by what could be slightly modified from a previous version. The common example of this is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe.