Thank God for skunks

[wanstronian]

Many scientists conclude that there had to be a first cause.The Big Bang could have been the first cause .It would make no sense for the sun to come up and down every day by chance .It would make no sense for us to have the moon out every night by chance . An intelligent designer makes sense .If he did not cause the first cause who did?It only makes sense that God caused it .He is the intelligent designer .And it is our God the only God who did it.We have the miracles and cases to back it up . Evolution was rejected by its maker before he died . Lanciano (the bleeding host ) Scientificly unexplainable(Linoli) said it is"a unique case" . Quadulupe another unexplainable case (Dont even bring up Marco the Indian 7 painting replicas of that image on Cactus cloth and they all faded over time while the image stands. Lourdes another case . Lets play the rational game as well . Many atheists refuse to read books by Christians arguing atheism .Many atheists refuse to look at our arguments for miracle cases as well . This makes the atheist close minded which would make them also irrational thinkers . This would also make them hypocrites for calling us irrational . I like playing this game .www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com

Well, there you have it, ladies and gents. “It doesn’t make sense [to me],” and “Just look at these [unconfirmed] miracles.” QED. We atheists don’t stand a chance against watertight logic like this.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey makes an excellent point when he says that purposeful activity does not come from purposeless causes.

The Argument from Ignorance is made by those who cling desperately to the preconception that the whole of reality can in principle be explained in terms of atomic particles - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary! They resort to such imposing terms as “supervenience” which turn out to be mere cloaks for blind faith in the magical power of matter to produce the magnificent richness and exquisite beauty of nature, not to mention the incredible achievements of the human mind which alone is responsible for the astonishing success of science and profound insight into the nature of spiritual reality. Philosophy and religion alone are responsible for the universal acceptance of the principles formulated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

If this is ignorance heaven help those who are the victims of a secular society dominated by scientific - as opposed to moral - principles following the example of the Nazis and other anti-religious regimes. Abortion, eugenics, vivisection and euthanasia of the “unfit” are the logical consequences of the view that the rights to life, freedom and happiness are merely human conventions that can be ignored if necessary. When man proposes **and **disposes there are no limits to the atrocities of which he is capable in the name of “progress”. He becomes the autocrat not only at the breakfast table but at every other meal!

Purpose we recognize via observation and analysis. What that specific purpose is natural science confirms and specifies by investigating the processes responsible for what we have observed. In the case of the skunk, we have observed the way it defends itself, and can conclude that the purpose of all the components involved in that process is for defense. Seeing as impersonal causes cannot logically be the origin of purpose, is it logical to assume that impersonal causes exist as anything other than secondary?

According to that hypothesis even **personal causes **become secondary because you regard persons as animals!

Yes, we can conclude that the purpose of the components involved in the process of defence, is primarily for defence. But it would be wrong to assume that this was an intended goal of the development of those components. Mr skunk’s ancestors didn’t start out millions of years ago saying, “We need to develop a defence mechanism that works by spraying a terrible-smelling substance all over our attackers.” Such a supposition would falsify The Theory That Must Not Be Named at a stroke.

Your hypothesis doesn’t end there but claims that **all purposeful activity **is derived from purposeless activity! By some inexplicable means the “less” was transformed into “full” - a scientific conjuring trick in the same category as “particles have become persons”…

The evolution of the skunk’s defence mechanism - indeed, of any defence mechanism, is explained in simple and elegant terms by the scientific theory we’re not allowed to talk about. That’s why it’s so frustrating that we’re not allowed to talk about it - because it means that theistic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of it is allowed to propagate unhindered. And yes - the theistic version of Evolution is deeply implausible, hence my comment regarding dogma vs knowledge.

Your interpretation of “knowledge” is not only implausible but distinctly false because science is based on philosophical principles like the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. You are committed to the dogma is that the sole reality is matter - with mind as a freak, insignificant offshoot…

I personally don’t believe that the level of vitriol had anything to do with the banning of Evolution or Atheism as discussion points. Why? Because there’s still plenty of heated argumentation on other subjects, and the mods don’t seem to be worried about that. On balance, it seems to me far more likely that the ban is in place because it allows theistic dogma to perpetuate unthreatened by common sense.

The ban is in place because the sole goal of certain individuals on this forum is to attack and discredit religion under the façade of philosophical discussion rather than consider the issues at stake objectively.

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting comment pieman. I have learned that there are many stalkers on CAF. Time after time, after time, the same posters hound me on certain subjects. It seems to me they just contradict much of what is said just for personal reasons and the subject really goes nowhere. It gets irritating and when I get angry I end up in trouble. But thats the nature of discussion forums I suppose.

The solution is to report them!

 

[vz71]

If you look up the origins of IDC, you will see that it most certainly is Creationism, albeit thinly disguised. IDC came about solely as a mission to bring religion into the science class, which is why IDC is touted as science. This transparent ulterior motive was comprehensively busted in Dover v Kitzmiller. IDC advocates can kid themselves that it isn’t creationism, but who do they think the Designer was?

I have always been confused by the argument that ID was creationism.
I always viewed it as simply a difference in impetus.

Evolutionary theory prescribes natural selection, ID prescribes a designer behind it.
Both the same process, but with the cause altered.
And given that, I could not at all figure out why the vitriolic arguments.

I need to thank you.
You have explained the vitriol in the argument perfectly.
It would appear that incorporating God into the equation is the cause.

 

[rossum]

1. Intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

That is precisely what it is at the moment, an assertion. An assertion which has no evidence to back it up. There is no independent evidence of the existence of the proposed designer. There is no evidence of when this designer acted. There is no evidence of how this designer acted. All that ID has is the raw assertion: “the Flying Spaghetti Monster designed all life on Earth.” Are you convinced? No, neither am I.

1. A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes
   en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligent_design

I am aware of two main lines of argument that ID has put forward to support their conjecture. The first is Behe’s Irreducible Complexity (IC). The second is Dembski’s Complex Specified Information (CSI). In both cases the ID argument has failed.

Behe himself has acknowledged that IC systems can evolve. His own paper, Behe and Snoke (2004), shows that a simple IC system can evolve in a small population of bacteria in 20,000 years.

Dembski’s CSI argument is similarly flawed. He asserts that regular processes cannot produce CSI, yet is is trivially easy to show a regular process producing CSI. In order to keep the size down I will use a short example so my example covers only SI, without the C for complex. A longer example would be large enough to be Complex as well.

The ‘S’ stands for specified, so we need a specification: “A line from a Shakespeare sonnet.”

Here is some text which meets the specification: “Shall I compare thee to a Summer’s day?”

Here is some text which does not meet the specification: “Funyy V pbzcner gurr gb n Fhzzre’f qnl?”

Each text contains the same amount of information as they are the same length and taken from the same alphabet. The first text contains specified information because it meets the specification while the second text contains no specified information because it does not meet the specification.

However if we apply the regular process of Rot13, a barrel shift of thirteen letters, the second text becomes the same as the first text. The regular process of Rot13 has increased the CSI of the second text from zero to the same value as the first text. This shows that Dembski’s claim about regular processes being unable to produce CSI is false. I have given an example of the production of SI. Had I picked a longer text, such as the complete works of Shakespeare, then my example would have also been complex, and shown the production of CSI.

It in no way impedes on or is in any way making an attempt to influence the natural sciences, it is purely philosophical.

ID impedes the natural sciences by trying to affect the teaching of science, particularly biology, in US public schools. ID is primarily a political movement, set up in the wake of constitutional defeats for creationism as a back door into public school science classes.

It is not possible through the means of natural science to conclude whether or not there is an intelligence,

If the intelligence never acts in the material world then you are right. If the intelligence is claimed to act in the material world, as the ID designer is supposed to have, then you are wrong. Natural science can tell us the no intelligence drained the Atlantic ocean during November 2010. The Atlantic ocean is a material object and we can be sure that it has not recently been drained by any intelligence.

Is it logical to conclude that the purposes of functions and components, their assembly by instruction of genetics, and the order of the processes and natural mechanics that brought them about have any other source than one of intelligence and purpose?

Yes it is logical. We have Professor Behe’s calculations that I referenced above to tell us that evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex genetic instructions.

rossum

 

[wanstronian]

The Argument from Ignorance is made by those who cling desperately to the preconception that the whole of reality can in principle be explained in terms of atomic particles - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary! They resort to such imposing terms as “supervenience” which turn out to be mere cloaks for blind faith in the magical power of matter to produce the magnificent richness and exquisite beauty of nature, not to mention the incredible achievements of the human mind which alone is responsible for the astonishing success of science and profound insight into the nature of spiritual reality. Philosophy and religion alone are responsible for the universal acceptance of the principles formulated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

If this is ignorance heaven help those who are the victims of a secular society dominated by scientific - as opposed to moral - principles following the example of the Nazis and other anti-religious regimes. Abortion, eugenics, vivisection and euthanasia of the “unfit” are the logical consequences of the view that the rights to life, freedom and happiness are merely human conventions that can be ignored if necessary. When man proposes **and **disposes there are no limits to the atrocities of which he is capable in the name of “progress”. He becomes the autocrat not only at the breakfast table but at every other meal!

This is just a diatribe that not only repeats the Argument from Ignorance while wrongly defining the fallacy itself, but also introduces several assertions for which you produce no justification. You then go on to totally misrepresent secular humanism as equivalent to Nazism - ironic given Hitler’s well-documented and repeatedly self-confirmed Christianity (not to mention the fact that Catholic liturgy at the time, misinterpreted though it may have been, provided a far more compelling reason to target the Jews than the ideology of atheism. It’s no coincidence that nobody has ever been able to point to a single aspect of atheism that leads logically to the slaughter or oppression of religious people.)

You paint a portrait of secularism as nothing more than cold-hearted, dispassionate intellectualisation of every aspect of life, despite that fact that you must know plenty of secular people who act nothing like you describe. So the evidence that you are deeply and fundamentally wrong is right in front of your eyes… yet you cling to your insulting and stupid dogma regardless.

According to that hypothesis even **personal causes **become secondary because you regard persons as animals!

Here, you appear to be attacking a comment that I didn’t even make. Apparently, such is your compulsion to disagree with me, you’ve found yourself disagreeing with a fellow Catholic. You may disagree with his/her opinion of course, but I’d suggest you do so by responding to their post rather than making it look like their comment was mine.

Your hypothesis doesn’t end there but claims that **all purposeful activity **is derived from purposeless activity! By some inexplicable means the “less” was transformed into “full” - a scientific conjuring trick in the same category as “particles have become persons”…

Here again you seem to be referring to “my” continuation of a hypothesis that I didn’t even make! The only claim I have made here, in fact, is the scientifically supported claim that Evolution is not a purposeful, intelligently-guided process. If you take the trouble to understand it, you’ll see that it doesn’t need to be. I suspect that this is the biggest erroneous assumption that theists make when considering the plausibility of the theory. As I said, this is why the ban is so frustrating - because we don’t get the chance to correct the misunderstandings.

I don’t know what you mean when you say, “‘less’ was transformed into ‘full’,” given that I have never made reference to proportion. I suspect this is just another aspect of your error in assuming that CTuck’s post is mine. Nor is there any “conjuring” involved. It’s just science. You may disagree with it, but in doing so you arbitrarily reject a huge amount of consistent scientific evidence - certainly more than has ever been gathered in support of any other theory, and growing daily - in favour of your own unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Your laborious repetition of your personal opinion does not magically endow it with the property of correctness.

Your interpretation of “knowledge” is not only implausible but distinctly false because science is based on philosophical principles like the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. You are committed to the dogma is that the sole reality is matter - with mind as a freak, insignificant offshoot…

How do you know what my interpretation of “knowledge” is? Your objection makes no sense, it addresses no part of the comment I made. What I’m committed to is not making assumptions or leaps of logic that are entirely unsupported by evidence. That’s all.

The ban is in place because the sole goal of certain individuals on this forum is to attack and discredit religion under the façade of philosophical discussion rather than consider the issues at stake objectively.

Then why not just ban all atheists? And as we have seen above, you’re hardly in a position to criticise on the grounds of objectivity.

I don’t really want to engage with you further Tony, as experience has taught me that it’s futile. Not because your arguments are good, but because you don’t realise that they are bad. Until you realise that your own personal conviction is not an adequately objective indicator of reality, there’s really no point talking to you.

 

[wanstronian]

I have always been confused by the argument that ID was creationism.
I always viewed it as simply a difference in impetus.

Evolutionary theory prescribes natural selection, ID prescribes a designer behind it.
Both the same process, but with the cause altered.
And given that, I could not at all figure out why the vitriolic arguments.

I need to thank you.
You have explained the vitriol in the argument perfectly.
It would appear that incorporating God into the equation is the cause.

You are welcome to infer this, but as we both know, I have not implied it.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t really want to engage with you further Tony, as experience has taught me that it’s futile. Not because your arguments are good, but because you don’t realise that they are bad. Until you realise that your own personal conviction is not an adequately objective indicator of reality, there’s really no point talking to you.

I have precisely the same opinion of you - with the difference that I don’t evade your questions and resort to invective like “insulting and stupid dogma”.

It is very sad you’re so deeply entrenched in your world of material objects you cannot conceive of any other form of reality…

 

[vz71]

I have always been confused by the argument that ID was creationism.
I always viewed it as simply a difference in impetus.

Evolutionary theory prescribes natural selection, ID prescribes a designer behind it.
Both the same process, but with the cause altered.
And given that, I could not at all figure out why the vitriolic arguments.

I need to thank you.
You have explained the vitriol in the argument perfectly.
It would appear that incorporating God into the equation is the cause.

You are welcome to infer this, but as we both know, I have not implied it.

Both?
Are you implying that you can read minds as well?

I thought we were discussing real science here.

 

[wanstronian]

I have precisely the same opinion of you - with the difference that I don’t evade your questions and resort to invective like “insulting and stupid dogma”.

It is very sad you’re so deeply entrenched in your world of material objects you cannot conceive of any other form of reality…

Ah, thanks for the reminder; your penchant for false accusations and general disingenuity. Another reason why discussion with you is invariably pointless.

 

[wanstronian]

Both?
Are you implying that you can read minds as well?

I thought we were discussing real science here.

I was crediting you with the intellect necessary to read and interpret my previous post correctly. Was I wrong to do so?

p.s. Even in a conversation about a scientific subject, would you really expect every single statement to be empirically verifiable? Seems a very odd assumption to make.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

It’s no coincidence that nobody has ever been able to point to a single aspect of atheism that leads logically to the slaughter or oppression of religious people.

Your Hitler remark seems to say that Christianity justified his motives which is completely false. The fact that Christians may have helped him (and I personally do not know if they or not) only proves our points: Christians are not excluded from sinning. He could have been anything else on the planet and done the same exact thing. Who knows?

Your last sentence just means that being unjust is unjustifiable even for atheists. For anybody, no aspect of any religion can logically lead to slaughter or oppression of religious due to the objective morality. You can claim that Catholics have slaughtered and oppressed people and I would have to agree, but my point still stands. You assume that religions logically lead people to kill and oppress. If it were based on logic which even you would agree that it is based on objectivity, then they would not do it. There is no logic involved in slaughtering or oppressions.

You paint a portrait of secularism as nothing more than cold-hearted, dispassionate intellectualisation of every aspect of life, despite that fact that you must know plenty of secular people who act nothing like you describe. So the evidence that you are deeply and fundamentally wrong is right in front of your eyes… yet you cling to your insulting and stupid dogma regardless.

I agree whole-heartedly with your first sentence. I completely disagree with your last 5 words. What insulting and stupid dogma are there? Be ready to justify it because you will learn that it is not what you think in engaging conversation with me. This is a very insulting statement regardless of what you say. His dogmas are my dogmas also. To say that they are stupid is completely unwarranted because as I have found on these forums, non-theists do not understand our dogma yet cling to the imaginary idea that they do. Please do not say junk like that because you will end up agreeing with me about them.

Here again you seem to be referring to “my” continuation of a hypothesis that I didn’t even make! The only claim I have made here, in fact, is the scientifically supported claim that Evolution is not a purposeful, intelligently-guided process. If you take the trouble to understand it, you’ll see that it doesn’t need to be. I suspect that this is the biggest erroneous assumption that theists make when considering the plausibility of the theory. As I said, this is why the ban is so frustrating - because we don’t get the chance to correct the misunderstandings.

The reason why Evolution is banned is because it will eventually lead to theist/atheist debate because we will say that it only seems to not have a purpose and you will say that it only seems that it does have a purpose. There are rational arguments for both sides of the theory by evolutionists. And I do not doubt some of us on here have misunderstandings (myself included) and I do not doubt that you will feed us assumed-to-be-true information.

Take care buddy.

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, thanks for the reminder; your penchant for false accusations and general disingenuity. Another reason why discussion with you is invariably pointless.

Further vacuous invective which has been, is being and no doubt will continue to be directed at other participants on this forum as well as myself.

 

[wanstronian]

Your Hitler remark seems to say that Christianity justified his motives which is completely false. The fact that Christians may have helped him (and I personally do not know if they or not) only proves our points: Christians are not excluded from sinning. He could have been anything else on the planet and done the same exact thing. Who knows?

Quite so. My point is that, if there is anything other than Hitler’s own obvious lunacy that drove him to do the things he did (and it is my opinion that there isn’t, for the record) then there is plenty of history of violence between Catholicism and Judaism, but none between atheists and Judaism. My intent is not to try and implicate Christianity, but to point out that objectively his actions could be no more a result of atheism than of religion. Significantly less, in fact, as there is no atheist testament that exhorts the slaughter of non-atheists.

Your last sentence just means that being unjust is unjustifiable even for atheists. For anybody, no aspect of any religion can logically lead to slaughter or oppression of religious due to the objective morality. You can claim that Catholics have slaughtered and oppressed people and I would have to agree, but my point still stands. You assume that religions logically lead people to kill and oppress. If it were based on logic which even you would agree that it is based on objectivity, then they would not do it. There is no logic involved in slaughtering or oppressions.

I believe that religions have historically been a means for one set of people to control another, using the threat of religious ostracism, or hell, or whatever. This is not the fault of religion itself of course, but of those who would wield it as a stick. The point is that religion offers such a tool, and it is still being used today.

The logic of slaughter and oppression is that it is frequently to the benefit of those doing the slaughtering and oppressing.

I agree whole-heartedly with your first sentence. I completely disagree with your last 5 words. What insulting and stupid dogma are there? Be ready to justify it because you will learn that it is not what you think in engaging conversation with me. This is a very insulting statement regardless of what you say. His dogmas are my dogmas also. To say that they are stupid is completely unwarranted because as I have found on these forums, non-theists do not understand our dogma yet cling to the imaginary idea that they do. Please do not say junk like that because you will end up agreeing with me about them.

I refer to the specific personal dogma put forward in post#21 that ‘Abortion, eugenics, vivisection and euthanasia of the “unfit” are the logical consequences of the view that the rights to life, freedom and happiness are merely human conventions that can be ignored if necessary.’ Such a statement completely fails to acknowledge the reality of secular humanism, and would apply only to the innate atheism of, say, a computer program. It’s a short-sighted and demonstrably incorrect opinion.

With regard to Catholic dogma, I’d be happy to have a conversation about that, and am quite prepared to start from the basics, with my best effort at zero preconceptions. Perhaps in another thread?

The reason why Evolution is banned is because it will eventually lead to theist/atheist debate because we will say that it only seems to not have a purpose and you will say that it only seems that it does have a purpose. There are rational arguments for both sides of the theory by evolutionists. And I do not doubt some of us on here have misunderstandings (myself included) and I do not doubt that you will feed us assumed-to-be-true information.

What’s wrong with theist/atheist debate? It happens all over the forum!

The difference is that there is no empirical evidence that the process is purposeful. So to assume that it is, is to invoke an unprovable supernatural entity that the process shows no sign of needing. What’s the rationale for adding this complication?

The thing is, if I “feed” you “assumed-to-be-true” information, you can check up on me. The evidence is out there and publicly available. That’s kind of the point about science! I don’t care whether people get their information about Evolution from me, or from far more informed and reliable sources.

But probably we shouldn’t talk about it. We don’t want to incur the wrath of Mod.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Quite so. My point is that, if there is anything other than Hitler’s own obvious lunacy that drove him to do the things he did (and it is my opinion that there isn’t, for the record) then there is plenty of history of violence between Catholicism and Judaism, but none between atheists and Judaism. My intent is not to try and implicate Christianity, but to point out that objectively his actions could be no more a result of atheism than of religion. Significantly less, in fact, as there is no atheist testament that exhorts the slaughter of non-atheists.

Agreed. Thanks for the clarification

I believe that religions have historically been a means for one set of people to control another, using the threat of religious ostracism, or hell, or whatever. This is not the fault of religion itself of course, but of those who would wield it as a stick. The point is that religion offers such a tool, and it is still being used today.

Agreed, except for the last sentence… That is like saying money offers such a tool for controlling people… Like sex also… It is certainly not a bad thing… It is humans that are tools (to use modern lingo)… Things just make it easier… There is a vast abyss of difference between use and abuse. The things themselves offer no such thing. Humans are the ones… I suppose this is impasse though.

The logic of slaughter and oppression is that it is frequently to the benefit of those doing the slaughtering and oppressing.

I still see that as illogical. Those people are rationalizing being unjust, not justifying being unjust.

I refer to the specific personal dogma put forward in post#21 that ‘Abortion, eugenics, vivisection and euthanasia of the “unfit” are the logical consequences of the view that the rights to life, freedom and happiness are merely human conventions that can be ignored if necessary.’ Such a statement completely fails to acknowledge the reality of secular humanism, and would apply only to the innate atheism of, say, a computer program. It’s a short-sighted and demonstrably incorrect opinion.

Whoops… Sorry… I misunderstand your objection… I agree with the quote itself… But, perhaps it was used in bad way, but I did not reference the original post… I agree that Christians as well as non-Christians can and do have the same views on life.

With regard to Catholic dogma, I’d be happy to have a conversation about that, and am quite prepared to start from the basics, with my best effort at zero preconceptions. Perhaps in another thread?

Well, in light of my misunderstanding your original intent and that it was not towards Catholic dogma in general, this need not be. You justified my misconception. And you did not insult nor call my dogmas stupid. That quote is not a dogma, anyway. Dogmas affirm something, not negate. Sorry for misjudging. I even took it as insulting a dogma that was not even a dogma… Sorry about that

What’s wrong with theist/atheist debate? It happens all over the forum!

I guess it creates a very fine line (especially for me) and I have been notified two times already for my hostility. (Once with an atheist who was insulting my God and once with a Christian who was also insulting my Church. I was not very Christian, or even humane, in my response.) I am not making an excuse… I would certainly love too, but I am afraid that I will be an idiot, again… Although I have been MUCH better since my last notification (2 days ago). So, whatever happens will happen though.

The difference is that there is no empirical evidence that the process is purposeful. So to assume that it is, is to invoke an unprovable supernatural entity that the process shows no sign of needing. What’s the rationale for adding this complication?

You brought it up. And I disagree with the first two sentences, needless to say. I guess this is where the fun begins… But, admittedly, I do not know a whole lot about it. I just know what I have read from Richard Dawkins and Michael Behe and few others I forgot the names of.

The thing is, if I “feed” you “assumed-to-be-true” information, you can check up on me. The evidence is out there and publicly available. That’s kind of the point about science! I don’t care whether people get their information about Evolution from me, or from far more informed and reliable sources.

I agree. But, too much biology boggles my mind. I like physics and cosmology. I am a nut when it comes to evolution. I am not saying I am ignorant in all of it. I just know the basics. I cannot get around arguing purpose in evolution by knowing the basics. Needless to say, I do not know enough about it to even know what to believe or not believe about evolution.

But probably we shouldn’t talk about it. We don’t want to incur the wrath of Mod.

Agreed.

Take care buddy

 

[CTuck]

I am being misunderstood…

To equate the conclusion that an intelligence is the source of the order, purpose, and complexity of what we have observed with a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is to read into what is being said, which is obviously not being taken seriously to begin with. Besides that, since we can agree that the purpose of genes is indeed instruction, what gives them that purpose? When we make pencils, it is so that they may be written with. When we write, it is to convey an idea or information. Even if we were to scribble about aimlessly, what we would see would still reflect the intent to use the pencil and the purpose of its use, to convey aimless doodling. If we were to instead write the blueprints for something that would be constructed, what we would see would be instructive information. Furthermore, if we were to witness the construction, we could conclude that the purpose of the tools and materials being used, and the manner of their use, are in this case ultimately for construction. And for the sake of it, I’ll say that what was being made was a pen making factory! The factory does not get its purpose of making pens from the tools or the materials, as they were merely agents used to construct it. Nor did it get its purpose from the blueprints, as it was merely the agent used to guide the use and assembly of the tools and materials. And it certainly did not get it from the pencil, as it was merely the agent used to convey the original idea. It derives its purpose from the intelligence that conceived it.

What we do know of the universe is that it works systematically, according to certain “blueprints” if you will. If it didn’t it would be impossible to study conclusively, as probability would dictate that an outcome would not repeat itself. It is hard even to imagine a universe were things did not act in a certain order.

Is it not logical to conclude that source of the clear purpose of a skunk’s defense mechanism cannot be found in its genetics, nor its line of ancestors, nor the entire evolutionary process, nor the entire chain of cosmological events that brought about life on Earth, but the intelligence in which it and the entire process of what we consider reality coming into existence was first conceived?

All I’ve gotten so far are straw men, bad science lessons, and one Floating Ravioli Man. No offense, but seriously, stop equating what I’m saying with Creationism, I don’t believe in it. I promise we are doing the very same science.

 

[vz71]

I was crediting you with the intellect necessary to read and interpret my previous post correctly. Was I wrong to do so?

Perhaps you were.
However it is just as likely that you simply failed to express your thoughts precisely.

In either case, the error is yours.
Perhaps in light of that you will be open to understanding my statement concerning the difference I am seeing in the reactions to evolution theory and ID.

 

[vz71]

I am being misunderstood…

Assuming I understand you properly, would it be correct to say that it is of little difference if evolution happened or creation; God was in the driver’s seat the whole time?

 

[wanstronian]

Perhaps you were.
However it is just as likely that you simply failed to express your thoughts precisely.

In either case, the error is yours.

Funny, I thought it might be. Still, as I said before, infer what you will.

Perhaps in light of that you will be open to understanding my statement concerning the difference I am seeing in the reactions to evolution theory and ID.

Well, you claimed that you believed that it was the insertion of God into the role of Designer that caused vitriol. I never implied it, nor do I believe it. The problem with ID is purely that it’s unscientific, regardless of what one posits as the Designer’s identity.

The fact that the creators of ID have clearly stated their belief that the Designer is God is actually irrelevant. ID fails to meet the requirements of scientific credibility, for reasons that Rossum has clearly demonstrated upthread (and for other reasons also).

 

[vz71]

Well, you claimed that you believed that it was the insertion of God into the role of Designer that caused vitriol. I never implied it, nor do I believe it.

The vitriol of your own posts shows otherwise.

So am I to believe the words or the actions?