Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[rossum]

Then how are the physical and non-physical related? By chance?

My answer involves Buddhist theology and would be off topic in this discussion. The relation is not chance. Karma is not a chance process.

They are not evil because the malaria parasite interferes with and frustrates the purposes of human beings. There is a hierarchy of purposes in nature. Why do you identify the purpose of the malaria parasite with the purpose of Design? You might as well identify the purpose of an evil person with the purpose of the Designer!

If there is a hierarchy of purposes then the purposes of the designer must occupy the highest place, above those of humans. Since the malaria parasite was designed by the designer then any interference with the normal workings of the malaria parasite must be interfering with the purpose of the designer.

Nonsense. I have pointed out that there is a large element of chance in evolution, e.g. random mutations.

According to Professor Behe the malaria parasite is designed. Are you saying that some living organisms are designed while others are not?

If the biological and Buddhist views of humans as a species of animal are identical then Buddhism is redundant.

Buddhism and biology are not identical, they merely agree on this specific point. Both Christianity and Judaism agree that there is only one God, does that make Christianity redundant?

Languages without syntax.

Human languages, including human sign language. I remember reading an article by one person involved in studies with Washoe, a signing chimp. When he first joined the project Washoe recognised that he was new, and was not very good at sign language, so when she signed to him she slowed down compared to when she signed to the other more experienced scientists. He did not like being signed to slowly by a chimp!

Purpose is implicit in the concept of Intelligence.

Which fails to answer my question, or merely displaces it to “where did the designer get his/her/its/their intelligence from?”

That is an assumption that needs justification.

So far, every example of design that has been proposed by the ID side has been shown to be evolveable. Every single example. 100% failure rate. At the very least this indicates that the current methods of design detection are somewhat lacking or else that the designers are using evolution to instantiate their designs. This last is the theistic evolution position.

Do you believe the truth of Buddhism is eternal?

No. When Buddhism says everything changes it means it. Change is required for Buddhism to make sense: nirvana has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum, otherwise the entire path is useless. Buddhism is a set of techniques to attain a goal. Those techniques work now. There is no guarantee that they will work in 1,000,000,000 years time. Buddhists are allowed to try new techniques and to discard old ones as required.

Then how are the mind and body related?

OT Buddhist theory again.

Doesn’t the mind control the body in any way?

In some ways it does, in other ways not. My mind cannot stop my hairs getting greyer, but it can move my fingers over the keyboard. Many things go on in the body that are not under the control of the mind.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

By chance? My answer involves Buddhist theology and would be off topic in this discussion. The relation is not chance. Karma is not a chance process.
Then according to Buddhism karma is an inexplicable, purposeful process at the heart of reality?

Since the malaria parasite was designed by the designer then any interference with the normal workings of the malaria parasite must be interfering with the purpose of the designer.

Exactly. Natural evil is permitted because a physical world without any failure or frustration is not feasible.

Are you saying that some living organisms are designed while others are not?

Yes. Viruses are an example of how evolution can lead to harmful results.

If the biological and Buddhist views of humans as a species of animal are identical then Buddhism is redundant.
Buddhism and biology are not identical, they merely agree on this specific point. Both Christianity and Judaism agree that there is only one God, does that make Christianity redundant?

Both Christianity and Judaism are religions which agree that humans are not simply a species of animal whereas Buddhism is a metaphysical explanation which regards humans as a species of animal with a mind whereas NeoDarwinism is a scientific explanation which regards humans as a species of animal **without a mind. **How would you prove thatNeoDarwinism is false?

Then how are the physical and non-physical related? By chance? My answer involves Buddhist theology and would be off topic in this discussion. The relation is not chance. Karma is not a chance process.

Your explanation is weakened by failure to answer a vital question.

Purpose is implicit in the concept of Intelligence.
Which fails to answer my question, or merely displaces it to "where did the designer get his/her/its/their intelligence from?

Nowhere! Spiritual reality does not occupy space.

So far, every example of design that has been proposed by the ID side has been shown to be evolveable. Every single example. 100% failure rate.

Rationality, free will, purpose and the self have not been shown to be evolvable.

At the very least this indicates that the current methods of design detection are somewhat lacking or else that the designers are using evolution to instantiate their designs.

I have already given examples of how design is detected. Do you agree that beauty has an objective mathematical basis in at least one instance?

This last is the theistic evolution position.

What is your reason for ruling out theistic evolution?

Do you believe the truth of Buddhism is eternal?
No. When Buddhism says everything changes it means it.

Then the truth nirvana has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum is eternal!
That the entire path is useful is an eternal truth.
That Buddhism is a set of techniques to attain a goal is an eternal truth.
That Buddhists are allowed to try new techniques and to discard old ones as required is an eternal truth…
Do you still deny that there are eternal truths?

Do you as a Buddhist attribute the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures solely to the possession of a large brain? Do you believe an amoeba has these powers? At which level of evolution does a living organism have these powers?

Then how are the mind and body related?

OT Buddhist theory again.

The mind-body relationship is the crux of the matter and yet you fail to explain it.

Doesn’t the mind control the body in any way?
In some ways it does, in other ways not.

Then the mind is the dominant factor in the relationship, it is responsible for design and its activity can be investigated scientifically.
You have admitted that intelligent selection is more powerful than natural selection yet you reject it as an explanation of human and biological existence.

 

[aileron]

They must go to the root source and be able and willing to cite page and paragraph from Behe and/or Dembski.

Does every idea merit serious consideration? What have ID proponents done to merit this level of time and energy on the part of others?

How many research projects are they conducting - what have been the results?
How many predictions about future fossil finds have they made?
How many predictions about future genetic discoveries have they made?

ID proponents have offered nothing to earn serious considerations from scientific amateurs let alone professionals.

 

[tonyrey]

Wrong. Science will likely never explain everything.

There are many things that Design does not claim to explain, e.g. the existence of the Designer.

Design claims that we can distinguish between the designed and undesigned products with plenty of scientific evidence which has predictive power and is falsifiable.

Natural selection is NOT more powerful than designed selection. However, it doesn’t mean natural selection doesn’t exist, doesn’t work, or isn’t responsible for what humans have not done.

But it does mean intelligent selection is more powerful than natural selection and therefore the preferred explanation in cases of doubt… such as the existence and power of human intelligence and design!

You talk about it being impossible to have perfection in such a system… and that chance plays a major role. YES! Exactly! Everything in this universe is messy and inefficient.

The logic here is faulty. Some imperfection → everything is messy and inefficient!

Why, just this morning I couldn’t find my car keys…

That was hardly the fault of the universe but, I regret to say, your fault. Or perhaps you don’t admit responsibility for anything!

Basically, the wealth of life is so diverse that it would be exceedingly difficult to wipe out everything without quite literally destroying the Earth itself (or at least the entire surface).

You seem to be arguing that life is so rich and tenacious it must have been designed!

My dolphin example is one of millions that show animals aren’t stupid, they play, have social lives, talk to each other, etc. We are not that far above them.

Then do you don’t consider humans to be superior to animals in any respect? You consider that every creature has a right to life? Or no creature? Or that the right to life is merely a human idea? And Hitler just happened to disagree with the majority?

I never said I prefer not to exist, but it’s hardly my call. How did you even come to that conclusion? It is what it is. You claimed a system of less violence would falsify it, well, no life means no violence. No life forming is a possibility.

You intimated that since no life means no violence it is preferable to life with some violence. Or are you agreeing that some violence is inevitable?

Why would massive failure mean life should just not have tried? That’s ridiculous.

It is significant that you are personifying life. It is difficult to maintain consistently that life or Nature are purposeless products of chance and necessity.

Massive failure is a response to the environment, things don’t just decide to die off, but it happens. Polar bears are drowning because of global warming, penguins are dying because of people over fishing, it’s still happening today - humans are causing the latest massive extinction.

I’m glad you admit human responsibility. That goes a long way to explaining the enormous amount of unnecessary destruction and suffering on this planet.

But the evolution of humans doesn’t falsify or support a designer… it just means we are evolving… which like you said is part of ID too.

Of course we are evolving… but not as the result of random events or blind, purposeless processes.

What is signiicant is that you are using your power of reason to conclude that everything is unreasonable! You claim that value is merely a human idea but you value your power of reason!! Otherwise you would be a total sceptic and consistent nihilist whose only logical position is to maintain absolute silence!!!

That would be a great pity because I’m enjoying our discussions enormously.

 

[aileron]

There are many things that Design does not claim to explain, e.g. the existence of the Designer.

Let’s not be coy here. We’re talking about God. The Discovery Institute uses the term “designer” in a surreptitious, though ultimately futile attempt to have it pass through the Lemon Test.in federal court.

Design claims that we can distinguish between the designed and undesigned products with plenty of scientific evidence which has predictive power and is falsifiable.

It makes predictions that are not predictions and claims ways of falsification that are more or less safe from science – classic hallmarks of pseudoscience.

 

[liquidpele]

There are many things that Design does not claim to explain, e.g. the existence of the Designer.

Design claims that we can distinguish between the designed and undesigned products with plenty of scientific evidence which has predictive power and is falsifiable.

But it does mean intelligent selection is more powerful than natural selection and therefore the preferred explanation in cases of doubt… such as the existence and power of human intelligence and design!

The logic here is faulty. Some imperfection → everything is messy and inefficient!

That was hardly the fault of the universe but, I regret to say, your fault. Or perhaps you don’t admit responsibility for anything!

You seem to be arguing that life is so rich and tenacious it must have been designed!

Then do you don’t consider humans to be superior to animals in any respect? You consider that every creature has a right to life? Or no creature? Or that the right to life is merely a human idea? And Hitler just happened to disagree with the majority?

You intimated that since no life means no violence it is preferable to life with some violence. Or are you agreeing that some violence is inevitable?
It is significant that you are personifying life. It is difficult to maintain consistently that life or Nature are purposeless products of chance and necessity.
I’m glad you admit human responsibility. That goes a long way to explaining the enormous amount of unnecessary destruction and suffering on this planet.

Of course we are evolving… but not as the result of random events or blind, purposeless processes.

What is signiicant is that you are using your power of reason to conclude that everything is unreasonable! You claim that value is merely a human idea but you value your power of reason!! Otherwise you would be a total sceptic and consistent nihilist whose only logical position is to maintain absolute silence!!!

That would be a great pity because I’m enjoying our discussions enormously.

ID presupposes a designer… just calling it a “designer” instead of God doesn’t fool anyone.

You keep claiming that, but have not backed it up.

There is far more imperfection that you seem to be willing to admit. When I said everything is messy and not organized, I mean 99.9% of existence. Unless you think the designer places each atom carefully.

Life being rich and tenacious does not mean design. You’re on the “it’s complicated, must be design” argument again.

We are superior to animals in many ways, but superiority does not mean a high level of difference. Slave owners are superior to slaves in many ways, but there is no real large differences between them physically or mentally. There is no “right to life” beyond the human made ideal. Animals, including people, kill each other constantly. Don’t bring up Hitler please, it servers no purpose given the subject.

Again, I didn’t say no life was preferable. I just said no life means no violence. By your own definition, if falsifies ID because things could be less violent without life. Really, I think it was a poor way to falsify anyway, since a creator might like the violence or need us to get through it or something. Who knows… but that’s ID for you, all speculation and no proof.

You claim that life has purpose beyond what it decides (or reacts) for itself. When you find scientific proof of that, let me know.

You said that I think value is a human idea. That’s partially true. I think there is physical value (ie food helps you survive) and mental value (diamonds are pretty to look at). The former is a function of reality, while the latter is just an idea. Then you said I value the power of reason like it’s a contradiction. Of course I value it… others don’t. It’s still a human ideal regardless.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ATHEISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

youtube.com/watch?v=0kR_XG1DnDs&feature=related

 

[greylorn]

ATHEISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

youtube.com/watch?v=0kR_XG1DnDs&feature=related

I made the horrid mistake of firing up this link. What amazed me is how the promoters of that, ah, “comedy” show got an entire audience of cretins dressed in clothes while gassing them with nitrous oxide so they’d laugh every time the, ah, “comedian” opened his mouth.

The segment is great evidence for the proposition that no entity with an I.Q. greater than 110 could possibly have created mankind.

I thought that this was a philosophy forum, not an, “uh, duh,” forum.

 

[rossum]

Then according to Buddhism karma is an inexplicable, purposeful process at the heart of reality?

Buddhist theory is OT in this thread. I googled “Buddhist theory of karma” and got 63,900 hits. If you are interested you can do the same.

Exactly. Natural evil is permitted because a physical world without any failure or frustration is not feasible.

You have not told me why human purposes are more important than the designer’s purposes. You are also linking the designer to morality - “evil is permitted” - which again is moving away from the DI version of ID. By moving the designer into the area of morality you are making it even more clear that your idea of a designer is outside science and should not be considered a part of science.

Yes. Viruses are an example of how evolution can lead to harmful results.

So, some organisms are evolved, not designed. How can we tell which are which objectively and reliably? This is an old question for ID - how is design detected objectively and reliably? So far nobody in ID has been able to get much beyond “it sure looks designed to me”, which is neither objective nor reliable.

NeoDarwinism is a scientific explanation which regards humans as a species of animal **without a mind. **How would you prove that NeoDarwinism is false?

Your version of NeoDarwinism is a straw man. Richard Dawkins accepts that humans have minds. I suspect that he would differ from us on the nature of the human mind. He would see it as purely material while we see it as both material and immaterial.

Your explanation is weakened by failure to answer a vital question.

Again Buddhist theory is OT in this thread. GIYF.

Nowhere! Spiritual reality does not occupy space.

I fail to see how this is an answer to my question. To repeat, “where did the designer get his/her/its/their intelligence from?” You asserted that evolution could not explain purpose. So far you have not been able to show that design explains porpose any better. You said that the designer’s purpose arose from the designer’s intelligence but you appear not to be able to explain the designer’s intelligence.

Rationality, free will, purpose and the self have not been shown to be evolvable.

Rationality, free will, purpose and a sense of self have all been shown to be present in non-human animals. Not to the same degree that they are present in humans but they are present. An adult chimp can pass the mirror test, while humans cannot do so until they are about 18 months old. An adult chimp is superior to a human baby in its sense of self. Elephants and dolphins have also passed the mirror test.

Do you agree that beauty has an objective mathematical basis in at least one instance?

No. Please show me what you consider to be an objective mathematical basis for beauty.

What is your reason for ruling out theistic evolution?

I do not believe in a creator God. The Brahmajala sutta indicates that belief in such a God is mistaken.

Then the truth nirvana has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum is eternal!

Since rossum is not eternal then that truth is not eternal either. The rossum typing today is older than the rossum who typed yesterday. Since the two rossums are different neither of the two rossums are eternal. This is basic Buddhism; anything which changes cannot be eternal. Everything changes.

One of the fudamental differences between Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions is that the Abrahamic religions generally see the world as fundamentally unchanging, with a veneer of apparent change laid over it. Buddhism reverses this, the world is fundamentally changing with a veneer of apparent stasis laid over it. We are probably not going to agree on this point.

Do you as a Buddhist attribute the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures solely to the possession of a large brain?

With my usual caveat about “eternal”, no - those things are not solely due to our large brains.

The mind-body relationship is the crux of the matter and yet you fail to explain it.

Buddhist theory is OT in this thread. I googled “Buddhist theory of mind” and got 267,000 hits. If you are interested you can do the same.

Then the mind is the dominant factor in the relationship, it is responsible for design and its activity can be investigated scientifically.

The human mind can indeed be investigated scientifically. Since we have no example of the ID designer to study, at the moment we cannot scientifically study the mind of the designer.

You have admitted that intelligent selection is more powerful than natural selection yet you reject it as an explanation of human and biological existence.

It is rejected as science because there is no scientific evidence for it. A force ten times the strength of gravity would be more powerful than gravity, however such a force is rejected because there is no scientific evidence for it. Artificial selection by humans is acknowledged and studied; Darwin covered it in the first chapter of “Origin”. Unless and until there is enough scientific evidence to show the existence of the designer/s then there is no reason for scientists to study artificial selection by such designers.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

ID presupposes a designer… just calling it a “designer” instead of God doesn’t fool anyone*.*

A red herring. Do you deny that Design presupposes a Designer?

• You keep claiming that, but have not backed it up.*
  Please refer to my previous examples and refute them. You also agree that intelligent selection is more powerful than natural selection and therefore the better explanation of human intelligence and design!
• There is far more imperfection that you seem to be willing to admit. When I said everything is messy and not organized, I mean 99.9% of existence.*
  That is certainly a proposition which requires justification. Perhaps you mean in your own vicinity!

Life being rich and tenacious does not mean design. *
It requires explanation.
*
We are superior to animals in many ways, but superiority does not mean a high level of difference.*
How about the achievements of philosophy, art, science, mathematics, technology, medicine and society?

Slave owners are superior to slaves in many ways, but there is no real large differences between them physically or mentally.
A strange analogy for the relation of humans and animals…

There is no “right to life” beyond the human made ideal.
In other words it is a human convention?

Animals, including people, kill each other constantly.
Does that prove no one has the right to life?

Don’t bring up Hitler please, it serves no purpose given the subject.
He is an excellent example of the consequence of rejecting the right to life.

By your own definition, it falsifies ID because things could be less violent without life.
We are discussing whether intelligent design is a plausible theory given our present universe. I am asking you for a feasible plan of our universe without its disadvantages.

Really, I think it was a poor way to falsify anyway, since a creator might like the violence or need us to get through it or something.
“something” is the operative word. You could use that objection to any scientific explanation. It fails because it is not supported by any evidence.

• Who knows… but that’s ID for you, all speculation and no proof.*
  That is a perfect description of your objection!
• You claim that life has purpose beyond what it decides (or reacts) for itself.*
  “decides” is another example of personification. “reacts” is a more appropriate term in your materialistic context. But then there is the problem of how purpose emerges from that which is purposeless. Molecules are not purposeful but cells are. How do you explain that scientifically?

You said that I think value is a human idea. That’s partially true. I think there is physical value (ie food helps you survive) and mental value (diamonds are pretty to look at). The former is a function of reality, while the latter is just an idea.
Is intelligence a function of reality or is it just an idea?
Is life a function of reality or is it just an idea?

*Then you said I value the power of reason like it’s a contradiction. Of course I value it… others don’t. It’s still a human ideal regardless.
*Is an ideal a function of reality? I apologise for so many questions but it is the only way
to clarify what you mean.

 

[liquidpele]

A red herring. Do you deny that Design presupposes a Designer?

Please refer to my previous examples and refute them. You also agree that intelligent selection is more powerful than natural selection and therefore the better explanation of human intelligence and design!

That is certainly a proposition which requires justification. Perhaps you mean in your own vicinity!

It requires explanation.

How about the achievements of philosophy, art, science, mathematics, technology, medicine and society?

A strange analogy for the relation of humans and animals…

There is no “right to life” beyond the human made ideal.
In other words it is a human convention?

Does that prove no one has the right to life?

He is an excellent example of the consequence of rejecting the right to life.

We are discussing whether intelligent design is a plausible theory given our present universe. I am asking you for a feasible plan of our universe without its disadvantages.

“something” is the operative word. You could use that objection to any scientific explanation. It fails because it is not supported by any evidence.

That is a perfect description of your objection!

“decides” is another example of personification. “reacts” is a more appropriate term in your materialistic context. But then there is the problem of how purpose emerges from that which is purposeless. Molecules are not purposeful but cells are. How do you explain that scientifically?

Is intelligence a function of reality or is it just an idea?
Is life a function of reality or is it just an idea?

]Is an ideal a function of reality? I apologise for so many questions but it is the only way
to clarify what you mean.

ID presupposes a designer… by it’s very definition. Give no evidence to kick that off, it is very telling that it presupposes anything.

Intelligent design is more powerful than natural selection in many ways… but only because it is organized. We make dog breeds and crops this way, but because we have a goal. Intelligent design by humans means we can force changes more quickly, and in a direction, but that’s all. given all the practically useless, competing, dangerous things in the world, it hardly is evident that there was a designer.

If you can’t see the imperfection, decay, disease, death, randomness, and conflict everywhere around you, I can’t help you.

Life being rich and tenacious requires explanation? Well… evolution. That is the theory that all current evidence supports. Since there is no evidence of a designer, it appears to be through natural selection and mutation (among other environmental factors).

The achievements you mentioned are great indeed… but Mozart doesn’t mean much to a squirrel. Those things only mean a lot to us. A bird building a nest doesn’t mean much to us… but it takes great care in what it does too. A spiders web is the same.

Slave and slave owners is a bad analogy? I thought it was pretty good. We certainly treat animals like it… blacks in America even used to be thought of as more like animals. Yes, I think “right to live” is a human convention. Killing doesn’t mean there is no “right to life” it just means that most things doesn’t pay attention to it, so it follows that it’s probably not an inherit thing within animals or people, but a social one.

Hitler is a great example of rejecting the right to life. so is every murder on the news. You just brought him up for shock value, which is why I asked you not to.

I don’t follow… you’re asking me for an example of our universe without the disadvantages… no life at all seems to fit the bill… the universe would still exist without us (arguing that is a different topic). I’m not sure what you’re looking for here… you want me to design an entire universe, or just the world where things are better? Okay… Having no viruses would be better and more efficient. How about no bad bacteria? How about animals that don’t kill their own species (including us). How about no genetic defects like mental retardation or chron’s disease, or IBS, or autism, or severe food allergies that can kill you, or sexual dysfunction requiring medical help to reproduce…

The “something” I mentioned was just pointing out that that idea for falsification was a bit of a stretch, and that I didn’t think it was a good way to falsify.

Molecules to cells huh? Okay, lets take an example… One day there was a friendly little molecule named bob. Bob was among billions of his friends, all competing for nutrients to reproduce, but he couldn’t because he was shrimpy and the other bully molecules took the nutrients he needed from him. So bob went on a long journey into a dangerous place… sun radiation hit him while he was trying to reproduce there, and suddenly he turned into a monkey. The end.

What do you think? Silly eh? Going from molecule to cell took millions (if not billions) of years. I’m not sure people properly understand how big of a number that is. As for purpose, the purpose was survival. Reproducing things nature is to reproduce… if they can change to keep allowing that, they are surviving. I think any purpose for us here either we need to define for ourselves, or there is no evidence for it and thus we shouldn’t be guessing at it.

I think both intelligence and life are a function of reality… but they are so complicated that it’s not a very good model to think of them that way. It would be like trying to track every instruction that went through a cpu with a trillion cores. It’s much easier to just look at the object and know what it’s overall nature is. An ideal is a function of our minds. The combination of preference (genetic and learned), memory, and environmental variables.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

*I made the horrid mistake of firing up this link. What amazed me is how the promoters of that, ah, “comedy” show got an entire audience of cretins dressed in clothes while gassing them with nitrous oxide so they’d laugh every time the, ah, “comedian” opened his mouth.

The segment is great evidence for the proposition that no entity with an I.Q. greater than 110 could possibly have created mankind.

I thought that this was a philosophy forum, not an, “uh, duh,” forum. *

And aren’t you the funny fellow … *ad hominems *all the way!

aileron:

*It makes predictions that are not predictions and claims ways of falsification that are more or less safe from science – classic hallmarks of pseudoscience. *

One thing the ID advocates can always predict: the supreme arrogance of those who oppose ID.

Were Darwin and Einstein pseudo-scientists?

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

aileron, were they pseudo-scientists to draw these conclusions?

And why should I respect your thinking rather than theirs?

Because you’re an atheist and your science has to conform to your atheism?

 

[tonyrey]

                                                  Part 1

T*hen according to Buddhism karma is an inexplicable, purposeful process at the heart of reality?*Buddhist theory is OT in this thread.

I shall leave others to judge whether karma is purposeful… and whether it is explained…

You have not told me why human purposes are more important than the designer’s purposes.Natural evil is permitted because a physical world without any failure or frustration is not feasible.

Human purposes cannot be more important than the Designer’s purposes because they did not design the universe but they are designed to be responsible for their own decisions.

You are also linking the designer to morality - “evil is permitted” - which again is moving away from the DI version of ID.

I have stated several times that my version of Intelligent Design is different.

By moving the designer into the area of morality you are making it even more clear that your idea of a designer is outside science and should not be considered a part of science.

Morality is not outside science because science presupposes the value of science.
If you prefer I shall restrict myself to the terms “success” and “failure” which are indisputably scientific. Would you agree that in nature there is far more evidence of success than failure? That most animals are not deformed, diseased, crippled or incapacitated?

Viruses are an example of how evolution can lead to harmful results.
So, some organisms are evolved, not designed. How can we tell which are which objectively and reliably? This is an old question for ID - how is design detected objectively and reliably?

Medical science distinguishes objectively and reliably between health and disease. Deformities, crippling defects, monstrosities and harmful mutations are clearly due to chance rather than Design.

NeoDarwinism is a scientific explanation which regards humans as a species of animal without a mind. How would you prove that NeoDarwinism is false?
Richard Dawkins accepts that humans have minds. I suspect that he would differ from us on the nature of the human mind. He would see it as purely material while we see it as both material and immaterial.

How would you prove Richard Dawkins’s version of NeoDarwinism is false?

Your explanation is weakened by failure to answer a vital question.
Again Buddhist theory is OT in this thread.

I shall leave others to judge the cogency of your argument.

You said that the designer’s purpose arose from the designer’s intelligence but you appear not to be able to explain the designer’s intelligence.

You have explained neither intelligence nor purpose scientifically. You have agreed there is evidence of design in the universe. You have agreed design presupposes a designer. You recognize that science cannot explain the whole of reality. Otherwise you would not be a Buddhist. Yet Buddhism does not explain purpose or Design whereas a Designer does. I have pointed out that Design cannot explain the Designer - which is hardly surprising because our finite intelligence cannot explain everything. No explanation of reality can be complete but an explanation in terms of the highest aspect of reality of which we are aware, intelligent beings, is infinitely superior to an explanation in terms of particles which lack intelligence and purpose.

Rationality, free will, purpose and the self have not been shown to be evolvable.
Rationality, free will, purpose and a sense of self have all been shown to be present in non-human animals. Not to the same degree that they are present in humans but they are present. An adult chimp can pass the mirror test, while humans cannot do so until they are about 18 months old. An adult chimp is superior to a human baby in its sense of self. Elephants and dolphins have also passed the mirror test.

The mirror test does not show animals have the power of abstract reasoning, are capable of grasping **universal principles **like justice and equality, are morally responsible, have a concept of the self or **insight **into moral and spiritual realities or beliefs in reincarnation or life after death.

Do you agree that beauty has an objective mathematical basis in at least one instance?
No. Please show me what you consider to be an objective mathematical basis for beauty.

There are many examples in a fascinating book well worth browsing:
“The Divine Proportion”, by Professor H.E.Huntley, much of which can be read online: books.google.co.uk/booksid=rF0cj1I5KQcC&dq=GOLDEN+RATIO&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=YcrimSpI6G&sig=T-6-AoqszlFYQmWncwYdkw0ayE&hl=en&ei=5rU8Sp7GPM-7jAf4hpT6Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12

This is basic Buddhism; anything which changes cannot be eternal. Everything changes.
Does the fact that everything changes change? Do you deny that Buddhism is a set of techniques to attain a goal is an eternal truth. That Buddhists are allowed to try new techniques and to discard old ones as required is an eternal truth?

*Do you as a Buddhist attribute the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures solely to the possession of a large brain? *With my usual caveat about “eternal”, no - those things are not solely due to our large brains.

In that case they are best explained by Design…

 

[tonyrey]

The mind is the dominant factor in the relationship, it is responsible for design and its activity can be investigated scientifically.
The human mind can indeed be investigated scientifically. Since we have no example of the ID designer to study, at the moment we cannot scientifically study the mind of the designer.

The mind is the dominant factor in the mind-body relationship, it is not dependent on the body but intelligent design can be investigated scientifically. We obviously cannot study the mind of the Designer but we can deduce from the evidence of Design that the Designer is infinitely more intelligent than human beings.

You have admitted that intelligent selection is more powerful than natural selection yet you reject it as an explanation of human and biological existence.
It is rejected as science because there is no scientific evidence for it.

There is scientific evidence for intelligent selection by human beings who are **scientifically **explained as molecular systems. Molecular systems are not capable of intelligent selection. Therefore it is necessary to explain how human beings have acquired the power of intelligent selection. Similarly molecular systems are not purposeful but a living cell is a molecular system but it is purposeful. Therefore it is necessary to explain why it is purposeful.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Please show me what you consider to be an objective mathematical basis for beauty.

All music is based on a scale of tones that can be arranged and measured to produce pleasing rhythms. The change of octaves, for example, can produce decidely different effects that the composer is searching for. A child pounding on a keyboard doesn’t understand mathematics, never mind beauty. (However, I have read that Beethoven never did master the multiplication tables.)

All art is based on geometric principles. The failure to grasp them produces artless work. Light and shadows in a painting also must be measured and balanced. Too much light, too much darkness, results in ugliness rather than beauty. An artist must have a well developed mathematical sense of proportion, unless he is the kind of “artist” who throws paint on a canvas and rides a tricycle around on it to produce “art.”

 

[liquidpele]

And aren’t you the funny fellow … *ad hominems *all the way!

…

One thing the ID advocates can always predict: the supreme arrogance of those who oppose ID.

My irony meter just blew up.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

My irony meter just blew up.

The real irony is that anyone should imply Darwin and Einstein were prone to pseudo-science.

 

[liquidpele]

rossum

Please show me what you consider to be an objective mathematical basis for beauty.

All music is based on a scale of tones that can be arranged and measured to produce pleasing rhythms. The change of octaves, for example, can produce decidely different effects that the composer is searching for. A child pounding on a keyboard doesn’t understand mathematics, never mind beauty. (However, I have read that Beethoven never did master the multiplication tables.)

All art is based on geometric principles. The failure to grasp them produces artless work. Light and shadows in a painting also must be measured and balanced. Too much light, too much darkness, results in ugliness rather than beauty. An artist must have an inner sense of proportion, unless he is the kind of “artist” who throws paint on a canvas and rides a tricycle around on it to produce “art.”

I disagree that art is based on mathematics… more like colour ratios, which not everyone sees the same… see a cool argument about that here:

gmilburn.ca/2009/06/19/color-and-reality/

However, I agree that music is certainly based on math… in the book Cryptonomicon there is a whole discussion about that very thing, based on how an organ uses what is essentially mathematical constructs in order to shift into sounding like different things.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

I disagree that art is based on mathematics… more like colour ratios…

What is a ratio? You mean like 2 to 1?

Did you know that most art is arranged in a triangle of focus?

Did you know that many artists long ago did not paint fingers on their subjects because they had not mastered the mathematics of proportion?

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

My irony meter just blew up.

The real irony is that anyone should imply Darwin and Einstein were prone to pseudo-science.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but neither did scientific experiments that support religion or ID… so… why exactly did you bring them up in this thread? Their personal beliefs don’t hold any weight beyond bandwagon effects.