E
edwest2
Guest
No one knows how it works or how to make one? I guess this thing isn’t getting patent protection - ever.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
- Status
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
No one knows how it works. We know how to make one. Let natural selection do it.
Patent law requires a description of the thing being patented, and so it appears you’re right about that.
D
dcdurel
Guest
Again, those who oppose ID have failed to give any reasonable arguments against it.
Einstein and the astrophysicists who came to believe in Intelligent design did so because of their scientific studies. This is a fact which cannot be denied. If you don’t believe me, then please look it up before condemning me or this fact. They did not come to believe in ID because of their previous religious beliefs. In fact one of them was an atheist and became a Christian because of the scientific evidence about the universe. While the term “intelligent design” was not used by Einstein, he meant exactly the same thing that astrophysicists mean today by Intelligent design.
Thus, we cannot reject ID on the grounds that it is not scientific.
It does not matter if Einstein or any of the scientists were atheists, Deists, pagan, Jews, agnostics, etc.
All they say is that some intelligent being had to have designed the universe.
Satan or some being from another planet could have designed the universe.
Thus their belief is not necessarily a Christian belief.
It does NOT have to be God who designed the universe. All they teach is that it could not have developed by chance, but it had to be designed.
ID is a theory. It cannot be proven just as Darwinism and its variations are theories, which cannot be proven.
ID does fit the scientific evidence perfectly. Darwinism does not.
It does not prove the Catholic teachings about God, although those teachings are the most obvious ones to account for ID.
I think this has accounted for all the objections.
It simply amazes me how people try to claim ID is not scientific, when it was Einstein and the other scientists who began teaching it because of the scientific evidence they discovered.
And it amazes me that those people who reject it do not do so on scientific grounds, but they try to do so on other grounds, as all the objections on this board prove.
I have not seen one single objection to the reasons Einstein and the other astrophysicists gave for their belief in ID. I have not even seen other brilliant scientists in that field give any reasonable objection to the evidence Einstein and the others give.
They may try to work around it. They usually try to ignore it. They may hate the theory, (because it strongly gives evidence for God). They may dislike the theory. They may try to come up with alternate theories. But, they cannot come up with any errors in the reasoning of Einstein and the other astrophysicists. All they can come up with are philosophical objections, not scientific objections.
Thus, it is solidly scientific. The evidence is overwhelming. And it has no holes like evolution does.
Einstein and the astrophysicists who came to believe in Intelligent design did so because of their scientific studies. This is a fact which cannot be denied. If you don’t believe me, then please look it up before condemning me or this fact. They did not come to believe in ID because of their previous religious beliefs. In fact one of them was an atheist and became a Christian because of the scientific evidence about the universe. While the term “intelligent design” was not used by Einstein, he meant exactly the same thing that astrophysicists mean today by Intelligent design.
Thus, we cannot reject ID on the grounds that it is not scientific.
It does not matter if Einstein or any of the scientists were atheists, Deists, pagan, Jews, agnostics, etc.
All they say is that some intelligent being had to have designed the universe.
Satan or some being from another planet could have designed the universe.
Thus their belief is not necessarily a Christian belief.
It does NOT have to be God who designed the universe. All they teach is that it could not have developed by chance, but it had to be designed.
ID is a theory. It cannot be proven just as Darwinism and its variations are theories, which cannot be proven.
ID does fit the scientific evidence perfectly. Darwinism does not.
It does not prove the Catholic teachings about God, although those teachings are the most obvious ones to account for ID.
I think this has accounted for all the objections.
It simply amazes me how people try to claim ID is not scientific, when it was Einstein and the other scientists who began teaching it because of the scientific evidence they discovered.
And it amazes me that those people who reject it do not do so on scientific grounds, but they try to do so on other grounds, as all the objections on this board prove.
I have not seen one single objection to the reasons Einstein and the other astrophysicists gave for their belief in ID. I have not even seen other brilliant scientists in that field give any reasonable objection to the evidence Einstein and the others give.
They may try to work around it. They usually try to ignore it. They may hate the theory, (because it strongly gives evidence for God). They may dislike the theory. They may try to come up with alternate theories. But, they cannot come up with any errors in the reasoning of Einstein and the other astrophysicists. All they can come up with are philosophical objections, not scientific objections.
Thus, it is solidly scientific. The evidence is overwhelming. And it has no holes like evolution does.
M
Mersenne
Guest
That is just a lie, Einstein never believed in ID.
Of course we can, no single person in science makes something “scientific” just by believing in it.
ID is not a theory, by any definition of theory within science. It does not make any testable hypothesis and has not put itself through the rigors of scientific review, as evolution has.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Actually, Einstein was indeed a pantheist in the same school of thought as Spinoza’s views-- and he stated as much many times if I recall correctly. In fact, he actually went record stating that he did not believe in a personal deity who personally looks over and cares for all beings in this life.
He also explained his view as being in the same vein of Spinoza here…
To Einstein, as far as I can tell, his pantheistic view was that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.
More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract ‘god’ rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.
Neither intelligent design nor theistic evolution from an authentic Christian perspective necessarilly adheres to these views, although I think some arguments in favor of either theodicy of God’s creative actions do tend to bleed into these categories-- sometimes bleeding profusely too, depending on how far people will go to defend their view.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
And yet intelligent people designed the programs in the first place.
So you are quoting this link as proof that evolution can happen without an intelligent designer, even though intelligent people designed the program in the first place, and you are stating that intelligent design is contrary to probability and unworkable in science– as, apparently, all religious doctrines are?
It apparently is working based on the link you provided, and it’s a perfect example of how intelligent design and theistic evolution can be reconciled too.
I think the article proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt I might add, that evolution, according to the functions of the programs noted, cannot work unless someone intelligently designs them to work in this fashion to begin with.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Ironically, engineers are now finding ways to mimic evolution to solve problems that are too complex to design. The use of genetic algorithms applies evolution to engineering and it is very effective.
ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo…6/04079607.pdf
Turns out that natural selection works much better than design. God, once again, proves to be greater and more competent than the IDers are willing to let Him be.
That is, of course, why ID has failed to be accepted by scientists. It is not only contrary to probability, it’s unworkable in science, as all religious doctrines are.
Fortunately, scientists have other ways of finding Him.
Barbarian observes:
If it worked, scientists would use it no matter who disapproved. And as long as it doesn’t work, they won’t use it. Creationism isn’t going to solve its problems with a new name or a new PR campaign. All it needs to do is do something useful.
Barbarian on the fact that ID can’t do anything for science:
And if it doesn’t, what good is it?
ID makes no useful predictions, except those already made by science and verified. It simply says “Godmustadunnit” whenever it runs into a question. It’s a dead issue to science, unless it can somehow do something useful in science.
It will continue to convert creationists, and that might be its real function; a halfway house for recovering creationists. A number of prominent IDers, like Denton and Behe are now admitted evolutionists.
Ironically, engineers are now finding ways to mimic evolution to solve problems that are too complex to design. The use of genetic algorithms applies evolution to engineering and it is very effective.
ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo…6/04079607.pdf
Turns out that natural selection works much better than design. God, once again, proves to be greater and more competent than the IDers are willing to let Him be.
No. The program evolved also. Of course, you could retreat a little farther, and say that men designed computer circuits and programming. But that would just point up how much powerful natural selection works to produce solutions to such problems.
That is, of course, why ID has failed to be accepted by scientists. It is not only contrary to probability, it’s unworkable in science, as all religious doctrines are.
Since natural selection produced this one without any intelligent direction whatever. In fact, as you saw, no one knows how it works, or even understands one principle by which it works.
That would be like denying natural solution works in nature because God created nature. Category error.
Demonstrably so. For one thing, we observe that any “design” will, if subject to natural selection (as living things are) will quickly change and depart from the design. Behe hoped to save ID by claiming that God steps in from time to time, to make it work by some sort of miraculous intervention. This kind of part-time tinkerer God is alien to Christian theology.
Yep. Science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural, much less God Himself.
Fortunately, scientists have other ways of finding Him.
Barbarian observes:
If it worked, scientists would use it no matter who disapproved. And as long as it doesn’t work, they won’t use it. Creationism isn’t going to solve its problems with a new name or a new PR campaign. All it needs to do is do something useful.
I don’t think so. Some IDers have simply argued that it was a fake, and never happened. I can’t see how that would be if it supported their religion.
Barbarian on the fact that ID can’t do anything for science:
And if it doesn’t, what good is it?
The proper word, in the context of nature is “create.” God is not some inferior demiurge who must “design.” Natural selection works because God created a world in which it does. But He is omnipotent, and has no need to design.
ID makes no useful predictions, except those already made by science and verified. It simply says “Godmustadunnit” whenever it runs into a question. It’s a dead issue to science, unless it can somehow do something useful in science.
It will continue to convert creationists, and that might be its real function; a halfway house for recovering creationists. A number of prominent IDers, like Denton and Behe are now admitted evolutionists.
R
rossum
Guest
Which form of ID are you talking about? There are two:
- ID1: An Intelligent Designer was responsible for the origin of the universe.
- ID2: There are structures in living organisms that cannot have arisen through evolution and must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer.
Ah, you mention Einstein, so you are talking about ID1.
We can, because it isn’t. Some people may use scientific arguments to convince themselves that ID1 is correct, but that does not make ID1 scientific. It makes no predictions and it is not falsifiable. It is a philosophical or theological belief. Nothing wrong per se with such a belief, but it is not science. Just because a philosopher or a theologian uses science in her argument does not make her argument science.
You are correct in that no scientific theory can ever be proven; scientific theories can only ever be disproven. However, merely because a theory cannot ever be proven does not make it scientific. There are very many unprovable theories, but they are not all scientific. The Raelians have many unprovable theories about space aliens, those theories are not science.
ID1 can fit any evidence perfectly: “the designer made it that way.” There is the potential for evidence that would disprove Darwin’s theory: a Cambrian cow for instance. It is the strength of evolution that it does fit all the evidence we have so far, when there is always the risk that new evidence would not fit. The more evidence we find that fits the more our confidence grows.
If you want ID to be treated as science, then you have to a) make some predictions such as whether or not we will ever find a Cambrian cow, and b) tell us how to falsify it. Darwin did this for his own theory:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
On the Origin of Species, Chapter Six
Science is not something to be, science is something to do. ID1 is only interested in being, not doing. ID2 has so far failed to do anything in science, though it has done rather more in politics. Not surprising really since ID2 was founded for a political purpose.
I disagree, obviously.
rossum
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Two important sub-points:
a: The man did design the program to begin with.
b: If man was created in the image of God, and if the man can simulate evolution via computer models even though he doesn’t understand the program he wrote, does this not also imply that God, the very image in which man was created, doesn’t actually understand how man was created via evolution?
There’s also another paradox presented here too.
Indeed, humanity seems to have reached a point where evolutionary processes no longer really affect us. In other words, using human reason, we seem to have been able to rise above natural selection actually intelligently alter the course of evolution in our lives.
God, on the other hand, the very divinity who’s image we were created in, seem to be claimed to be limited to evolutionary processes and unable to directly interact with his own creation-- precisely because evolutionary theorists claim that the patterns in life do not correspond to any intelligent design.
More to the point, they seem to be claiming that God, who’s image man was created in, could not have interacted with his creation to alter the course of evolutionary history, even though it is well known that humanity can and does interact with his creation to alter the course of evolutionary history.
Bearing this in mind, my question is as follows:
Why has man been elevated to the point that their own human reason can overide evolution to the point that evolution no longer affects them – to the point that they can even alter the course of evolution on a genetic level, whereas God, who is apparently infinitely more knowledgeable than humanity as he resides in heaven– to the point that he know ALL THINGS good, could not have actually used his intelligence to overide evolution to the point that evolution no longer affects certain animals – to the point that God can even alter the course of evolution on a genetic level?
Are we actually saying that humanity can do that which God cannot do?
I hope we’re not actually saying this, because that would be pure stupidity and highly arrogant in my opinion.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
So God was using trial and error to bring forth life?
That’s a simply terrible analogy which presents God as nothing more than a “Great Experimenter” conducting various tests on the “lab mice” within his creation-- and it’s no better than the “Trickster God” in my opinion.
More to the point, it seems to me possible that those who espouse a scientific view of the world are indeed super-imposing their “trial and error” view of science over the Lord’s creation in the form of “natural selection and mutation”– and it’s exactly what they would expect to see.
But God apparently does not have to experiment in order to bring forth life. He apparently already knows what he’s doing from the beginning too.
Jeremy Rifkin in his book The Biotech Century recalled the work of Otto Rank, a contemporary of Freud who had similar ideas. Rank suggested that our concepts of nature are supremely self-serving, reflecting our desire to make everything conform to our current image of ourselves. He believed that our concepts of nature tell us more about ourselves at any given moment of time than they do about nature itself.
Similarly, Historian of Science Robert Young of Cambridge University would agree with Rank. He argues that there is no neutral naturalism – that when we pentrate to the core of our scientific beliefs, we find that they are as much influenced by our culture as all our other belief systems.
More to the point, as Rifkin recalls, anthropologist C.R. Hallpike of McMaster University in Canada contends that “the kinds of representation of nature. . . .that we construct” flow from the way “we interact with the physical environment of our fellows.”
Coming back to Otto Rank, it should be noted that he suggested that Darwin’s theory was simply the English bourgeosie looking into the mirror of nature and seeing their own behavior reflected there.
While I would disagree with this to some extent, because I believe evolution to be a fact and not just a theory, it does remain a fact that Darwin was product of his time – and subject ot the flights and fanices that embroidered the Victorian landscape.
Like University of Connecticut historian John C. Greene note, “like every other scientist, Darwin approached nature, human nature, ans society with ideas derived from his culture.”
If this is true, if we are to understand Darwin’s theory, then it may also be necessary to understand the economic, social, and political environment that provided the imagery that he used to sketch his “creation”.
As others have observed, Darwin constructed a theory of nature that, in its every particular, reinforced the operating assumptions of the Industrial Age he lived in.
For example, he saw the same principles of division of labor at work in nature. After reading Malthus, he came to realize that, as in human society, populations bred beyond their means, leaving survivors and losers in the effort to exist.
Likewise, in the first volume of A System of Synthetic Philosophy, entitled First Principles (1862), Spencer argued that all phenomena could be explained in terms of a lengthy process of evolution in things. This account of evolution provided a complete and ‘predetermined’ structure for the kind of variation noted by Darwin – and Darwin’s respect for Spencer was significant.
Darwin’s descriptions relied heavily on machine imagery. He came to personally view livings things as the sum total of “parts assembled”. Even the origins of life were seen within the biological equivalent of nature’s assembly line (morphology from micro-organisms straight up to humanity).
In short, Darwin borrowed just about everything he experienced from the popular culture of his time and transposed them onto nature. And I think theistic evolution does contain within it the very possible danger of reducing God to nothing more than a bumbling experimental professor who searches around his lab for the glasses on his face.
There’s no doubt that “creationists” transpose their ideas of God’s creative actions onto creation-- but they don’t deny this either. Never have as far as I can tell.
Evolutionary theorists, however, whether theistic or atheisitc, often have great difficulty admitting that any bias whatsoever may indeed exist in their theories.
I’m not saying that God didn’t use evolution to bring forth life. I think he very well could have done this as I’ve already said. I just think the “trial and error” analogy seriously fails on closer examination.
It seems to me that we should express God’s creative actions using a much better formula which doesn’t present God as an idiot who has no idea what he’s actually doing.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
No, actually, the program did not evolve if it’s considered non-random. It was programmed from the start to change in accordance with the initial and later “electronic” pressues that it was “pre-programmed” to respond to.
If the program was not pre-programmed to do this, it would not have “evolved” at all. An intelligent agency was involved in setting up the initial parameters which would cause the program to behave just like it’s supposed to behave when the right pressures are exerted on it.
Huh???
No, it does not do that-- and I think you’re reaching here. An intelligent agency was involved in making the computer, the circuits, and indeed the supplying of the enitre power source which allowed the program to run in the first place.
And yet if the scientists did not actually possess any intelligence to begin with, they would not have had the intelligence required to preceive the knowledge in the first place?
It wouldn’t have happened to begin with unless an intelligence actually built the computer to begin with-- a point which you seem to be conveniently and persitently ignoring in your attempts to prove a point which is simply not sustainable given the facts of the matter.
So not understanding how something works is now considered a pre-requisite for something being considered scientific?
I thought it was the other way around?
When did I say that a natural solution works in nature because God created nature?
I’ve only asked why this is considered non-intelligent and lacking design, something which you seem to be glossing over to make a point.
And how is this any different or less glamorous than the “Great Experimenter” God you’ve proposed above?
Nope.
Romans 1:20:
Science can and does lead people in the direction of faith in God, so long as they are open to the real motion of the Holy Spirit. In other words, science’ weakness is that it cannot answer all questions and therefore points toward the mystery of our origins-- God.
This doesn’t even get into the theology of the body which dispays God’s interaction with humanity through the conjugal act between man and woman within a consecrated marriage. There are many things within nature which do point toward God, the beauty of which nature reflects despite the presence of sin.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Do tell?
I think scientists do actually use intelligent design arguments whenever they use the scientific method to accurately measure the truth of any given theortical proposition.
Then why are they using the scientific method to determine the validity of scientific truths?
I think creationism does something useful-- it points toward God.
God is not some inferior demiurge who must “design” when Christ rises from the dead to bring us into the “New Creation” either.
Why does “design” necessarilly correspond to the demiurge and not God?
I don’t know about Denton, since I’ve never read his works. But Behe always did believe that God used evolution to bring forth life on earth if I recall correctly. His only point was that God used an intelligent agency to bring this evolution forth.
Did he drop this part?
E
edwest2
Guest
More science worship. “Man invents himself.” “Man is the measure of all things.”
I submit divine providence is the inventor, the first cause and the designer. Before anything came to be, God knew it. He designed it.
Intelligent Design will not go away. It provides the necessary two part answer to creation, science and God. This is why the propaganda machine is speaking against it.
God bless,
Ed
I submit divine providence is the inventor, the first cause and the designer. Before anything came to be, God knew it. He designed it.
Intelligent Design will not go away. It provides the necessary two part answer to creation, science and God. This is why the propaganda machine is speaking against it.
God bless,
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
**As far as I know everyone here believes God was the Creator. Most agree that evolution was the methodology. You have presented nothing but statements backed up by zero evidence. You need to go to old threads and read them. We are not gonna start from the beginning and restate everything again. **
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
What a foolish and false accusation. IDers, worshipping “intelligence” instead of God, suppose that scientists worship science. It’s not like that.
Wouldn’t it be better to argue against what was actually presented here, instead of dragging in something else?
It is terribly disrespectful to attempt to demote God from Creator to “inventor” or “designer”, as if He were some cosmic tinkerer.
Neither did magic worship. It putters on today, in the corners of magic and religion. So will ID. But it is dead to science and to Christianity.
Christians did fine without it for almost 2000 years. And since it can do nothing at all for science, scientists have simply ignored it.
I have mentioned to a number of fellows from the Discovery Institute, that they would be better advised to put their resources into research, rather than propaganda. Instead, they persist in making slick advertisements and PR campaigns.
ID can’t make any testable claims, and can’t do anything for science. And if it doesn’t work, what good is it?
E
edwest2
Guest
When an Intelligence designs, it begins with an intent, this intent is then actualized and something physical results. And God, unlike man, is perfect.
I am not interested in politics, Institutes and middle-men.
God bless,
Ed
I am not interested in politics, Institutes and middle-men.
God bless,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
– ID can’t make any testable claims,–
That’s not correct. It’s quite simple to use ID to make a testable claim.
We can now look at evolution.
That’s not correct. It’s quite simple to use ID to make a testable claim.
- We define a “thing which has been designed and not created by random processes” to meet [these criteria].
- We claim that the universe will show such things, meeting the criteria defined and agreed upon by science.
- We look at the universe.
- We either see (prove) or don’t see (disprove) the aspects of intelligent design as defined by a scientific process.
We can now look at evolution.
- We claim that non-living things evolve into living material. We claim that one species evolves into an entire different species. We claim that with enough time and number of possible mutations, new and useful life forms will emerge.
- We look at the universe
- We either see (prove) or don’t see (disprove) the claims of evolution.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
The courts of law, practically worldwide at that, have also rejected our proposition that life starts at the point of conception in the womb too-- something which, speaking on a purely scientifically biological level, can be clearly demonstrated based on one’s genetic profile alone…
I’m not saying that you don’t have a point. For example, both Miller and Collins have rejected ID-- and their rejection of ID has nothing to do with their lack of faith in a divine eternal loving God either.
I’m only suggesting that we look more carefully for who we lean on when we look for supports for theistic evolution. When we present an argument like this, people jump to the wrong conclusions-- as you and I have both have seen.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
ID can’t make any testable claims, and can’t do anything for science. And if it doesn’t work, what good is it?
ID can’t make any testable claims. If you doubt this, show me one.
But since evolutionary theory has made a large number of claims which have since been verified, we consider it a valid theory (not proven, however; nothing in science is “proven”)
For example, it was predicted that a large number of transitionals between major living groups would be found in the fossil record. That has been confirmed.
Huxley predicted, based on anatomical data and evolutionary theory, that there must have been feathered dinosaurs. That has been confirmed.
When antibiotics were discovered, evolutionary theory predicted that resistance would evolve, and that was confirmed.
When the structure of DNA was discovered, it was predicted that DNA comparisons would be according to evolutionary phylogenies. And that has been confirmed.
When the anatomy of whales became known, scientists used evolutionary theory to predict the existence of whales with functional legs. And that prediction was also verified.
There are many other such predictions. Would you like to learn about some more of them?
ID can’t make any testable claims, and can’t do anything for science. And if it doesn’t work, what good is it?
So let’s see a specific claim.
First we need to be able to define what “designed” is in nature. So far, the only attempt to do this, Dembski’s “explanitory filter”, crashed and burned when it became clear that even he couldn’t make it work.
ID can’t make any testable claims. If you doubt this, show me one.
That’s not what evolutionary theory claims. If we test the theory, we have to test the claims it makes.
That, BTW, has been directly observed.
“Useful?” Not a claim of evolutionary theory.
But since evolutionary theory has made a large number of claims which have since been verified, we consider it a valid theory (not proven, however; nothing in science is “proven”)
For example, it was predicted that a large number of transitionals between major living groups would be found in the fossil record. That has been confirmed.
Huxley predicted, based on anatomical data and evolutionary theory, that there must have been feathered dinosaurs. That has been confirmed.
When antibiotics were discovered, evolutionary theory predicted that resistance would evolve, and that was confirmed.
When the structure of DNA was discovered, it was predicted that DNA comparisons would be according to evolutionary phylogenies. And that has been confirmed.
When the anatomy of whales became known, scientists used evolutionary theory to predict the existence of whales with functional legs. And that prediction was also verified.
There are many other such predictions. Would you like to learn about some more of them?
See above. I think, if you learned more about what the theory actually says, and what the evidence is for those claims, it would go better for you.
R
reggieM
Guest
I believe you’re saying that it is not possible to define what “designed” is. Correct?
- Status