Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The ancient Greeks will be surprised to discover that their science was born of Christianity, before Christianity even existed. Likewise all those Indian and Chinese scientists who operated in pre-Christian societies.

You might also want to look at Ibn-alHaytham and his work on optics.
 
o_mlly said:
Simpler and more powerful.
Click to expand...
So, Apple pays all those designers it employs to sit around and do nothing? A modern computer appears simpler, but in reality it is far more complex than original computers. Just look at the relative memory sizes and computation speeds.
 
rossum said:
The Intelligent Design proposal is self-refuting. It contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Click to expand...
It has been known and acknowledged from the beginning that ID, like many pro-theist arguments, are logically invalid because they contain the fallacy of “special pleading”. In other words, my position only stands if there is an exception to my position. You make a nice argument but your really only needed two words.
rossum said:
A non-intelligent designer (the ‘stupid’ option above). This is in effect evolution, an unintelligent process.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not “unintelligent”. It may be “non-intelligent” based on your definition of intelligence. Keep in mind evolution is a PROCESS. It is not random, as many here would like you to believe. Evolution can be simplified such that:
  1. Things change
  2. Those changes that are beneficial tend to propagate and become mainstream
I know this is simplifying things immensely, especially from a biological perspective, but that is the essence. It is an basic premise of reality. You may as well say “gravity is unintelligent”. I guess. But saying it is ‘unintelligent’ gets theists upset.

Evolution is NOT an anti-theist concept, just as gravity is not. However, by extension and interpretation, evolution certainly contradicts Catholic doctrine - especially orthodox Catholic doctrine. However, in and of itself, you can be religious and agree evolution is part of our reality.
 
LateCatholic said:
Evolution is NOT an anti-theist concept, just as gravity is not.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Those who are against evolution for religious reasons either have a small God, one who cannot encompass evolution to His purpose, or an overly literal interpretation of Genesis. Evolution is not contrary to the wider conception of God.
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
Bradskii:
So like a director who makes a film allowing all his actors to ad lib (free will). He has seen the final cut but we are just living the part.

So He knows exactly what each of us will do and act and where we will end up.
Click to expand...
Interesting take! I hadn’t considered that analogy!
Click to expand...
It does mean that you can adlib all you want but God knows what happens to you in the final reel.

You feel like you are playing a part which can end up in so many ways. But the film is in the can. You can’t edit it.
 
mhmtas63 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
The process is not random.
Click to expand...
Process is not random but process cannot be by unconscious power or random chances. Process is so excellent and perfectly so an unconscious power and random chances cannot do that.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase: ‘The process is not random but the process cannot be random.’

Well…yeah. It isn’t.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
Unless evolutionary science has a better theory, I would say deliberate design is the best explanation for the phenomenon of rocks/dirt acquiring consciousness.
Click to expand...
Are you proposing an unconscious designer, like evolution?
Click to expand...
No.
God isn’t asleep on the job. LOL
And since when is evolution an ‘unconscious designer’?
 
Substitute the word intelligence with the word consciousness .

Unless evolutionary science has a better theory, I would say deliberate design is the best explanation for the phenomenon of rocks/dirt acquiring consciousness.
niceatheist said:
Can you cite anyone who says rocks and dirt acquire consciousness. This is a rather blatant strawman
Click to expand...
Strawman?
Animate/inanimate. Life from non-life. Abiogenesis.
These aren’t my inventions.
A few thousand/million/billion years ago you had rocks.
Today you have autonomous, sentient, conscious (nephesh) souls.

Is your science text book different to mine??!!
😳
 
Last edited:
Lion_IRC said:
God isn’t asleep on the job. LOL
Click to expand...
Yet another thing the omnipotent God can’t do: sleep.
Lion_IRC said:
And since when is evolution an ‘unconscious designer’?
Click to expand...
Evolution is not conscious, and it can give the appearance of design to humans. We are not very good at detecting design – we tend to see it too frequently – so it is relatively easy to fool us.
 
Lion_IRC said:
Animate/inanimate. Life from non-life. Abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
Abiogenesis is not evolution; is has a lot more chemistry in it than evolution. And the (rough) equivalent of natural selection works somewhat differently.

On the origin of life, it is worth pointing out that ID has no explanation for the origin of life. Just ask yourself: “ID ID’s Designer alive?”

Science does not have the full explanation yet since Abiogenesis is a work-in-progress. But it has more of an explanation than ID does.
 
rossum said:
God exists. Creation exists. In the sense of existence He is not distinct from creation. He is distinct in many things, such as knowledge and lifetime, but He is not distinct in the sense of existence. The set of “things that exist” contains God and creation.
Click to expand...
A being in time cannot create time.
 
rossum said:
So, Apple pays all those designers it employs to sit around and do nothing? A modern computer appears simpler, but in reality it is far more complex than original computers. Just look at the relative memory sizes and computation speeds.
Click to expand...
The Apple computer not only appears simpler, it is simpler. Please do look at the memory sizes and speeds; the two are aspects of power, not complexity. Then look at how each computer achieves memory and speed: solid state transistors and integrated circuits vs tubes and discrete electronic switches.

Because the transistor was so much smaller and consumed significantly less power, a computer system built with transistors was also much smaller, faster, and more efficient than a computer system built with vacuum tubes .

For the ID argument, one may assert that human intelligence is of the tube and discrete switch variety. The ID uses transistors and IC chips. The former are complicated, the latter simple.

Your argument makes an assertion that ID does not. You assign complexity as a property not just to the effect but also to the cause. Your assertion needs an argument to back it up.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
In the sense of existence He is not distinct from creation.
Click to expand...
Actually, he’s quite distinct. Creatures exist by virtue of birth and from pre-existing matter. God is existence itself, and was never born and is not composed of anything. So… no. The “box” you’re drawing around God and creation doesn’t help us abstract in any meaningful way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top