Question for believers in ID.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what is that beneficial for?

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.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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).

Fudging definitions ...

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.

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

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.

 

wynn,

''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.

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.

 

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

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

 

‘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

 

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.

 

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.

 

'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.

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.

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?

 

Yazata,

What if the accusations are warrented?

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?

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.

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.

 

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?

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

 

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

 

Jan Ardena

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

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

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

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Jan Ardena

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.

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

wynn

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

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?