Intelligent Design

Lord Emsworth

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
Oct 10, 2004
51,745
421
Through the cables and the underground ...
✟61,459.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It wasn't me who used the word "thinkingly"; it was you. If you are not able to understand what the word means, that raises the question of why you used it.

Well, you used "unthinkingly" a lot. (For instance in stating that if the universe "was created unthinkingly, there's no reason why the universe should have matter.") I have picked that "unthinkingly" up and turned it into "thinkingly" in an attempt to inquire about the reason for the universe having matter, it it was created ... you see ... "thinkingly."


On the original point, nothing in my post was intended to address the question of whether the universe should have matter; rather, it proceded from the observable fact that the universe does have matter, as well as movement, regularity, physical laws, and so forth. Let me repeat the argument in numberical steps. (1) The universe began at a specific time; we call this beginning the Big Bang. (2) The cause of the Big Bang was either something with intelligence or something without intelligence.

And this is where IMO the failure lies. This is were more defining, explanation, justification etc is needed; much, much more than that what has been given, is being given, (and will ever be given.)

After all, if you are making an argument, then with that there comes a responsibility for your premises.

A place to start could be establishing this:
- Something with intelligence could be the cause of the universe​
Establish, with all the bells and whistles, of course.


(3) If something without intelligence caused the Big Bang, then the features of the universe arose randomly without any design.

Here instead of making a positive case for the Big Bang being caused by "something with intelligence", the argument nominally for ID attacks the other possibility of the would-be dichotomy from premise two.

Now this would not even be verboten, but only if you can both
- demonstrate premise number two, where it is up to you to define your terms, (i.e. 'intelligent', 'non-intelligent', etc) and defend its truthfulness,
- and totally exclude the other possibility, which in this case was "something without intelligence".​
Tall order.



And as it is here in the argument that you present now, so it was in post number three; lacking in positive support for whatever you wish to demonstrate. (And so it is in biology, when it comes to the "intelligent design" and "creation" of animals. And so it is with anything ID.)



(4) Among all possible universes only an insignificantly small percentage could support us or any thinking being, hence the odds of that our universe arose randomly are vanishly small. (5) Hence we can dismiss the idea that the universe was created without intelligence as being ridiculously improbable, and by process of elimination we arrive at the conclusion that the universe was created with intelligence.

Now all of those statements have meaning,
And each one of the words in the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" has meaning too. ;)


so for you to call them "empty blah, blah" or "meaningless and void" is a cop out. Instead, you should explain which of the five statements you disagree with and give reasons for your disagreement.



Okay, if you'd like to debate the entirey of the argument advanced by proponents of intelligent design I'm willing to do so. Which books by intelligent design proponents have you read, and what specifically did you find lacking in their arguments?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
For defining intelligence, any dictionary will surely do. Mine says "having the faculty of reasoning", and since I know someone will ask, reasoning is "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises". Knowing that, the premise that the thing which created the universe is either intelligent or not intelligent follows from basic logic using any logic system you wish. (Except intuitionist.) For a given property P, any thing either possesses P or does not possess P.

As for your demand that I establish that something with intelligence could create the uinverse, I don't see what there is to dispute there. The idea of what "could" be true is entirely dependant on context. Could there be purple cows? We've explored this planet thoroughly enough to rule out the possibility that purple cows live here. However, if the question is whether they exist at all, there's nothing at all we can say about it. Obviously there could be another universe with more purple cows than anyone knows what to do with. Hence in response to the request to establish that there could be an intelligent being who created the universe I offer the words of Cubert Farnsworth: "Nothing's a load. Not if you can imagine it. That's what being a scientist is all about."* Or, to turn the question around, how would you respond if I asked you to establish that something without intelligence 'could' be the cause of the universe.

As for the possibility that the universe was created by something without intelligence, I've already explained why I don't accept that in my first post in this thread.


*And if somebody tries to get clever and says it's impossible for 1 + 1 to equal 3, here is my response.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In response to the first point, I never said that the Big Bang theory says anything about what preceded the Big Bang. I only said that it says that there was a Big Bang.

In response to the second point, that's semantic noodling about "nothingness". The great thing about nothingness is that the presense of nothingness and the absense of all things including nothingness are the same thing: nothingness. The point is that according to the Big Bang theory, the universe came from a single point (in both space and time). The further point is that that point must have had a cause. In other words, there must have been some reason why the singularity in space and time occurred. So we posit two possible causes: an intelligent designer that made a universe, or a non-intelligent system that popped out a universe. And (for the purposes of this debate) we have only the universe itself to judge by, so we ask whether that universe appears more like the product of an intelligent designer or a non-intelligent system.

Either everything needs a cause or not. If everything needs a cause, then we have infinite regression regardless of whether we like to invoke God or not. If not everything needs a cause (aka "God is uncaused") then there's no need for the universe itself to need a cause.
 
Upvote 0

Lord Emsworth

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
Oct 10, 2004
51,745
421
Through the cables and the underground ...
✟61,459.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
For defining intelligence, any dictionary will surely do.

I am afraid not.

Mine says "having the faculty of reasoning", and since I know someone will ask, reasoning is "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises".

Does a car alarm count? After all, there is a process involed that forms the conclusion, judgement, inference to either make noise or not, based of facts gathered from the environment of the car into which it is installed.

*Something* however tells me that surely no, car alarms would not count, despite nominally fitting the definition. Hence, as I said above, I am afraid it won't do. ;)


And one more thing on the dictionary, if I go, grab one and then look up "big" and "bang", I am quite sure I will learn next to nothing about the Big Bang theory. There are other ways to learn about that. And furthermore, if I went to a scientist to inquire about said Big Bang Theory, he or she would not wave a dictionary at me, right?



[ETA]What I would like to see from IDers, is actual "dirty" work, as is done by any proper scientits. With all the bells and whistles. Not work avoidance and begging for free lunches.[/ETA]



As for your demand that I establish that something with intelligence could create the uinverse, I don't see what there is to dispute there.

What there is to dispute? Hmm, let me think for a second ... Premise number two for instance.





Or, to turn the question around, how would you respond if I asked you to establish that something without intelligence 'could' be the cause of the universe.

I would tell you: "I don't have to establish anything."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And one more thing on the dictionary, if I go, grab one and then look up "big" and "bang", I am quite sure I will learn next to nothing about the Big Bang theory. There are other ways to learn about that. And furthermore, if I went to a scientist to inquire about said Big Bang Theory, he or she would not wave a dictionary at me, right?
Apparently some people learn this way. I have a conversation with a guy who I guess have learned about the "dark energy" from a dictionary.
 
Upvote 0

eugler

Newbie
Nov 1, 2010
73
1
✟7,702.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I wouldn't say ID is a non-religious view on creationism. Whether you are calling it god or an intelligent agent doesn't change that it postulates at least one supreme being with a purpose for this world which is the basis for every single religion on this planet (before you get started Buddhism - at least in its original form - is not a religion). To be precise it is not only religious but also leaning towards Monotheism in particular (the "agent" is always in singular). During the trial that clearly stated that ID is just poorly disguised Creationism some papers of the manuscript of "Of Pandas and People" - the original ID textbook - came up where they actually missed fully substituting the word "god" with "intelligent agent". The result was a mixture of both words, the missing link between ID and Creationism if you will ;).
Another great point made was that if you wanted to include ID in the definition of a "scientific theory", you would have to include among others Astrology as well. Michael Behe, the only "scientist" on ID's behalf who actually turned up for the trial, admitted that himself.
Apart from that ID is blatantly nonsense. I sometimes wonder if the desperate efforts to denounce our current best explanations about life - which do not disprove a creating entity - are a sign of an agonal state of religion in the west or just another con to alleviate simple minded people of their money. The truth lays probably somwhere in the middle.

If you're interested in the specifics of the trial try this NOVA doc:

Judgment Day – Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch Free Documentary Online
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
My thoughts are that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is Creationism rebranded as 'Intelligent Design' in order to circumvent the ruling that the wholly religious idea of Creationism cannot be taught in schools. As such, my thoughts on ID are the same as my thoughts on Creationism: an unscientific idea with no more credibility than astrology, and whose proponents engage in underhanded and aggressive techniques to get their personal religious beliefs injected into the school scientific curriculum.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
I'm always a little bit baffled by people who point to a single ruling by a single judge applying to a single district in Pennsylvania as if that firmly settled the question. Surely most of you folks would normally recoil in horror at the suggestion that judges get to decide what's scientifically valid and what isn't. Suppose at some point in the future, a judge elsewhere rules on a similar case in the opposite way. Would that ruling be equally authoritative?
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm always a little bit baffled by people who point to a single ruling by a single judge applying to a single district in Pennsylvania as if that firmly settled the question. Surely most of you folks would normally recoil in horror at the suggestion that judges get to decide what's scientifically valid and what isn't. Suppose at some point in the future, a judge elsewhere rules on a similar case in the opposite way. Would that ruling be equally authoritative?
Yes, why not. If they have power to do so.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'm always a little bit baffled by people who point to a single ruling by a single judge applying to a single district in Pennsylvania as if that firmly settled the question. Surely most of you folks would normally recoil in horror at the suggestion that judges get to decide what's scientifically valid and what isn't. Suppose at some point in the future, a judge elsewhere rules on a similar case in the opposite way. Would that ruling be equally authoritative?
The judge isn't ruling what's scientific, he's ruling what's religious. The point is that ID was ruled to be not scientific, to be religious, etc. It failed spectacularly in a court of law to be able to support itself.

The judge doesn't have the power to determine what's scientific and what's not. The judge opened the gates and let ID justify itself as science with its mightiest weapons - and it fell flat on its face.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

3sigma

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2008
2,339
72
✟3,007.00
Faith
Atheist
Surely most of you folks would normally recoil in horror at the suggestion that judges get to decide what's scientifically valid and what isn't.
ID isn’t science; it’s religious belief. As such, teaching it in public school science classes contravenes the First Amendment. ID is transparently disguised creationism. Consequently, “ID” could also stand for Intellectual Dishonesty.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm always a little bit baffled by people who point to a single ruling by a single judge applying to a single district in Pennsylvania as if that firmly settled the question.

It's not so much the ruling as the behavior of ID proponents when there are real penalties for lying. It's amazing how honest they became about the lack of scientific merit and the inherent Christian basis of ID when they're worried about doing jail time for perjury. I wonder why none of this information came out in their normal day to day work, though.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I'm always a little bit baffled by people who point to a single ruling by a single judge applying to a single district in Pennsylvania as if that firmly settled the question. Surely most of you folks would normally recoil in horror at the suggestion that judges get to decide what's scientifically valid and what isn't. Suppose at some point in the future, a judge elsewhere rules on a similar case in the opposite way. Would that ruling be equally authoritative?

His ruling was given weight because it was so uncontroversial, every similar case would likely result in a similar ruling (the case was that one sided).

If he ruled in the opposite manner a higher court would have overturned him on appeal. As it stands the appeals courts found no reason to even review the case and ID proponents have stopped using the method they used in Dover to try to insert their theology into biology curriculums.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
His ruling was given weight because it was so uncontroversial, every similar case would likely result in a similar ruling (the case was that one sided).

If he ruled in the opposite manner a higher court would have overturned him on appeal. As it stands the appeals courts found no reason to even review the case and ID proponents have stopped using the method they used in Dover to try to insert their theology into biology curriculums.
I wonder why they didn't call God as their witness. Didn't they have strong faith that God is going to help them?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Another great point made was that if you wanted to include ID in the definition of a "scientific theory", you would have to include among others Astrology as well. Michael Behe, the only "scientist" on ID's behalf who actually turned up for the trial, admitted that himself.
I am pretty much in agreement that intelligent design should not be advanced as a scientific theory but rather as a philosophical argument. Scientific evidence tells us that the Big Bang did occur. However, by its very nature the Big Bang could not transmit information about what things is any existed prior to it into the universe itself. Without such information there's only theorization, no experimentation, and hence no scientific statements can be made about what existed prior to the Big Bang. Regarding the trial I'm not really interested in advancing intelligent design arguments relating to biological structure and function as I'm personally agnostic about those; I am only interested in the cosmological argument. I was just point out that it's unusual for folks to point to a ruling as if it proved a scientific fact. We've seen rulings on everything from medical effects of marijuana to whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but we can surely agree that no court is a reliable authority on such things.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Does a car alarm count? After all, there is a process involed that forms the conclusion, judgement, inference to either make noise or not, based of facts gathered from the environment of the car into which it is installed.

*Something* however tells me that surely no, car alarms would not count, despite nominally fitting the definition. Hence, as I said above, I am afraid it won't do.
Intelligence is a word that we all use every day without struggling to define it. Seeing you trying to raise a big stink about the definition of a simple word is giving me flashbacks to 1998.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lord Emsworth

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
Oct 10, 2004
51,745
421
Through the cables and the underground ...
✟61,459.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Intelligence is a word that we all use every day without struggling to define it. Seeing you trying to raise a big stink about the definition of a simple word

Look, that is not my problem.

(And as an aside, plugging everyday parlance definitions of intelligence into your argument may yield … funny results. Maybe somebody could perform some sort of Turning Test on the ID ;) )
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Intelligence is a word that we all use every day without struggling to define it. Seeing you trying to raise a big stink about the definition of a simple word is giving me flashbacks to 1998.
I think the 'stink' was originally raised by IDists when they proposed a scientific methodology to quantify the existence or nonexistence of intelligence and design - that is, they claimed to have empirical evidence of 'intelligent design', necessitating a strict, testable definition of the term. And, as you say, it's also a philosophical matter as to what constitutes evidence of intelligent design. Why can we look at an otherwise unrecognisable machine and instantly know it is man-made?

Definitions are important, especially if you claim to have a scientifically testable one.
 
Upvote 0