B
Bradskii
Guest
Aaargh! It’s not random!
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
And when the Catholic Church expounds authoritatively on the nature of God, it uses words. Whoops, looks like we have th same problem all over again. God being “beyond words” causes a huge philosophical problem. See the eighth Ox Herding Picture for one possible solution.
R
rossum
Guest
The designer is obviously functional; if it were not functional, then it could not have designed anything. Intelligence is functional, so intelligence requires FCSI as well as plain CSI. ID’s problem with the origin of the functional intelligence inherent in the designer remains.
R
rossum
Guest
Not exactly. Chimps have a baculum; humans do not.
R
rossum
Guest
I am Buddhist, so I approach philosophy from the Buddhist point of view, specifically the Madhyamika of Nagarjuna. God takes actions in time, such as parting the sea for Moses. Whatever part (or whole) of God did the parting has changed from not-parting to parting and back to not-parting. An immutable God cannot act, a mutable God has parts that differ in time, not space.
However, that is a discussion for another thread.
R
rossum
Guest
Yes, see The marbled crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) represents an independent new species.
You could also read deVries (1901) which contains the first modern observation of speciation in the scientific literature, see Oenotheria.
O
o_mlly
Guest
If all the above is true then you have identified an uncomplicated intelligence greater than human intelligence which refutes your assumption that any intelligence greater than human is as, or more, complicated.
If the above is true then ID would conclude that chimpanzee intelligence – because it is uncomplicated – does not on its own infer an ID. However, I doubt that chimpanzee intelligence could be called uncomplicated.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Call it contributory negligence on my part. The hijackers knows who who he is.Umm…
If you want to address me directly – since you responded to rossum’s response to me – you know you can do so, right? And, no… I’m not trying to hijack the thread.
R
rossum
Guest
No I have not. Chimps can beat humans at one aspect of intelligence; humans can beat chimps at other aspects.
I do not see humans as designed, absent any modern genetic engineering therapies. ID proponents are the ones who claim design, and it is they who need to justify their claims.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Christian philosophy avoids this conclusion by asserting that the ‘acts’ of God do not change Him.
B
buffalo
Guest
We are. Everyday the evidence gets stronger and is the best explanation. Some have just not caught up yet.
B
buffalo
Guest
No it does not. You are still stuck in our own frame of reference.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Then the designer wasn’t terribly nice. Our spines are only partially adapted for bipedalism, so millions of people suffer back problems.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, I agree. But this thread is a conversation on the merits of your argument that ID is self-refuting. It has been argued that your second assumption, upon which your argument depends, is false. Do you have a reply?
It also seems from your video link that chimps, or at least those chimps, learned to count to ten. Remarkable!
B
buffalo
Guest
Really now… Is it because of other things like too much sittng, being sedentary, lifting too much? Naw…
What did our spines look in the prototypical human? Do you know?
N
niceatheist
Guest
No doubt they contribute, but the curvature of the human spine is not optimized for bipedalism. It’s a compromise, the sort of thing that one would expect from evolution.niceatheist:
Really now… Is it because of other things like too much sittng, being sedentary, lifting too much? Naw…
What did our spines look in the prototypical human? Do you know?
We could also talk about the structure of the human pharynx, which is adapted for speech, but unfortunately also greatly raises the likelihood of choking. It’s a compromise. Speech is highly enough selected to make an increase in choking deaths over other mammals worth it.
We could talk about the human pelvis, and in particular the female pelvis. It’s about as wide as one can get, on average, and still be functionally bipedal, but coupled with the necessity of human infants having to been born relatively prematurely (due to larger brains), makes birth far riskier for women and baby. It’s a compromise
Even the human brain is basically taking the mammalian brain and expanding areas for increased cognitive capacity. The brain isn’t a computer, but rather an accretion of functions over millions of years since the first ganglia evolved.
The human body is a fine instrument, but it is not a perfect instrument, because evolution doesn’t seek perfection, it simply seeks that which increases reproductive success. Optimization isn’t the name of the game.
None of this disproves an Intelligent Designer, but at the very least it suggests even an Intelligent Designer seems to operate much like evolution operates, which leads to the question why invoke ID at all? Theistic evolution seems a more sensible middle ground.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, I’m sure it’s just a design problem, not an operator error.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
N
niceatheist
Guest
Not everyone who has back problems is overweight. I’m not overweight, I’m not even that tall, and I’ve had recurrent back problems for years. The intelligent designer I have to thank is the guys who designed the anti-inflammatory I use.
O
o_mlly
Guest
All three theories can be compatible. ID goes beyond the claims of evolution and theism goes beyond the claims of ID. One can hold all three. But to do so, one must dismiss evolution’s inference that all biological change is wholly blind and non-directed.
Interestingly, ID (argued as generation and manipulation of digital information requires intelligence) and evolution appeal to the same principle for their truth claims: causes now in operation. Darwin common descent appealed to the fact that we know animals migrate. ID appeals to the fact that we know only intelligent beings generate and manipulate information. If we reject the principle then we must reject both theories.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Granted we are not designed to be sedate but active. If the muscles that strap the spine – the core muscles – are not used then the spine takes up the load. The spine was not designed to do so.
- Status