Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well one agrees with God and the other does not, so I need to know which you are using in order to respond to your remark.

I was referring to the scientific observations and corresponding theory.

 

[BradB]

There may be a purpose or intent behind the signal, but that is not used for their detection nor the inference of a manufactured source.

The other problem with trying to make inference about the purpose of an object is that it may be transient or variable. For example, I could use a rock as a paperweight, but such purpose has nothing to do with the origin of the rock.

I can't think of any case where purpose or intent is explicitly used for the detection of design or engineering.

When a rock is used as a paperweight and an outside observer recognizes the intent and purpose then intelligent design has just been detected. You answered your own question.

 

[BradB]

Forget Pokemon. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Most people confuse the phenomenon with the cause of evolution, natural selection. And they often confuse the phenomenon of evolution with consequences of evolution, such as common descent and increases in fitness.

Absolutely correct. Most species populations have trillions of varieties of alleles from which natural selection can choose. So we observe already existing genes that may have been in the very small minority take over and become predominant in a population when environment dictates it. However we never observe completely new genetic gene increasing type information form. This is what would have to take place in order for universal common descent to be true.

 

[BradB]

What He's telling you in Romans 1:20, is that He can be seen in the things He's made. Which is entirely different than science, which requires training and study to do, and requires no faith whatsoever.

Sometimes, those two entirely different things come together when I'm out by myself in woods or a river, and then it's an epiphany.

This owl and I were old acquaintances; he lived not far from my house. I would fall asleep at night, as he and his mate would hoot, and they had gotten used to me down at the pond in early morning. His young one wasn't too pleased that I was there, though.

That morning, I remember the moment, when my understanding of owls and my appreciation for the world that the Lord made for us, came together. It's an amazing thing. I wish everyone could have it.

Since science is the study of the natural universe and God tells us He formed the natural universe, then when He says we can know He exists through observing creation...He is basically saying true science points to His existence. So much so that everyone is without excuse.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since science is the study of the natural universe and God tells us He formed the natural universe, then when He says we can know He exists through observing creation...He is basically saying true science points to His existence.

No. The difference is, "true science" requires training and study to get it. What St. Paul is talking about, is open to anyone who is open to Him. You don't need to be educated, just willing to look. This is critical, and was a major issue early on in Christianity, when gnostics were claiming that such knowledge was esoteric and only available to the educated.

But that's not how God does it. He makes Himself available to anyone who bothers to see.

So much so that everyone is without excuse.

Yep.

 

[BradB]

Reading God's statement on this in Genesis, I see that he only mentioned those curses that applied to humans and to the snake, who had also the knowledge of good and evil. But to innocent animals, He made no such curse.

Are you aware that New Testament writers refer to the Genesis account over 200 times? So then it is important to derive our understanding of Genesis from what they had to say about it. For example Genesis 3:17-19 clearly tells us that the earth was cursed, but Apostle Paul alludes to this curse falling upon much more than just dirt and plant life. In Romans 8:18-23 Paul tells us that all of creation earnestly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. He describes creation being subjected to futility and says that one day creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption that its currently under.

 

[The Barbarian]

Absolutely correct. Most species populations have trillions of varieties of alleles from which natural selection can choose. So we observe already existing genes that may have been in the very small minority take over and become predominant in a population when environment dictates it. However we never observe completely new genetic gene increasing type information form.

We see that happening every day. I'm wondering how you think you should calculate changes in information in a population. Could you show us your math?

This is what would have to take place in order for universal common descent to be true.

No, that's wrong. Most often, speciation occurs when there's a decrease in information. Typically, speciation is allopatric, and thus the group that actually undergoes speciation has less information than the overall population. Founder effect is a major contributor to speciation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you aware that New Testament writers refer to the Genesis account over 200 times?

I've yet to see even one case where God cursed innocent animals or plants for the Fall. Do you have an example?

So then it is important to derive our understanding of Genesis from what they had to say about it. For example Genesis 3:17-19 clearly tells us that the earth was cursed,

Well, let's see what it says...

Genesis 3:17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. [18] Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return

It says the earth is cursed for man's work, and he'll have to labor to grow crops. Nothing about other animals being affected, though.

In Romans 8:18-23 Paul tells us that all of creation earnestly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. He describes creation being subjected to futility and says that one day creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption that its currently under.

For us. But as you see, it's not about other animals.

 

[Speedwell]

Since science is the study of the natural universe and God tells us He formed the natural universe, then when He says we can know He exists through observing creation...He is basically saying true science points to His existence. So much so that everyone is without excuse.

So it is. The question you raise is, what is "true" science?

 

[tas8831]

To the contrary I gave three examples of how science tries to detect design and how it works quite well.

Really? Science tries to detect the creative acts of Yahweh?

Do tell!

Oh, right - you just made analogies because you have no actual evidence. I forgot that is how you operate.

 

[tas8831]

When a rock is used as a paperweight and an outside observer recognizes the intent and purpose then intelligent design has just been detected. You answered your own question.

It is so cool how you conflate human activities with your preferred Hebrew tribal deity's.

It is almost as if you fully admit (unwittingly) and understand that there is no actual evidence - even circumstantial - for your ancient middle eastern deity's existence, much less its actions, and have accepted that all you can muster is silly inapt analogies (which are not evidence of anything) to justify your obsessions.

 

[pitabread]

When a rock is used as a paperweight and an outside observer recognizes the intent and purpose then intelligent design has just been detected. You answered your own question.

Except the rock was not intelligently designed. The function of a rock used as a paperweight has nothing to do with its origin.

 

[The Barbarian]

Except the rock was not intelligently designed. The function of a rock used as a paperweight has nothing to do with its origin.

In fact, the human body is composed of "rocks" like that. Our hands were originally used for walking around. Only later were they modified from feet to make grasping structures. And they are suboptimal for the present use.

For example, if the median nerve didn't run through the carpal tunnel in the wrist, we wouldn't be subject to carpal tunnel syndrome, caused by a combination of force, wrist deviation, and frequency.

There's lots of other "rocks" in humans, which make no sense if they were designed, but make perfect sense in terms of evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except the rock was not intelligently designed. The function of a rock used as a paperweight has nothing to do with its origin.

Yup, a rock can be used as a paperweight, a doorstop, to bash in a fence post, etc. Intelligently purposed, not intelligently designed... and if it falls off the wheelbarrow on the way through the house and just happens to stop the door closing, what is its intent and purpose then?

 

[BradB]

We see that happening every day. I'm wondering how you think you should calculate changes in information in a population. Could you show us your math?

It doesn't have anything to do with "calculating" anything, but observation. Are you saying that "every day" we observe an example of new, never before existing, gene increasing type of DNA code, that benefits the organism, being added to the DNA of a multi-celled organism? Two key words I always have to stress here are "observed" and "multi-celled." I have been searching and also challenging others like yourself for one example for the last 12+ years and never have I found or been presented with even one. If Universal Common Decent were true then this would be the proof of it happening. I must stress that the example must have been observed under controlled lab conditions in which we can be certain the changes were not just the result of already existing alleles in the population becoming predominant. Also I would expect to see this happening "every day" in multi-celled life since the multi-celled life is the majority of life we observe on earth. Single celled life doesn't work to convince me since it 1. doesn't adequately represent life on earth and 2. has another form of DNA (called plasmids) almost never found in multi-celled life and 3. has been shown in the lab to have (in most cases where a genetic change took place) that was actually caused by its change in environment, not the result of random mutation and natural selection.

 

[BradB]

No, that's wrong. Most often, speciation occurs when there's a decrease in information. Typically, speciation is allopatric, and thus the group that actually undergoes speciation has less information than the overall population. Founder effect is a major contributor to speciation.

Really? So then the great diversity of life we observe today on earth formed over the eons of time by a "decrease in information?" Imagine that working in the financial world. If I toss a penny out the window while driving down the highway here and there will, given enough time, I eventually be as rich and Trump?

I laugh at this notion. Loss of information does not explain the existence of the information to begin with.

 

[BradB]

I've yet to see even one case where God cursed innocent animals or plants for the Fall. Do you have an example?



Well, let's see what it says...

Genesis 3:17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. [18] Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return

It says the earth is cursed for man's work, and he'll have to labor to grow crops. Nothing about other animals being affected, though.



For us. But as you see, it's not about other animals.

It says creation was effected which means all of creation. We don't get to pick and choose. My dog just died of cancer. If dog kinds were not effected by the curse then what kind of God creates animals to suffer and die of cancer and looks back at the works of His hands and says it was good?

 

[BradB]

So it is. The question you raise is, what is "true" science?

For starters it would be to not dismiss a possibility prior to even beginning the observation. Almost all evidence presented for Universal Common descent is based in only similarity arguments. They observe the similar features between the major forms and say this is evidence of common ancestry. However creationists quickly point out that similarity can just as easily be the result of a common creator as it can a common ancestor. However this is where militant atheists protest and say "we don't believe in a creator therefore similarity can only mean common ancestor. Soooo... okay... if you deny a possibility before you begin the study then sure. You can make the evidence point to whatever you want. But I say that's not true science.

 

[BradB]

Really? Science tries to detect the creative acts of Yahweh?

Do tell!

Oh, right - you just made analogies because you have no actual evidence. I forgot that is how you operate.

I see you have a reading impediment therefore I'll give you that one. I was having a conversation about how science detects intelligence...not YHWH. Archaeologists look for design, marine biologists in dolphins, and SETI in deep space.

 

[Speedwell]

For starters it would be to not dismiss a possibility prior to even beginning the observation. Almost all evidence presented for Universal Common descent is based in only similarity arguments. They observe the similar features between the major forms and say this is evidence of common ancestry. However creationists quickly point out that similarity can just as easily be the result of a common creator as it can a common ancestor. However this is where militant atheists protest and say "we don't believe in a creator therefore similarity can only mean common ancestor. Soooo... okay... if you deny a possibility before you begin the study then sure. You can make the evidence point to whatever you want. But I say that's not true science.

Your "militant atheists" are nothing but a red herring. Despite your attempts to twist it, the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God or His authorship of our being. If you want to argue biblical creationism, be honest and do it openly.