The Problems with Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Techne
- Start date
Obviously not and people who think otherwise are intellectually limited. Which is fine but don't be so obnoxious about it, i would tell them.
If there was design there were some serious flaws though.
Simple fact is that if there were design\designer they may not want to take credit for it. Lest we eradicate the injustices perpetrated on another. Question is can we?
Do we say: well x amount of population will be defective in some way. So what to do?
I say look into cruelty and turn it off like you cure other diseases. Go ahead scientist, that is your job. Can you do it?
Because if you cannot then you must be more humble.
Now if there were ID would not the designer\s be viewed as god-like?
I would have to say yes.
I'm just going off of the top of my head here. We see in our own species the elevation of status among those of us be it for looks or some other ability. Now creating a living creature would from inanimate components would really show me something.
Last edited:
@lightgigantic --
What? So it's not as absurd to take a position on which you know literally nothing based one hundred percent on faith as it is to do the exact same thing but in the other direction? What are you smoking and where can I get some?
It's just as absurd to believe that there is a god/creator/designer as it is to believe that there is no god/creator/designer. In fact, the only tenable position to take at the moment is the one of withholding judgement on the matter until we do have evidence. If that's never then that will be the only tenable position ever. Either of the other positions(of which the "extreme" atheism is almost infinitely more rare than the "extreme" theism) is entirely untenable from a logical perspective.
What? So it's not as absurd to take a position on which you know literally nothing based one hundred percent on faith as it is to do the exact same thing but in the other direction? What are you smoking and where can I get some?
It's just as absurd to believe that there is a god/creator/designer as it is to believe that there is no god/creator/designer. In fact, the only tenable position to take at the moment is the one of withholding judgement on the matter until we do have evidence. If that's never then that will be the only tenable position ever. Either of the other positions(of which the "extreme" atheism is almost infinitely more rare than the "extreme" theism) is entirely untenable from a logical perspective.
@Ellie --
Give us ten to twenty years and we'll be there. We've already gotten to the point where we can create an entire genome artificially, we'll be the rest of the way there in no time...or, at least we will be if the religious right don't try to stop the research(I can already hear people shouting "they're playing god!" in protests) or blow us all up first.
Now, creating matter from nothing, that we can do. In fact, I don't see god doing that much these days, maybe he's getting stage fright in his old age.
Give us ten to twenty years and we'll be there. We've already gotten to the point where we can create an entire genome artificially, we'll be the rest of the way there in no time...or, at least we will be if the religious right don't try to stop the research(I can already hear people shouting "they're playing god!" in protests) or blow us all up first.
Now, creating matter from nothing, that we can do. In fact, I don't see god doing that much these days, maybe he's getting stage fright in his old age.
they do?
Not quite - Its absurd to discuss such things within knowledge systems that are by necessity tacit - IOW if empiricism is forever relegated to a metonymic perspective of things, it doesn't have the capacity to present closed systems (ie it only presents "parts" of systems) ... and if it can't present closed systems (ie what life is essentially composed/what its absolute prerequisites are etc) it has no scope to rule out what is proposed to contextualize them (ie god).
IOW you can't declare such "evidence" to counter a claim (unless of course you are tagging it with a philosophical treatise - ie something metaphysical - which is of course against the rules in empiricism) .
If you want to talk about how the mechanisms of life and universal creation effectively rule out divine intelligence I would argue you are already well supplied
depends by what epistemological framework one is suggesting monopolizes all others - if you are trying to play empiricism as such a card, there are many things that appear absurd ....
So do you think its logical to hold a certain person as one's biological mother in the complete absence of empirical evidence (eg dna testing etc)?
Or do you think that there exist other epistemological frameworks for discerning issues (especially those issues that contextualize our existence)?
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I'm pretty sure this thread is scientific in nature. Unless you're going to throw in some scientific evidence for this claim, this is not the place to be preaching.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Intelligent Design
What is the necessity for Intelligent Design to be so?
(Preaching, by itself, does nothing.)
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Now that we are here there is no necessity for God (well there is, if you have faith), but what was the cause for life? Billions of random events?
Environment, weather, opportunity, nature—leading to natural selection, which is the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design, not chance.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Intelligent states that all these things were ultimately thought up by God for this very purpose, natural selection to test nature as to see who is capable of living in the Heaven of Kingdom. Meaning, that not all people are capable of living in society with out upsetting it. Those people will not be omitted to Heaven i.e. giving man free will so he will make his own choices (and to add intelligence.) so that tribulation can take place to weave out the bad seeds. The problem with this (intelligent design) that it is very hard to fathom, and even more difficult to prove.
Its simply a question whether empiricism is suitable for monopolizing all knowledge based claims.
When you feel capable of addressing this question, the discussion can progress.
In the absence of a functional and meaningful socialization (such as when people nominally belong to a group, but are considered expendable; or when people live in a community where the leaders are free to abuse the trust of the members under threat of severe consequences),
knowledge claims become monopolized by naive empiricism, fundamentalist dogmatism, or irrationality.
Which is also known as "modern society", along with religion as it tends to be practiced nowadays.
@lightgigantic --
Well if you're going to ask a question then ask the question, don't rely on vague, faulty comparisons.
And to answer your question, I don't know if it is or not but empiricism is the best tool that we've ever come up with for acquiring knowledge. Nothing else even comes close.
Well if you're going to ask a question then ask the question, don't rely on vague, faulty comparisons.
And to answer your question, I don't know if it is or not but empiricism is the best tool that we've ever come up with for acquiring knowledge. Nothing else even comes close.
It can drive people crazy ...
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Standards of evidence need to be reasonable. I must take into account what is realm of possibility. For example one cannot use a paradox to show that some act is impossible.
Examples of evidence in favor of evolution (the idea that new form and function leading to derivation of all observed biological diversity is derived from observed non-teleological natural processes in operation today) would be:
1. direct observation of a contiguous multistep evolutionary pathway leading to derivation of any of a number of molecular subcomponents identified as necessary for new cell functions. These include new functional protein tertiary structures, new protein-protein binding sites, new gene expression controls, new functional developmental controls, new cell functional controls and circuits, new protein inventory and transportation systems, etc.
2. New functional systems require functional, specified information in order to construct, and instantiate and manage the components and processes that allow them to function. Examples of non-teleological natural systems that generate new functional information at a rate consistent with the timeframe estimated by the geologic record would support the evolutionary claims.
If the current evolutionary is correct, there would be hundreds and thousands of examples of these kinds of observations. As it is there seem to be none. Fruit flies have been mutated every conceivable way by non-teleological means with only three results; A) normal fruit flies, deformed fruit flies, C) dead fruit flies. Observed processes appear to be quite proficient at disabling and removing function but incapable of routinely deriving novel function other than the occasional single and double step mutations predicted by probability. There seems to be a limit to what observed processes can accomplish.
Examples of evidence in favor of evolution (the idea that new form and function leading to derivation of all observed biological diversity is derived from observed non-teleological natural processes in operation today) would be:
1. direct observation of a contiguous multistep evolutionary pathway leading to derivation of any of a number of molecular subcomponents identified as necessary for new cell functions. These include new functional protein tertiary structures, new protein-protein binding sites, new gene expression controls, new functional developmental controls, new cell functional controls and circuits, new protein inventory and transportation systems, etc.
2. New functional systems require functional, specified information in order to construct, and instantiate and manage the components and processes that allow them to function. Examples of non-teleological natural systems that generate new functional information at a rate consistent with the timeframe estimated by the geologic record would support the evolutionary claims.
If the current evolutionary is correct, there would be hundreds and thousands of examples of these kinds of observations. As it is there seem to be none. Fruit flies have been mutated every conceivable way by non-teleological means with only three results; A) normal fruit flies, deformed fruit flies, C) dead fruit flies. Observed processes appear to be quite proficient at disabling and removing function but incapable of routinely deriving novel function other than the occasional single and double step mutations predicted by probability. There seems to be a limit to what observed processes can accomplish.