Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LateCatholic said:
Another, perhaps better, example is the human blind spot. A simple change and we would have a much more functional eye. The “design” of the human eye actually DISPROVES intelligent design.
Click to expand...
Pleaaaase don’t use this one. Do some more research on the eye to see how marvelous it is.

Bad design is still design, so no, it does not invalidate ID.
 
looskanal said:
If there really is a rational truth then why do rational beings disagree about what that rational truth is?
Click to expand...
Lack of information
Bias is often the culprit (that might apply to you)
Cognitive dissonance due to ones desires.
Value judgements that defy the truth
Wilful ignorance
Deceit
Cognitive dysfunction.
Mental illness
Or just plain old errors in judgement due to the illusion that something or other is true.
 
Last edited:
God is perfect, and everything else is comparably bad. A perfect designer designing perfection would be copying itself infinitely.
 
looskanal said:
But shouldn’t a rational being be able recognize these flaws,
Click to expand...
In hindsight they generally do unless they are stubborn or mentally ill or one of the other possibilities.

Sometimes, even though we generally have a natural inclination to think about things reasonably we do not always seek to improve on that principle or have a systematic understanding of what thinking reasonably actually is. That can open us up to erroneous ideas.
 
looskanal said:
And don’t you think that everyone else believes the same thing?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But it doesn’t follow that we do not have a natural capacity to think rationally.

To deny that would be to make the comparison between rational and irrational meaningless. But clearly, unless somebody has a psychological problem that’s stopping them from seeing it, we would all agree that we exist (a basic fundamental act of rational knowledge).
 
Last edited:
looskanal said:
But as to rationality versus irrationality, if the difference between the two is that irrational thinking contains flaws, and pretty much everyone’s thinking contains flaws
Click to expand...
It’s only possible to discover a flaw if you are a rational animal by nature. Otherwise nobody would have any comprehension about the idea of being rational. The existence or errors does not negate that fact.

I wonder if your bias for your line of thinking at this point will loosen up a bit?
 
LateCatholic said:
40.png
niceatheist:
No doubt they contribute, but the curvature of the human spine is not optimized for bipedalism.
Click to expand...
Another, perhaps better, example is the human blind spot. A simple change and we would have a much more functional eye. The “design” of the human eye actually DISPROVES intelligent design.
Click to expand...
What blind spot?
I don’t have a blind spot.
My eyes see 100% of what they look at.

Are you one of those people who think we only use 10% of our brain?
 
Bradskii said:
Trust me. You are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process and your value to the universe is zero.
Click to expand...
I am the pinnacle of the creatures and I am so worthy the whole universe work for my life(Ofcourse God provide).
 
Bradskii said:
If there was a designer then we would be fit for purpose. We are barely fit to survive. We are an accident of the evolutionary process. If nature had deemed otherwise, if there were sliding doors that closed on one early life form and opened on another, then you and I would never have existed and your imagination is the only door into what life would be like now.
Click to expand...
If…if…if…if…if… But very perfectly acts occuring dispute and despite “ifs”.
 
Wesrock said:
Again, why must that which is omniscient be complex?
Click to expand...
An omniscient being knows the exact contents of every book (paper or electronic) in every library on earth, past, present and future. By any objective measure of complexity, that amount of information is complex.
 
Lion_IRC said:
Could you please start by explaining how “a process” - in which some or all of its elements are random/unpredictable/spontaneous - can be seen as non-random in its entirety.
Click to expand...
We put a random (name removed by moderator)ut (the mutations) through a non-random filter (natural selection). The output is non-random because of the filter.

Take a mix of randomly sized grains of sand, gravel and pebbles. Pour that mix through a sieve – the filter. Whatever passes through the sieve no longer has a random range of sized, there is an upper bound on the grain size, set by the mesh of the sieve.

Filtering a random (name removed by moderator)ut will give a non-random output.
 
IWantGod said:
I don’t see why any imperfection would mean that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. But by any reasonable criteria, we are a very bad design indeed. So if God did design us, He did a very bad job. And not just on us.

However, if He allowed evolution to run its course with the intent that it ended up with us, faults being accepted as part of the process, then it all makes perfect sense.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
Could you please start by explaining how “a process” - in which some or all of its elements are random/unpredictable/spontaneous - can be seen as non-random in its entirety.
Click to expand...
We put a random (name removed by moderator)ut (the mutations) through a non-random filter (natural selection). The output is non-random because of the filter.

Take a mix of randomly sized grains of sand, gravel and pebbles. Pour that mix through a sieve – the filter. Whatever passes through the sieve no longer has a random range of sized, there is an upper bound on the grain size, set by the mesh of the sieve.

Filtering a random (name removed by moderator)ut will give a non-random output.
Click to expand...
Oh my Lord.
The jargon woo is strong with this one. Evolution doesn’t deliberately/accidentally ‘filter’ anything.

Mutations - random/spontaneous/unpredictable
Natural selection - luck

This is worse than God-of-the-gaps!
 
Last edited:
Lion_IRC said:
Mutations - random/spontaneous/unpredictable
Natural selection - luck
Click to expand...
Mutation: Random/spontaneous/unpredictable.
Natural selection: The differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype giving rise to the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations.

The fact that a creature has better eyesight than its neighbour is random. The fact that this gives it a better chance of survival is not.

This is evolution 101.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who disparage the process whilst exhibiting next to no knowledge of it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top