Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[tonyrey]

Blind, slow, disorganized evolution is exactly what we have. Or have you not noticed? We don’t see much evolution today going on very fast, beyond very simple and fast reproducing things like bacteria and fruit flies for this very reason.

*Blind, slow, disorganized evolution is exactly what we have. *
And yet it has produced beings like yourself who are not blind, slow and disorganized .

We don’t see much evolution today going on very fast, beyond very simple and fast reproducing things like bacteria and fruit flies for this very reason.
A desire for instant evolution would amount to a desire for instant Creation! The need for speed is a phenomenon of modern society.

• Of course I can see the good things, but ignoring both sides makes you irresponsible, and my claim was that you were only considering the good things, saying I am not considering the bad is not a valid response. You have to consider BOTH.*
  I included a list of natural evils in my list before you even mentioned them: deformity, disease, death, disasters, etc.
• Evolution DOES explain it all… which is why the theory is so strong.*
  I have pointed out several times that I accept evolution.
• Any part that you think it doesn’t explain is from ignorance willing or otherwise.
• An argumentum ad hominem .
• Abiogenesis is the only part that is still shaky, but it does have a bit of evidence to support it so far, although it likely will adjust itself as further evidence comes in.
• A bit of evidence is hardly enough when abiogenesis underpins the theory of evolution by Chance and Necessity.
• Are you holding out some kind of study that proves a creator?
• Irrelevant sarcasm.
• Did you find Mozart encoded in our DNA or something?*
  Irrelevant sarcasm…
• Your opinions about complexity and purpose is not evidence.*
  To justify that statement it is necessary to explain why.
• You’re right, I don’t think we are much different from animals… in many respects. In others, we are.*
  Those statements are too imprecise to analyse.
• However, our Mozart is as important to us as a song bird’s song is to it, even if the importance is for different reasons.*
  Importance is a value judgment.
• My point is that we have evolved things differently, but we are not alone in creating complex and (defined by us) beautiful things by a long sho*t.
  It is the origin of the creative power of life that is the very issue at stake.
• Yes, murderers are unconventional to the extreme. While not for a praying mantis, we evolved as a social animal and thus killing each other is not an ideal way to go about living in a social structure.*
  That is an understatement which would not justify belief in the right to life…
• You asked for a detailed blueprint of another workable world… but I suspect if I gave any you would then request even more detail.*
  Without detail a blueprint of a world is worthless. It does seem rather presumptuous to design an entire world superior to the one we inhabit.
• My point of no life was that a less violent way exists, period. If you want a less violent way with life, then perhaps you could have a world with no evolving and only a cow and grass. The cow gives of oxygen, the grass CO2, you have equilibrium. Sure, there are other factors, but my point is that the randomness, competition, and violence in the world is not exactly the mark of a designer unless he’s a very poor one or has some reasoning which you can only speculate about which is more of a religious debate than science would you not agree?*
  It is necessary to show that randomness, competition and violence are unnecessary in a physical world which contains millions of living organisms which evolve from molecules to human beings. Since the worlds you describe do not contain human beings it would seems that you believe human beings are more trouble than they are worth!
• Given enough time not anything is possible, but one thing changing a lot sure is… is that not kind of obvious? *
  Changing a lot is hardly the same as inanimate matter being transformed into living organisms and living organisms being transformed into intelligent beings capable of transforming the world…
• Things that reproduce better in any way (including taking better advantage of their environment or competing better) will get preference, and while may not drive the original organism to extinction, will likely replace it as time goes on for one of many factors including inter species mating that still goes on, or environmental changes that it is more adapted to meet.*
  Better reproduction does not explain the power of intelligence and the products of intelligence like logic, science, mathematics and philosophy.
• Intelligence and life are a function of reality, not the other way around as ID claims. I think reality exists and therefore intelligence and life are possible.*
  By reality you presumably mean physical reality but our knowledge of physical reality implies a power that brute physical reality does not possess. Design does not claim that intelligence created reality. That is a separate issue. It claims that Intelligence designed reality.
• That’s another good question… if there is a designer, how did the designer get created? Another designer? Are there designers all the way down?*
  Your sarcasm is wasted. These are philosophical questions unrelated to the issue of Design.

 

[greylorn]

REost #856

Reggie,
In your post #856 you reply to three paragraphs which, because of an inept quoting technique on Charley’s part (in Post #854), attribute a proposition of mine to Charlemagne II.

The following paragraph is mine:

Greylorn:

You need to get that the entire I.D. movement is meaningless and irrelevant until it defines exactly what or who it imagines is the “intelligent designer,” and proposes a suitable set of motivations for the process.

The next two paragraphs are Charley’s. :
Charlemagne II:

You also need to get that ID is not, and cannot ever be,etc. ect.

This is a point I have made about a dozen times…etc. etc.

His lazy method of incorporating quotes is the cause of the problem. In his post #854 my stuff is printed in italics, and could easily be interpreted as coming from him.

I do not know how to deal with this problem except by never replying to Charley or to any other poster who does not take the little bit of trouble necessary to properly format his posts.

Unfortunately, this glitch renders your reply somewhat indecipherable, since exactly what you were replying to is unclear.

 

[Michaelo]

tonyrey

Can you propose a scientific method for detecting intelligent design?

 

[tonyrey]

Part 1*****

#1 - You say there is an element of chance in the design… so where do you draw that line?

Design implies a framework of orderwithin which there is a small element of chance in the form of random mutations and coincidences.

#2 - Some life surviving against the odds doesn’t excuse 99.9% of species going extinct.
No excuse is required. “Every dog has his day.”

However, given the vast spectrum of life, it’s very probably for at least some life (for instance the 1%) to survive such things, so I’m not sure why you need an explanation for it.
The fact that life has survived does not mean it need have survived. If only 1% survived it is evident that the probability of survival is very low.
*
You say it needs to work towards more advanced forms of life, I agree with that, but why not just design the life to start off advanced instead of all this messy competition and dying off stuff?*
You seem to be in favour of Creationism!

How does ID account for the fact that it looks like there is no designer (or a really inefficient one) in this regard?
On the contrary it is widely accepted, even by atheists in this forum, that there is evidence of Design.

#3 - Animals are designed prior to the origin of the universe?
Design usually occurs before the appearance of that which is designed…
*
Smells like religion to me.*
An argumentum ad hominem.
*
The purpose of “having life” is one you conjour from your religious background.*
An argumentum ad hominem.

A rock doesn’t have purpose, if we are only physical we then have no set purpose from the universe or its creation.
“if”" is the operative word…

Your claim of universal purpose is based only on your religious beliefs.
My claim of universal purpose is based on the evidence of purpose in the universe.

#4 - You say some viruses are necessary… so why design the ones that are harmful at all?
The design in the universe is not piecemeal. To expect the smooth without the rough is to be Utopian.

The designer didn’t have the ability to make viruses that were only helpful in evolving things along? This don’t make much logical sense.

It is easy to criticize but to explain how it can be done is a far different proposition…
*
#5 - you answer by claiming science hasn’t answered these questions either, which is a none answer. Things do lack explanation, but this hardly means we get to start guessing at it.*

A reasonable alternative is preferable to a state of ignorance.

If you have some evidence of a designer, let me have it.
Evidence of design is evidence of a designer.

However, without any evidence to support its main attribute, ID is lacking in credibility.
Evidence of intelligent design by human beings is evidence of intelligent Design. There is not one jot of evidence that the power of intelligent design has emerged from atomic particles which lack consciousness and intelligence.

#7 - You claim purpose has been scientifically tested, which I am very curious about because I believe it is subjective to a large degree.
Purpose in the form of premeditated actions and decisions has been scientifically tested in human beings to determine objectively whether they are responsible for their decisions. Pathological cases are judged to lack responsibility.
The purpose (as defined by medicine) basically just hints that survival is the purpose. Would you agree with that?*
Survival alone is an inadequate explanation of human existence. The purpose of existence is development, enjoyment and fulfilment.

You say Parkinson’s disease is purposeless… so I assume you think it is a random mutation?
It may be due to a random mutation or to a defect or failure in brain functions.

Why would a designer design things that can so easily be damaged and mutate?
Natural processes are not easily damaged and mutations are rare. This is evident in the fact that only a small minority have diseases and abnormalities.

Your action of simply attributing all “bad” things as purposeless seems convenient and part of the human condition to me.
Not all evil is purposeless, unfortunately. Human beings are responsible for moral evil.

Would it not be more reasonable to say that all mutations have a purpose, in that they are a gamble for further evolution of the species?
Non-human organisms do not gamble.

If every event is not caused by the designer, how are you drawing the line? What evidence do you have beyond your opinion about purpose and non-purpose that is based on a designed universe?

The acid test of purpose is success. Failure is an objective sign that purpose is not accomplished. Medical scientists and biologists agree that not only survival but the quality of life is a sign of biological success. Malfunction is an objective criterion.

#8 - if DNA was designed with the origin of the universe, why have it mutate all the time and cause the bonanza of genetic diseases?
DNA does not mutate all the time but only very rarely. Design is not a piecemeal process. It is accomplished through the laws of nature which cannot allow for every contingency.

 

[tonyrey]

Part 2

*Do you think all species started off separate then, or was the chain of evolution set in motion at the beginning with the designer knowing what to expect? *
The chain of evolution is a continuous process designed so that living organisms would develop, multiply and enjoy being alive. Almost every physical activity from eating to reproducing gives pleasure and satisfaction. Play in young animals, delight in movement and birdsong are examples of success in the Design of nature.

In that case, how could the designer have accounted for environmental factors such as ice ages that killed off many many species? Can the designer see the future?
Design implies purpose which implies foresight.

Can we just use the word God and get over this renaming silliness?
The term “God” takes us out of the realm of science. We have direct knowledge of designers.

#9 - the “better explanation” is in your head, that is the problem.
The better explanation is established by criteria like adequacy, economy, probability and fertility.

ID proponents used to question the evolution of the eye, and this was fully explained in the last few decades.
The development of immensely complex organs like the eye presupposes an increase in the biological complexity and organization of the first living organisms which is characteristic of **farsighted **Design rather than blind evolution!

Now it’s something else. How many explanations must be found? There are thousands that support random genetic mutation and genetic drift, while none (ZERO) so far that support a designer.

** Random **genetic mutations and genetic **drift **are inadequate explanations of non-random, **directional **processes.

Saying it’s not explained yet is NOT support of a designer, it just means we don’t know.
The success of science is direct evidence of what intelligence can achieve and it is incomparably more creative and more powerful than any physical mechanism which lacks hindsight, insight and foresight…

 

[greylorn]

greylorn

greylorn:

I’m not trying to put down your version of I.D, only to point out its limitations. Are you pretending that they don’t exist? I don;'t get that. I do get that you are trying to justify a weak conceptual position by pointing out another, equally weak,position in the form of Big Bang theory.

No, you apparently have not been following the thread. I have been comparing ID with abiogenesis by chance. That notion has been discussed at length earlier in the forum. All attempts to prove life can happen by chance have failed, and are also doomed by the fact that such attempt are themselves intelligently designed. So there is no scientific proof that there is any likelihood that abiogenesis arose by chance. If there is, you are obliged to offer it.

So where is your proof? Aren’t you supposed to be all for science, which says that you just don’t allege a thing to be so without proof? Whereas the odds that abiogenesis are so small (tell what you think are the odds … you have to provide odds opposed to the odds presented by Dembski, Weinberg, Hoyle and others, or you have to be quiet about the odds, which so far you have managed to do).

In the absence of absolute proof either way, the odds are that intelligent design of the universe and everything in it makes a whole lot more sense than blind chance. Darwin and Einstein thought so. So did Newton. But about all I hear from you is a hateful diatribe against Darwin. :tsktsk:

Please, young man. I appreciate your passion for your beliefs, but getting angry at me for disagreeing with some of them and expressing your anger in a vituperative manner will only serve to get the excellent thread you initiated prematurely closed. Let’s not do that. There are some first-rate thinkers posting on this thread.

With any luck, you’ve just returned from looking up “vituperative” and have had a moment to cool down. Perhaps you could benefit from reading my stuff twice, because it does not appear to be sinking in at first read. If you understood what I’m saying, or trying to say, I suspect that you’d be a tad friendlier. After all, we are ultimately on the same side.

I admitted freely that I’ve not read many of your posts within this thread. That is true for other posters as well, because this thread is operating under the implicit assumption that the I.D. movement is furthering the cause of religion. Therefore, most discussions are wrapped up in the assumption that the Intelligent Designer is the omnipotent, omniscient God defined by Christianity. That entity is defined in such a manner that it can never be identified, proven, or disproved to exist.

As I’ve tried unsuccessfully to interject on several occasions, the entire concept of I.D. is really nothing new, and will not be until it adopts a formal description of the Designer which can at least be disproved.

This statement does not make me an atheist. (I am evidently not the only one who is not reading the other’s brilliant posts.) Had you paid just a modicum of attention you would know that I believe in a Creator. However, I do not find the classical religious descriptions of the properties and motivations of their God to be a reasonable description of the Creator of the universe.

I would never attempt to justify abiogenesis because every scientific paper I’ve read on the subject smacks of handwaving pseudo-science. I cannot even justify Darwinian evolution, which is why I do not hold Darwin in quite the reverence which you do. I read his stuff. His arguments are incorrect. I’ll bet that except for an occasional pithy quote in favor of your beliefs (which he wisely used to appease rabid religionists and avoid Bruno’s fate) you’ve not studied his published works. Same re: Albert E.

I appreciate your need to reference an authority figure. It is common. Do you want to be common, or would you consider engaging conversations like this from only your own personal knowledge base? Doing so would be uncommon and courageous, risking being wrong, often. But it is a darned good way to learn.

Until we can get squared away on this, there’s no point in conversing further.

Moreover, I’ll not reply to any posts which do not handle quotes in a standard manner. Reasons are explained in Post #877. Kindly take the little bit of trouble necessary to separate and properly attribute quotes, using nesting rules if necessary. This is not difficult, and facilitates for all readers the little clarity these subjects are likely to generate.

Also please consider not using the silly “emoticons” in your posts. They are for the irrelevant-conversation sections of CAF, for those who do not express themselves effectively in words. You do not need them.

Thank you.

 

[Michaelo]

Answer my question tonyrey:

Can you propose a scientific method for detecting intelligent design?

 

[reggieM]

Reggie,
In your post #856 you reply to three paragraphs which, because of an inept quoting technique on Charley’s part (in Post #854), attribute a proposition of mine to Charlemagne II.
…

Unfortunately, this glitch renders your reply somewhat indecipherable, since exactly what you were replying to is unclear.

Thanks for that – I was confused by the quotes and italics.

I will hope my fellow-ID supporters recognize that you’re not be the enemy here – at least, on the essential topic of theism, which takes on huge importance in these kinds of debates.

My point was that it’s important to work up through various levels – from rank atheistic-materialism by use of ID – then to the Creator in general terms with St. Thomas and the scholastics, then on to revelation and the teachings of Christ.

I accept that you disagree on what the limits of empirical science are regarding the identity of the Creator, but I appreciate the common ground outside of that point.

 

[greylorn]

Thanks for that – I was confused by the quotes and italics.

I will hope my fellow-ID supporters recognize that you’re not be the enemy here – at least, on the essential topic of theism, which takes on huge importance in these kinds of debates.

My point was that it’s important to work up through various levels – from rank atheistic-materialism by use of ID – then to the Creator in general terms with St. Thomas and the scholastics, then on to revelation and the teachings of Christ.

I accept that you disagree on what the limits of empirical science are regarding the identity of the Creator, but I appreciate the common ground outside of that point.

Reggie,
Thank you for the objectivity. Would you consider inviting your clones and any kindred spirits to this site?

Working up from scientific-atheism is an admirable goal, if it can work. Do I.D. arguments actually convert any atheists into even agnostics? I have no way of measuring that, but my assessment is that they do not. I.D. is promoted, I suspect, by educated individuals who need some kind of justification for their religious beliefs, which are regarded by serious scientists and their huge numbers of educated but scientifically obtuse camp followers as essentially medieval.

As I’ve noted on my website in reference to Michael Behe’s superb refutation of Darwinism and promotion of I.D., suppose one finds a genuinely objective atheist and convinces him that Darwinism does not work, and that intelligent design is the most viable alternative---- “Don’t expect them to show up for Sunday Mass anytime soon.”

 

[greylorn]

Answer my question tonyrey:

Can you propose a scientific method for detecting intelligent design?

I’d like to cut into this conversation, since this is my kind of subject.

Suppose that the good scientists at Monsanto were to study the behavior of biological life at the cellular level, and decipher some snippets of DNA code for a particular species. They then figure out a way to change that DNA in a beneficial manner, for example, to allow corn to thrive on the herbicide Round Up. This would allow farmers to spray an entire cornfield with the toxin to prevent weeds and increase yields of the herbicide-laden vegetable you will eventually be eating in one form or another, Round-Up incorporated.

The scientists who might someday be able to accomplish such a feat are well on their way to demonstrating the scientific feasibility of I.D.

The ultimate experiment might be an expanded version of the Stanley Miller gorp mixer, a complex of heated and electrically stimulated vats and chambers into which scientists feed the primeval components thought to be the precursors of life. Suppose that after 10 years they open the chamber doors, and out step little green men. They will have proven that intelligence can produce life.

With luck, these highly unsatisfactory answers to your question will provoke a better and more relevant question. Such as, what is the origin of intelligence?

Try for a better comeback than the ever popular but dreadfully dogmatic, “always existed.” .

 

[reggieM]

Working up from scientific-atheism is an admirable goal, if it can work. Do I.D. arguments actually convert any atheists into even agnostics?

Yes, there have been two somewhat spectacular conversions of high-profile atheists recently. Anthony Flew wasn’t actually converted by ID arguments but by empirical observations of cellular complexity. Since then, he has supported his conversion by ID theory. He hasn’t embraced a religious discipline and considers himself a Deist, but it’s a number of steps up from agnosticism. The other, just this year, was the author A.N. Wilson who was converted by a pro-ID book by science writer and physician James LeFanu Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves . Wilson converted to Anglicanism and supports ID theory (with reservations).
Here’s a quote from LeFanu’s book that gives a taste for his brilliant writing (I haven’t read the book but I’ve read other things by him):

When cosmologists can reliably infer what happened in the first few minutes of the birth of the universe and geologists can measure the movements of vast continents to the nearest centimeter, then the inscrutability of those genetic instructions that should distinguish a human from a fly, or the failure to account for something as elementary as how we recall a telephone number, throws into sharp relief the unfathomability of ourselves. It is as if we, and, indeed, all living things, are in some way different, profounder, and more complex than the physical world to which we belong . . . This is not just a matter of science not yet knowing all the facts; rather, there is the sense that something of immense importance is “missing” that might transform the bare bones of genes into the wondrous diversity of the living world and the monotonous electrical firing of the neurons of the brain into the vast spectrum of sensations and ideas of the human mind.

As I’ve noted on my website in reference to Michael Behe’s superb refutation of Darwinism and promotion of I.D., suppose one finds a genuinely objective atheist and convinces him that Darwinism does not work, and that intelligent design is the most viable alternative---- “Don’t expect them to show up for Sunday Mass anytime soon.”

That’s my favorite part of your site thus far (I owe you a review) – and I do agree that the response will be something like that if ID gets a warm welcome. The conversation has to continue beyond what ID can prove. Otherwise, it’s just Deism of some kind - or an Intelligent Force as an organizing principle. That is still a very good first step out of atheism though, as I see it.

 

[liquidpele]

I’d like to cut into this conversation, since this is my kind of subject.

Suppose that the good scientists at Monsanto were to study the behavior of biological life at the cellular level, and decipher some snippets of DNA code for a particular species. They then figure out a way to change that DNA in a beneficial manner, for example, to allow corn to thrive on the herbicide Round Up. This would allow farmers to spray an entire cornfield with the toxin to prevent weeds and increase yields of the herbicide-laden vegetable you will eventually be eating in one form or another, Round-Up incorporated.

The scientists who might someday be able to accomplish such a feat are well on their way to demonstrating the scientific feasibility of I.D.

The ultimate experiment might be an expanded version of the Stanley Miller gorp mixer, a complex of heated and electrically stimulated vats and chambers into which scientists feed the primeval components thought to be the precursors of life. Suppose that after 10 years they open the chamber doors, and out step little green men. They will have proven that intelligence can produce life.

With luck, these highly unsatisfactory answers to your question will provoke a better and more relevant question. Such as, what is the origin of intelligence?

Try for a better comeback than the ever popular but dreadfully dogmatic, “always existed.” .

Sorry, I know I said I was leaving, but I took the day off, and expected better form you greylorn.

1. We already did that. Just about every harvested produce in existence has been modified either genetically or through breeding. There is a great documentary on it from Modern Marvels which you can find right here.
2. This is no way supports ID, only shows that it’s possible for intelligence to modify stuff… which was obvious from the start. ID requires an ultimate designer, which this does nothing for.
3. Try for a better comeback than the ever popular but dreadfully dogmatic, “looks complicated/unexplained, must be proof of God!”

If God exists, he made everything. EVERYTHING. Including all the randomness we see, all the things that were explained by science thus far, all the things that look completely natural and random and explainable. To say that what’s still not explained is any different, that it’s just magic, seems hopeful at best and delusional at worst, given nothing like that has been found yet, only speculated. If you ant to believe in a designer, fine, but given the evidence and history of “God did it, oh wait… God did it, oh wait…” it is not reasonable to assume that this time it’s going to be provable. Presupposing God, science is examining and understanding his handiwork after all, so I don’t see how suddenly things will drastically change for science in what it discovers.

Okay, back to tiling… bye again

 

[reggieM]

1. This is no way supports ID, only shows that it’s possible for intelligence to modify stuff… which was obvious from the start. ID requires an ultimate designer, which this does nothing for.

It was also obvious from the start that intelligence would produce results, and non-intelligent physical laws would not. When symmetric, complex patterns of function and cooperation are observed (as in countless examples in nature), then intelligence is the most reasonable cause. That’s a very strong support for ID. Richard Dawkins and Leonard Susskind have taken pains to argue against that point for that very reason.

 

[buffalo]

Video: Signature in the Cell

Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

 

[North_of_Nod]

Excellent video! He really did a great job explaining the difference between structure formation and the significance of that structure within DNA. ID is by far the strongest argument out there. To me, everything else seems foolish and terribly unfounded. Awesome post!

 

[greylorn]

Yes, there have been two somewhat spectacular conversions of high-profile atheists recently. Anthony Flew wasn’t actually converted by ID arguments but by empirical observations of cellular complexity. Since then, he has supported his conversion by ID theory. He hasn’t embraced a religious discipline and considers himself a Deist, but it’s a number of steps up from agnosticism. The other, just this year, was the author A.N. Wilson who was converted by a pro-ID book by science writer and physician James LeFanu Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves . Wilson converted to Anglicanism and supports ID theory (with reservations).
Here’s a quote from LeFanu’s book that gives a taste for his brilliant writing (I haven’t read the book but I’ve read other things by him):

When cosmologists can reliably infer what happened in the first few minutes of the birth of the universe and geologists can measure the movements of vast continents to the nearest centimeter, then the inscrutability of those genetic instructions that should distinguish a human from a fly, or the failure to account for something as elementary as how we recall a telephone number, throws into sharp relief the unfathomability of ourselves. It is as if we, and, indeed, all living things, are in some way different, profounder, and more complex than the physical world to which we belong . . . This is not just a matter of science not yet knowing all the facts; rather, there is the sense that something of immense importance is “missing” that might transform the bare bones of genes into the wondrous diversity of the living world and the monotonous electrical firing of the neurons of the brain into the vast spectrum of sensations and ideas of the human mind.

That’s my favorite part of your site thus far (I owe you a review) – and I do agree that the response will be something like that if ID gets a warm welcome. The conversation has to continue beyond what ID can prove. Otherwise, it’s just Deism of some kind - or an Intelligent Force as an organizing principle. That is still a very good first step out of atheism though, as I see it.

Reggie,
I accept what you’ve said here, including your refutation of my complaint. I am happy to do so, since I accept the facts behind I.D.

I remain put off by the I.D.proponents who use it as proof for their existing belief system. Your statement, “The conversation has to continue beyond what ID can prove,” expresses my feelings perfectly. That, of course, is the purpose behind my ideas.

I suspect that most of those posting to the CAF philosophy section would agree with the idea that the conversation must continue beyond I.D., but that they would draw the line at including Judeao-Christian dogma in the context of that conversation. That is why I continue to forward the principle that for I.D. to flourish beyond the confines of religion, it must get serious about identifying the Designer.

Thanks for the excerpt from LeFanu. He is an insightful writer, and I shall order his book. With luck, my theories might offer some insight as to the missing thing of immense importance which he so clearly sees. .

 

[greylorn]

Sorry, I know I said I was leaving, but I took the day off, and expected better form you greylorn.

1. We already did that. Just about every harvested produce in existence has been modified either genetically or through breeding. There is a great documentary on it from Modern Marvels which you can find right here.
2. This is no way supports ID, only shows that it’s possible for intelligence to modify stuff… which was obvious from the start. ID requires an ultimate designer, which this does nothing for.
3. Try for a better comeback than the ever popular but dreadfully dogmatic, “looks complicated/unexplained, must be proof of God!”

If God exists, he made everything. EVERYTHING. Including all the randomness we see, all the things that were explained by science thus far, all the things that look completely natural and random and explainable. To say that what’s still not explained is any different, that it’s just magic, seems hopeful at best and delusional at worst, given nothing like that has been found yet, only speculated. If you ant to believe in a designer, fine, but given the evidence and history of “God did it, oh wait… God did it, oh wait…” it is not reasonable to assume that this time it’s going to be provable. Presupposing God, science is examining and understanding his handiwork after all, so I don’t see how suddenly things will drastically change for science in what it discovers.

Okay, back to tiling… bye again

Since I assume that everyone with a 3-digit IQ knows that monsanto makes genetically modified food, my example was intended to be slightly facetious. I must have overestimated.

It seems beyond argument that evidence of intelligent beings actually designing, engineering, and building things is not supportive of the possibility that other intelligent beings designed life.

I find some of your statements and positions confusing, You declare yourself an agnostic, yet seem to insist upon the proposition that if there is a God, He must be the God of Christianity.

Atheists make the same mistake. The God they believe does not exist is the omnipotent God of Chrisitianity. That prevents them from considering more logical possibilities and insures that they will remain atheists.

 

[liquidpele]

Since I assume that everyone with a 3-digit IQ knows that monsanto makes genetically modified food, my example was intended to be slightly facetious. I must have overestimated.

It seems beyond argument that evidence of intelligent beings actually designing, engineering, and building things is not supportive of the possibility that other intelligent beings designed life.

I find some of your statements and positions confusing, You declare yourself an agnostic, yet seem to insist upon the proposition that if there is a God, He must be the God of Christianity.

Atheists make the same mistake. The God they believe does not exist is the omnipotent God of Chrisitianity. That prevents them from considering more logical possibilities and insures that they will remain atheists.

Forgive me if I mistook your example for ignorance. I still contend that humans having the ability to design things does not support ID though. ID is a possibility of course, I don’t think anyone could really deny that, but it’s just one of many including that aliens dumped their excrement here billions of years ago (just to think of the most unflattering beginning I can). Until there is direct evidence of it and not just poor logic and points made about it being a possibility, it won’t be take seriously.

I did not insist on the proposition, I assumed it. This is a Catholic forum after all. If you want to talk hypothetical Gods and assume the Christian God doesn’t exist, then you’re basically a deist and/or a daydreamer in my opinion. The remote possibility of a hypothetical creator is exactly why I’m agnostic.

And now, just because I know you love them…

… did you know it limits you to 8 images?? hahaha… I’m far too amused by that, I need coffee…

 

[tonyrey]

Admittedly there is plenty of evidence showing that deliberate intelligence might have participated in creation, but evidence alone does not constitute
I honestly cannot accept the “scientific” part of that statement.

That is a very important point which needs emphasizing: there is plenty of evidence showing that deliberate intelligence might have participated in creation…

Science is a complex process which begins with a theory or set of connected theories. The theory must be verifiable, whether by direct observation or inference from indirect observations. That’s where the evidence comes in.

The evidence for Design is supported by direct observation of our own experience of design. Design makes verifiable and falsifiable predictions which I have already listed.

Where is the theory behind I.D? That some intelligence is responsible for creation?

The theory is that Design is produced by a conscious, intelligent and purposeful Person. It is based on our direct knowledge that design is produced only by conscious, intelligent persons.

I’ve presented logic (other threads) which show that if God is omniscient, He cannot think. How then might He truly be called a Creator?

Design postulates a Designer rather than a Creator. It is more intelligible and economical to identify the Designer with the Creator but that is a philosophical rather than a scientific issue.

There is another criterion which falls upon ID proponents, which does not fall to atheists. It is the question of motivation.

The motive and purpose of Design is evident in the immense value of existence, the success of evolution, the power of intelligence, the achievements of science, the creative achievements in the arts and our ability to think for ourselves, reach our own conclusions and shape our own destiny. It is no accident that we are participating in this philosophical discussion!

Until I.D. adopts a description of the Designer which can be taken seriously, it will only qualify as “scientific” in the minds of those who wish it to.

The Designer must be immeasurably intelligent to design this immensely complex universe. The Designer must also be benevolent in view of the immense value of existence.

Incidentally, I don’t buy the notion that because one explanation doesn’t work, an opposing explanation is any better.

It is a question of choosing the best available explanation.

My real thoughts about Darwinism are unfit for print. Suffice it to say that Darwinism is so obviously absurd to any engineer or mathematician that it would never have gained its size-20 foothold had the Church paid attention to Galileo and re-examined its dogma in light of scientific theory and evidence. There. I’ve said it and I’m glad.

I’m delighted you’re glad! I entirely agree with you about the absurdity of Darwinism.

 

[greylorn]

Forgive me if I mistook your example for ignorance. I still contend that humans having the ability to design things does not support ID though. ID is a possibility of course, I don’t think anyone could really deny that, but it’s just one of many including that aliens dumped their excrement here billions of years ago (just to think of the most unflattering beginning I can). Until there is direct evidence of it and not just poor logic and points made about it being a possibility, it won’t be take seriously.

You are forgiven. Just don’t let it happen again.

Human creation does not support the implied I.D. proposition that an omnipotent God created the universe. It does support the basic proposition that intelligence preceded creation.

On several posts, this thread, I’ve reiterated the proposition that before I.D. can become a legitimately “scientific” theory it must define the designer. I’m surprised that atheists and Buddhists have failed to align on this point, which is really their most obvious counterargument to I.D.---- “Who or What is the Intelligent Designer? What are His, Hers, or Its properties and motivations?”

All variations of the “alien poo” argument simply defer the relevant questions to another galaxy. Let’s solve the creation problem here. You are smart enough to help, instead of simply whining about ideas of which you disapprove.

You can move down from the “direct evidence” high ground position as soon as you realize, then admit, that all evidence which atheists and religionists alike have to support their theories about how and why we have a universe are inferential. There is no direct evidence for anything whatsoever.

Your eyes detect photons, not a universe. Your ears detect pressure waves. This information is fed into a brain via biochemical cells which move potassium and sodium ions from place to place. No one know how the brain works.

Before you complain overmuch about the absence of direct evidence, please share with me your unique source of that elusive commodity.

Bottom line, LP, aren’t religionists, atheists, and you pretty much spouting off and wasting an otherwise good mind justifying theories which someone else made up?

I did not insist on the proposition, I assumed it. This is a Catholic forum after all. If you want to talk hypothetical Gods and assume the Christian God doesn’t exist, then you’re basically a deist and/or a daydreamer in my opinion. The remote possibility of a hypothetical creator is exactly why I’m agnostic.

Some wise man should have said, “It is better to think than to assume.”

I own a dictionary. I have described myself as a theist, with complications, but not as a deist. Your confusion is typical of individuals who are opinionated because having an opinion is so much easier than the alternative: paying attention, maybe even thinking.

If you look up “daydreamer” in a dictionary, you might find that the word does not describe me competently. Then, you might look into your own mind and consider how well commonplace thought forms, such as opinions, have and are serving you.

You have information at your disposal. My self-description does not include “Catholic.” Surely you’ve observed that to the credit of the Catholic Church, this forum is open to a variety of beliefs and opinions.

In that spirit, your presence here might be to either resolve or expand your agnosticism. It is not to go away P.O.'d.

And now, just because I know you love them…

… did you know it limits you to 8 images?? hahaha… I’m far too amused by that, I need coffee…

No, you need beer. Coffee is the cause of your bizarre need to communicate with the same symbols in which a first grader would delight, thereby blowing off the responsibilities which every intelligent mind owns, and knows, however it may pretend otherwise.