Intelligent design theory is quickly gaining acceptance with school boards from Kansas to Pennsylvania. For those desiring to educate themselves on the basics of intelligent design theory I recommend the following simple self-education procedure:…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
176 - Hobart
My apologies for being absent for several days. In any case, perhaps things have calmed down a bit.
Referring back to 19 Sept, answering Arne.
You wrote:
“No. I think you completely missed my point. You were blathering about "mind" and "materialism" being mutually exclusive. I put forth a situation that even you might agree had elements of both. Clear now?”
I do maintain mutual exclusivity. In your example of a factory, neither the process nor the product had “mind” or “intelligence.” “Intelligence” is a precondition for the design of a process that creates a complex product. By complex, I mean a system of components that interact to achieve a useful function. The architect’s plans are not the house. You can have the plans w/o the house, but you can’t have the house w/o the plans.
You wrote:
Your task is to show that all such "materialistic processes ... require 'mind' first". If you can't do that, you'd have to admit that it's possible that some such "materialistic processes" do not require such.
If macro evolution is to be taught as a fact, we need proof that no mind is necessary to produce all compex systems we observe in nature. The onus is on you. And yet, regarding legs to wings (or any number of other supposed evolutionary developments of complex systems), no one reading this blog has been able to supply credible ideas for how this one example could have occurred. Think about this carefully. In order to bypass “mind” we create something that even our mind cannot conceive. Ironic.
More fundamentally, let’s consider ultimate origins. There really are only two alternatives.
Some people claim there was a past effect (event) that created matter and energy. Governed by constitutive equations, over time this matter and energy created all there is. There is no stated cause for this primordial effect. There is no other ultimate “Truth.”
(Note: it is “true” that the sun is shining. But, this truth is a result of the primordial effect, according to this view.)
Alternatively, some people believe that a “mind” preceded any energy and matter creation, and that this “mind” continues to govern and define all there is. Thus, there are “materialistic” and “non-materialistic” truths in the world.
(Note: some claim there are hybrid interpretations. For example, a “mind” could have started everything in progress and is now hands-off. This view reduces to the first view, as it only offers a cause to the primordial effect.)
Let me be perfectly clear. The first view is logically untenable from many respects. Yet, many scientists take this view, not realizing its illogical nature.
Finally, regarding irreducible complexity. I’ve seen references to www.talkorgins.com and have perused the website. Some supposed solutions to the ic puzzle are offered, including a scheme to “evolve” a mouse trap. Interesting, but not credible. Again, I put a premium on real analysis and prototyping. Using classical strength of materials methodology and with FEA I analyzed the first “design” of a one component mouse trap. It’s a triangularly shaped piece of wire. Unless young’s modulus of elasticity is 5x that of steel and unless the strain at plastic deformation is 10x that of high strength tensile steel, the device has no hope of hurting a mouse. A regular mouse trap stores energy in a spring. A triangular piece of steel wire cannot hold much energy, nor can it deform much w/o plastic deformation. Sorry, that’s life.
But, I didn’t stop there. I went out to my machine shop and prototyped such an object. Even w/o much clamping force, when the trap was “cocked and loaded” I could drop it from a height of about 12 inches and it would not spring. I don’t imagine even a geek mouse would ever spring it. But if he did spring it, it wouldn’t hurt him.
Other supposed schemes by which ic machines or simple organisms could evolve from one-componet systems should be analyzed and prototyped. A simple intellectual exercise is not good enough.
177 - Mr. O
What are some experimentally testable predictive statements offered by evolutionary theory and ID, respectively?
Evolution: 4 basic predictions you can test
1. If different organisms share a common ancestor then they should share similar DNA
2. If different species share a common ancestor then they should have analogous structures.
3. If different species share a common ancestor then they should look similar in early developmental stages.
4. If different species share a common ancestor then fossil remains of such species will look more similar the further back in time we look.
Intelligent Design: Field Test
1. Go build a moustrap. If you are intelligent enough to do it then you are an Intelligent Designer, and that proves God designed the Universe. End of debate!
178 - diana hartman
i believe it was brought up earlier but no one answered or addressed it: those who insist ID be taught alongside evolution in schools don't also insist that evolution be taught alongside ID in sunday school, church sermons, etc...
why is that?
if one argues that there is no separation or that there should be no separation of church and state, then shouldn't this extend equally in both directions?
179 - Blue State
There are two competing theories of Intelligent Design, Michael Behe's and William Dembski's. There may in fact be more. How many should we teach in school?
180 - diana hartman
How many should we teach in school?
neither and none in my opinion, but that wasn't my question...
if those who believe ID should get equal billing in public schools then doesn't it follow that evolution should get equal billing in religious schools?
181 - Hobart
Diana,
I'm not sure how serious you are, nor in what spirit to answer your question. Here's a try ...
Perhaps you're referring to the fact that "Sunday School" is often a format for teaching about morality. Certainly, if that's the topic, then teaching ID and evolution side by side makes a great deal of sense.
ID tends to say that we are created. Some intelligence created us, and we thus reflect somewhat of this intelligence. We can reasonably suppose we're designed with some purpose that relates to our designer.
Evolution tends to say our purpose is surviving. Ultimately, the law of the jungle has given us existence. To continue this path can reasonably be considered our purpose in life.
In The Descent of Man Darwin wrote that, at some future point in time, a new species of Man would arise that was as far advanced from the present-day Caucasian (1860) as the Caucasian was from the Negro. Racisim is a quite logical social prediction of evolutionary thought.
Nietzsche read Darwin and wrote, "What is man but that which is hung between the worm and the super man?"
Hitler read Nietzsche and wrote that it was his destiny - his duty - to see if the Arian race was the next evolutionary step. 1936 Nazi propagana showing Jesse Owen's "evolution" from a monkey is history. So is the Holocaust.
Teaching evolution and ID would be very, very appropriate in Sunday School.
182 - KYS
Hobart,
An interesting discussion, to be sure. But not in a public school science class. Agreed?
183 - The Fifth Dentist
Hobart:
So in you mind it goes:
Darwin->Nietsche->Hitler->holocaust.
The truth is that much of the Nazi ideoleogy was rooted in pseudoscience: a very dangerous game to play. That's why I wish you'd stop playing it.
184 - diana hartman
so if ID were presented in public schools as part of the humanities curriculum and evolution were included in religious educational studies across the country, that would be good for everyone?
185 - Hobart
KYS - No, racism is not part of science education. I was responding in a good-humored way to Diana's idea to teach evolution and ID in "Sunday School."
The Fifth Dentist - If you're saying that "Pseudoscience" applies to Darwin's Descent of Man, I certainly agree with you. His racist ideas (coming from his theory of evolution) are not valid. He drew an evolutionary line from lower primates to negros to Europeans to ... some future race. Today's science shows aboriginees and negros to be on opposite ends of the DNA spectrum of homo sapiens (and very, very little difference at that) with all other races between these supposed "lower" forms of humanity. Here is an example of a Darwinian prediction that has been falsified. And let me make clear that even writing about this is uncomfortable for me because I truly despise racism in all its guises.
Diana - Via my response to you, I was illustrating the interplay between science and morality. They are not independent. I mean, come on everyone, if it's not wrong for alpha chimp A to kill alpha chimp B in order to mate with female chimp C, and if time is all that separates us from chimps (fine, pick whatever supposed pre-human primate you want)then draw your own conclusions. Hitler did.
I would not banish ID from science because its treatment of information theory and irreducible complexity are, in my opinion, scientific. Teaching this is part of free inquiry. Anything less is ... psuedoscience.
186 - The Searcher
Still at it, I see...sort of like how on another blog some are persisting at trying to convince anyone who'll listen that Christianity is the official religion of the United States.
Mr.O: Thanks very much for offering the testable predictions. Funnily enough, I've yet to see any ID proponents rebut them, but I shall hold out hope.
187 - The Fifth Dentist
Pseudoscience is anything which claims to be scientific but isn't the product of the scientific method. Intelligent Design is a great example. Unless you have a testable hypothesis it isn't science. The claim that an all powerful being created the world and then disappeared (while it may be true for all anyone knows) is definitely not a testable hypothesis. It is therefore outside the bounds of science. That's why we relegate stuff like that to a special field called "religion." And because these questions are ultimately unanswerable, the law in this country takes the sensible position that everyone should draw their own conclusions without governmental interference. Now why do you want to mess with a great system like that and force your religious beliefs on other people's children?
188 - diana hartman
where did proponents of ID get the idea that there could/would/should be an intelligent designer?
189 - Luke
How does Intelligent design explain the periodical increases in biodiversity which follow mass extinctions? Isn't evolution the only solution that makes sense here, because there's less species to compete with after a mass extinction, any new specie has a better shot at making it, it's a condition of evolution that this must happen right? So how does Intelligent design do the same thing? The designer caused the extinction because he was bored with what he created and then decided to make some new stuff? That's dumb.
190 - Luke
In reponse to Hobart post No.185:
So what if Darwin was racist? Everyone back then was, and they didn't even feel the need to give it a nasty sounding word, black people were inferior, end of story, the idea that they weren't inferior had never even been thought up, and all anyone needed to do was look at black african society, and then look at european society, and draw a conclusion from the differences, and the main difference was primitive versus advanced, I'm just saying, if you're looking for any science that's more than 100 years old, it'll be very tough to find any that isn't racist, in fact, it'll be very tough to find any literature at all that isn't racist, (this is assuming that black people are mentioned in it)
and I think you'll find that religion was also very racist back then, and nobody needed an Intelligent design theory because religion was always right, the earth being the center of the universe, and a whole lot of other stupid things, were taken as proven fact.
The point is over time values and ideas change, current evolutionary theory likely doesn't suggest that black people are less human than white people, and religion probably doesn't suggest that either, so don't bother playing the race card in an Evolution vs Intelligent Design discussion, because that is just plain dumb
191 - badger3k
It's a bit of a strain reading all the comments, especially trying to filter through the same creationist arguments we've been hearing since the '80s at least, but I wanted to add Internet Infidels Evolution/Discussion forum (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66) to any links (if it hasn't been given out already). A lot of information is available there, and most of us don't bite. There are a lot of professional scientists who regularly post and are able to correct the lies and distortions that people like Dembski and Behe make. I'm sure the Panda's Thumb and other sites have been mentioned, so I'll leave all those alone.
192 - Hobart
Fifth Dentist - ID does have a testable hypothesis. Imagine someone said, "Some man has a vertical jump of 10 feet. Prove me wrong." While I could measure the vertical leap of hundreds of men, I still could not directly prove that no one could have a 10 foot vertical jump unless I measured everyone. Alternatively, it would be necessary to anaylse the muscular and skeletal potential of humans, model the structure, and then show that even with an optimal human, a 10 foot vertical leap is impossible. Yet, I can't directly prove the assertion wrong.
The ID hypothesis is something like, "Specific complexity of even simple life forms cannot arise by random, undirected naturalistic processes." Note that this does not require testing the capacity of an all-powerful being. The argument is from the existence of negation. If it can't be unintelligently "designed", it must be intelligently designed.
Thus, Diana. Why could/would/should be ID? Imagine you're taking a hike and you look down and see an arrowhead. You pick it up and note its specific shape, etc. Could it have occurred by naturalistic processes? Is it just a regular rock that happens to be in the shape of an arrowhead? After all, there are many other rocks lying around that are just that - rocks. Not surprisingly, there are tests that deduce whether it is a true arrowhead, for example, many fine, regular chips in the stone that come from another stone tool. It becomes impossible to imagine a naturalistic process that created the object. This may seem to be simlar to the argument from incredulity; yet when coupled with mathematical modeling, it becomes scientifially testable. At least, that's the ID assertion.
Or, Diana, maybe your question is more practical. Maybe you're asking "What difference does it make?" Well, read the stuff I wrote earlier about evolution and racism. You could even consider such ideals as love or justice. These words are just evolutionary constructs that have aided human survival, if naturalistic evolution is true, and human life really isn't "worth" anything. While offering no specifics, ID says life is "designed."
Luke, you're right. Science changes with time. In 1920, the earth was 2 billion years old. In 1975, I was taught the earth was 4 billion years old and that man was 80,000 years old. Now, we read the earth is 6 billion years old and man is close to 500,000 yeas old. Hmm. Maybe it would be logical not to be dogmatic about the claims of current science. If the past is any indication of the future, we'll dogmatically believe something different tomorrow.
193 - diana hartman
"Specific complexity of even simple life forms cannot arise by random, undirected naturalistic processes."
how do you go about testing this hypothesis?
194 - The Searcher
Well, you could put some stuff in a test tube and wait around for a few billion years.
195 - Nobody
For all the ID'ers, here ya go:
link
196 - Morne
This is nothing! The fundamentalist has already moved on to prove the next "big thing" according to their own ideas... They are saying gravity does not exist. Read here!!
the ONION
197 - Lya
LOL excellent. Bashing one's head under a toliet seat would be a lot more productive than reading the worthless, childish "proof" of Creationism (oh sorry, ID)
That said, I say let the IDiots waste class time on this garbage. Then, when they're children are 45 years old and still working the night shift at McD's- no one will wonder why.
:)
198 - willcodfish
192-Hobart
"Fifth Dentist - ID does have a testable hypothesis. Imagine someone said, "Some man has a vertical jump of 10 feet. Prove me wrong." While I could measure the vertical leap of hundreds of men, I still could not directly prove that no one could have a 10 foot vertical jump unless I measured everyone. Alternatively, it would be necessary to anaylse the muscular and skeletal potential of humans, model the structure, and then show that even with an optimal human, a 10 foot vertical leap is impossible. Yet, I can't directly prove the assertion wrong.
The ID hypothesis is something like, "Specific complexity of even simple life forms cannot arise by random, undirected naturalistic processes." Note that this does not require testing the capacity of an all-powerful being. The argument is from the existence of negation. If it can't be unintelligently "designed", it must be intelligently designed."
Your clear lack of logic is in your very words. Unfortunately, in the world of reason and more importantly, the world of science, the "if it's not this, then it MUST be the opposite" string doesn't work.
Your first example of the vertical leap doesn't hold up either. "Prove me wrong" doesn't hold up in 1st grade and certainly doesn't hold in advanced science.
Please - educate yourself in the fundamentals, at a minimum, before making a complete ass out of yourself.
199 - Nobody
Yes, that is the bifurcation fallacy.
Read about it here.
It's also funny that the ID'ers accept microevolution and then claim macroevolution is nonsense. Hmm, what if macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution?
Also, isn't it funny how the ID'ers say that there isn't enough evidence for evolution and then they go on to say there must be a designer, which there is no evidence for. Where is this designer? Us "evolutionists" and I'm sure all those scientists would love to ask him/her/it some questions. Either enlighten us as to who this designer is, or just say it's god. If you don't have the guts to say it, then shut the fuck up and go stick your noses back in your Bible and quit trying to prove that your god exists by pointing out "flaws" in evolution.
200 - diana hartman
i found an interesting news article yesterday
201 - Hobart
I addressed the bifurcation question already. Post 176 reads, in part...
______
Some people claim there was a past effect (event) that created matter and energy. Governed by constitutive equations, over time this matter and energy created all there is. There is no stated cause for this primordial effect. There is no other ultimate “Truth.”
(Note: it is “true” that the sun is shining. But, this truth is a result of the primordial effect, according to this view.)
Alternatively, some people believe that a “mind” preceded any energy and matter creation, and that this “mind” continues to govern and define all there is. Thus, there are “materialistic” and “non-materialistic” truths in the world.
(Note: some claim there are hybrid interpretations. For example, a “mind” could have started everything in progress and is now hands-off. This view reduces to the first view, as it only offers a cause to the primordial effect.)
Let me be perfectly clear. The first view is logically untenable from many respects. Yet, many scientists take this view, not realizing its illogical nature.
____________
I'm sincerely puzzled that the existence of negation as a law of logic seems to be being questioned. (If A then not not A.) Or, if you question my assertion that materialism's negation is non-materialism, then please explain.
Regarding micro and macro. Evolution is a fact as far as the definition goes: "Change in the gene frequency distribution from one generation to another." Micro evolution involves selection among existing genetic programming. A beak can be big or small or skin may be white or brown. It's exactly anaologous to a parameterized CAD part. By changing a variable one changes the dimensions of the part, but, when you save the file, the total file size is the same. Macro evolution would involve introduction of new genetic information - i.e., the file size would be bigger - and the design would have true new functionality. Reshuffling existing information is fundamentally different than adding new functional information.
Nobody - I read through the link you provided, with particular attention to the supposed evolution of reptiles to birds, which which I am most familiar. Citing fossils that have various characteristics does not prove ancestry. The existence of a bipedal reptile, plus a bird that can't take off from the ground, plus a bird that can take off from the ground is not grounds to say one evolved into another. I've been requesting anyone to provide a simple schematic showing evolution of birds from reptiles.
Yes, birds capable of flight can and do evolve into flightless birds. This involves the loss of genetic information - i.e., de-evolution.
Also, Nobody - regarding ID vs "god." let me sincerely respond. The scientific study of "what's out there" (I'm sorry, I don't want to use the word "creation" for obvious reasons) is a marvelous conquest. The word "revelation" refers to the belief some people have about how some creator has or does speak to people about himself. Believing something is "revelation" requires faith. Faith is not science.
ID posits you do not need faith to ascertain whether something is designed or whether it is the result of naturalistic causes.
Naturalism is not the same thing as science. Believing that the material universe is all there is requires faith (and is illogical.) Secular humanism is recognized as religion.
202 - The Fifth Dentist
ID is a load of crap. Go to bed Hobart.
203 - Nobody
No, believing that there is something more than nature, like the supernatural and gods and designers, and revelation from those gods or designers requires faith, you are correct.
At least with nature, we actually know it is there and can see it and can test things using it. ID does require faith and violates Occam's Razor [don't explain the unknown by inventing things that are themselves unexplained].
Again I ask, who or what is this designer and where is he/she/it?
If your designer cannot be tested, it is not scientific. Nor is it scientific if you already start with the conclusion and then search for evidence to back it up.
204 - N
As for secular humanism, it is not a religion unless you want to use the fourth definition here
But even if you do, it is not a religion in the traditional sense as defined by 1b 1-2 on the same link as above.
Read here
and here, third paragraph.
Atheism is also called a religion, but that doesn't make it true either.
205 - JR
How the heck have I been given a religion ?
The proof there is no god is there for all to see if they choose to, but we know that those of faith prefer bull to reason.
NO PROOF of evolution ? I think so. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
And before the spurious arguments of that other pile of horse dung "answersingenesis" are put forward, read real science in http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
PROOF of no god ? Look at mitochondria, speaks a different language to the rest of the cell, needs RNA to translate. What crappy god would "design" that along with redundant DNA from previous evolutionary blind alleys.
Jesus of Nazareth ? There was no such place when he was supoosed to be around.
And to hear of his suffering, what about the thousands of others who suffered the exact same fate ?
The "good book". Too many contradictions to be a true book of god, any god.
Not convinced ? Probably not, but if you do start to think for yourself, the cloak of superstition will drop from your shoulders and leave you free to live life happily and fully, rather than oppressed by a manmade tool of repression and fear.
206 - Hobart
Nobody, JR, others - You seem to be attacking the straw man by saying ID equates to Christianity, then turning your guns on it.
Believing there is something more than nature (what we can see and test) is essential to the very discussion we're having. For example ...
Let's verbally express set theory:
All squares are rectangles.
All rectangles are quadrilaterals.
Therefore, all squares are quadrilaterals.
Now, I hope we all agree the third statement is true. Let's think about its character.
I can open the pantry and discover if crackers are in the pantry. Crackers are "material." But, I can't open the pantry and discover set theory, or, more broadly speaking the laws of logic. But, I still take it as being true. It exists, and I even use its existence to understand "nature."
First point: the laws of logic are immaterial.
Next, I've never been to the far side of the moon. But, I presuppose that all squares are quadrilaterals - even on the far side of the moon, and everywhere else one could imagine.
Second point: the laws of logic are universal.
Finally, I've never verified that all squares are quadrilaterals tomorrow. Yes, every empiricl test I performed yesterday showed this to be true, and every test I did today showed this to be true, but I must presuppose it to be true tomorrow.
Third point: the laws of logic are invariant.
Thus, our hopefully meaningful exchanges here rest on, and presuppose the truth of, a set of laws that are immaterial, universal, and invariant.
If you say that something which is immaterial cannot be true, then you're commiting what I'll call the "crackers in the pantry" fallacy.
So, Noboby, the onus is not on ID to show you some designer. If you ascribe to the laws of logic, you already believe that something is true that you will never see or measure. You use these laws in order to make sense of and understand the world you DO see.
Please note that, in attempting to show the existence of truth that does not have a material nature, I have employed no god. I have appealed directly to your intellect.
Do you agree with my argument above? That is, do you agree that we all admit the laws of logic are true, immaterial, invariant, and universal.
207 - Luke
"Luke, you're right. Science changes with time. In 1920, the earth was 2 billion years old. In 1975, I was taught the earth was 4 billion years old and that man was 80,000 years old. Now, we read the earth is 6 billion years old and man is close to 500,000 yeas old. Hmm. Maybe it would be logical not to be dogmatic about the claims of current science. If the past is any indication of the future, we'll dogmatically believe something different tomorrow."
The more scientists know, the more they'll teach us, if they can only trace back 2 billions years of earths history, then that's all the history that exists, my rationalization of this is, they could have told us the earth was 6 billion years old in 1920, but they could only confirm 2 billion years, as technology and research improves, more history is revealed, if they're unaware of the other 4 billion years, it would be foolish to just make it up, better to tell people what you know, i'd be more worried if the time scale was getting shorter rather than longer. Genetic research also has revealed that races are almost genetically identical, just look at tiger woods, he's only a quarter black, but by chance most of the small number of genes that control outward appearance came from his one black grandparent, the other 99.99% of genes do the most important stuff, like making sure you have all the correct internal organs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 10 fingers and 10 toes, that .01% left over is what makes us look different from each other.
208 - Hobart
Luke - I appreciate your feedback.
... and scientists can be just plain wrong. For example, the theory of phlogiston "assumed that all combustible bodies , including metals, contained a common material phlogiston, which escaped on combustion but could be readily transferred from one body to another." (Michael Denton (not a Christian), Evolution, a theory in crisis, 1986).
Experiments with zinc and phosophorus appeared to prove the theory right. The theory was fully accepted for over 100 years and debated for an additonal 100 years before being disproven. Phlogiston was imaginary. Yet, it was rigidly adhered to throughout the 18th century.
Why? The theory drove science and conditioned data interpretation. It was accepted so widely that no one presented alternative theories - and data that did not support the theory was minimized via ad hoc additional assumptions.
Science should be humble. When the proponents of a particular theroy start acting as though they are the priests of truth, they have already started down the path of acting like religious zealots. Science should embrace skepticism.
Regarding a famous golfer. We could say that he has evolved from his grandfather - in a micro-evolution sense. And, some blog posts here claim that macro evolution is the accumulation of the changes of micro evolution. So, the way we look could be construed as being very, very important ...
The direct connection between racism and the theory of evolution certainly seems undeniable. This observation does little to weaken the theory of evolution. It just points out collateral implications. I'm not saying that evolutionists are all racists. But, an evolutionist who is racist is just being consistent.
209 - Luke
Not all natural selection is evolution, there're genes that control pigmentation of the skin, in a cold environment, people who have a gene sequence that will make them light skinned are better suited for that environment, and for a sunny environment, the exact opposite, even though darwin thought black people "evolved" into white people, if you took a black man and a white man and you peeled their skin off, you be hard pressed to find a lot of differences between them.
And no, I don't think you could say tiger woods evolved from his grandfather, he's just a regular person, genetically he's only as dissimilar from you and I as we are from eachother, and everyone else. As for Evolution driving science and conditioning data interpretation, the way I see it, evolution is the only explanation avaible, that doesn't resort to a magical imaginary agent X, no aliens, no gods, no silly stuff, it's really the only thing anyone has to go on, and if it's wrong and there is a magical being pully the strings, then we were no worse off than we were before, because biologists want something they can do research on, they want to make discoveries, if everything leads to "god did it" then why would anyone have a reason to do the work? They only do research to find out how the different species came about, the answer can't be god, otherwise there would be no reason to try and find the answers, you get it? You either say god did it and do nothing, or you say evolution did it, and then start doing research to find out what evolution has occured, scientists have to believe that there is a point to being a scientist, that research has value.
Not to mention the orgy of evidence that confirms evolution.
210 - Nobody
Let's face facts, ID has no proof behind it. What you do is point at alleged flaws in evolution and say "wow, look at this, this could not have happened naturally.. therefore, some designer thingie did it!" Don't you think that is jumping to conclusions? And this designer would have to be god-like to design such things, would it not? That's what I mean when I compare it to god.
It's like gonzo said in comment 13:
"NO model for provable/disprovable experimentation, NO quantifiable or qualifiable axioms. Instead is seems to be nothing more than attempting to prove negatives by pointing towards misunderstood parts of evolutionary Theory."
I'm not saying the designer is impossible, but I am saying I don't see a reason to believe it is anything other than nonsense and religion-based.
Hobie: "Believing there is something more than nature (what we can see and test) is essential to the very discussion we're having."
Ok, then this is where you and I disagree. I don't see a reason to believe in the supernatural or whatever you call that stuff that is "more than nature." You seem to be acting like its a fact that such things exist. Wouldn't these things also require some kind of proof instead of presuming they are real, like that designer thing?
Hobart: "If you ascribe to the laws of logic, you already believe that something is true that you will never see or measure. "
But the question is, in this case, that designer thing that I can never see or measure, is there any good reason to believe it? To me, no.
The onus is not on ID'ers to prove IDs claims?? What, do you want me to prove your point for you, Mr. Burden Shifter??
So, do you want to keep discussing this, or agree to disagree and move on?
211 - Hobart
Nobody - I'm just trying to show that there are things that are real (like the laws of logic) that are immaterial. I can't show you the laws of logic, but we both (I think) agree that they exist. In fact, these laws are not defined by us. They overarch our existence and define our existence.
If there is reality out there that is immaterial, then perhaps there are other such realities. It then seems, well, inconsistent for you to DEMAND to see a designer (or some "god") in order to acknowledge his existence. I can't presuppose any such designer to have a material nature because I admit that some very basic realities are immaterial.
I'm not trying to shift any "blame." ID DOES NOT claim to be able to see or measure any "designer." ID claims to be able to see evidence of his existence in the material world - just like forensics (a science, actually) can prove criminal activity w/o identifying a criminal.
212 - Nobody
Yes, we both agree logic exists. Many intangible, immaterial concepts exists.. like gods, angels, ghosts and such.
Even if I can't see this designer or god or those other things I just mentioned, I would still like some good reasons to believe in them. Thus far, I don't see any. Remember, make the fewest assumptions [Occam's Razor]. If it can be explained by nature and natural things, why appeal to the supernatural?
Like I said, it's jumping to conclusions to say that because there are things we cannot see then that must mean there is stuff out there like designers and gods. Well, ok.. then there must also be giant orange space dragons that fire big ice bullets out of their mouths and eat planets to sustain themselves. Now, you can't deny that possibility, but is there any good reason to believe it?
It's like the flying reindeer thing in this article.
I didn't say blame, I said burden.. of proof.
So, the designer is a he now? :) Hmmm.
No, but ID'ers do claim that there is a designer who designed some stuff, so who or what is it? Christians also claim that they see evidence of their god's existence just by looking at the Earth. Surely something so grand must have been made by him. Actually, you don't need a god for that. See why here.
So, do we need a designer? In my opinion, no.
"Intelligent Design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down."
The source of that quote above is here.
213 - JR
There is no "logic" Hobart, that can be applied to every cell of our bodies or of anything else as we presently understand it. At the molecular level nothing acts the way expected by scientists. Pieces of matter appear in one place and move to another without passing between them. The previous diagrams of swirling energy around a nucleous are wrong. There is less understanding of how things work below a certain size than about how things work on the size of galaxies, and there is much not known about that.
Your claim that "his" existence is shown by evidence is another shift of the burden of proof onto others. I truely believed for most of my life in god and his son but never got my head round the "holy spirit". The opportunity, however, to read facts and arguments from all sources allowed me, and many others, to break the shackles of superstition and see this universe for what it is.
A fluke
Nothing more nor less. A place where life and intelligence has arisen by chance. But once taken hold, life will hang on and fill every nook and cranny it can. Evidence ? There is a particular bacteria that lives around the anus of one particular type of animal. Why would any god waste their time with that. Lichens are a symbiotic plant where one part gathers the minerals from rock so the other part can feed on it. What else does it do ? Nothing. It just is and thats what it continues to be.
There are many examples of "waste" for want of a better word, that god has spent time on. But if you have the freedom from fear to question religious mores you can quickly find many real examples for yourself that will break any reliance on gods of any denomination.
My hope is for everone to see for themselves the truth around them and not be misled by those whose agenda isnt "gods work" but has more to do with control and wealth making.
214 - Shimoesh
Ok so i only read less than half of this thread before i got annoyed yet again at the blatent stupidity of people that belive in ID.
1st ID is based on religion, therefore one or MORE beings created things including us, if this is the case who created them
2nd Science is peer reviewed, that is to say people think of an idea, then do an experiment to test this out, then the results are published... um where are the papers that support ID ????
3rd i am a Computer Scientist, and i have been using programs based on 'survival - of the fittest' beacuse the ones based on ID - i.e. me creating them (or other)... well suck, and the Genetic Algorithms are the way to go
4th this is the one that really annoys me..
If 'GOD' creates things, why is it the christian god??? please answer me this, why not any other god.. also if we are talking about god this by defenition is religious, and so far has not been proven, so stop trying to force this RUBBISH onto the wider community without proof, any decent arguments and physical evidence.. any thing even a squirrel with a signature on is saying 'Made by God' no really.. go on