An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you afraid to explain what you mean? Why the cryptic, disguised responses?

I have the same to say to you about creation then... "Look closer. You'll figure it out. Maybe... (But probably not...) Your the one who has something to "figure out" not me...

I'm not going to be able to look any closer at an ex-ray of teeth any closer and get what you mean, sorry...

Why don't you just come out and say it, why do you hesitate to do so...?

Here is hint number 2::

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you hypothetically disqualified it as designed if the material were organic. Suppose aliens are using organic material to design? That would put you on the spot wouldn't it?

You don't even need to look at aliens.

3D bioprinting - Wikipedia

The only one "put on the spot" here, is the one who makes the claim of design.

That person is required to provide:
- the methodology of detecting design
- a null hypothesis
- a way to test the conclusions

...if that person wishes to convince others.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well this is part of my point. I don't know what they mean when they say "I know."

"believe it really really hard"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good points, but none of this gives reason to conclude no designer, but rather gives reasons to wonder why the designer did things in this way.

/facepalm

Blatant shift of the burden of proof AND pretending that "it is all designed" is the default position and requires no evidence in support of it.

It's been quite some time since I've read such a fallacious statement. And considering I'm a daily visitor on this forum, that should tell you something.

Why do our bodies decay and die if they were designed by a superior intelligence? Maybe these current bodies we find ourselves in are not the end goal, but rather a means to an important revelation that can only be conveyed in this way, which can then lead to a glorified form in the future, a form that's more conducive with what we'd expect or imagine God to be capable of making.

Or perhaps it is because of the undetectable pixies that feed upon our body heat and energy.

Of course all my thoughts are presented in light of Scripture and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Really? That wasn't obvious at all!!!

 

[Radrook]

You don't even need to look at aliens.

3D bioprinting - Wikipedia

The only one "put on the spot" here, is the one who makes the claim of design.

That person is required to provide:
- the methodology of detecting design
- a null hypothesis
- a way to test the conclusions

...if that person wishes to convince others.

I really don't wish to convince anyone who isn't convincible. That is a personal choice

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Intelligent Design

 

[KCfromNC]

I really don't wish to convince anyone who isn't convincible.

Based on your approach, I think that's a small subset of the group of people you don't wish to convince. But don't change based on me because

That is a personal choice.

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

Yes, it is just as testable as astrology. At least that's what ID proponents testified in court. If their answer changes when there are no legal penalties for lying I think we all understand why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It need not be and isn't for those approaching it properly:

Let's review, shall we?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars

There's the first lie, in the first sentence. There is no such scientific research program. As Behe, one of the "inventors" of this "model", has literally admitted under oath during the Dover trial.

who seek evidence of design in nature.

This second part of the first sentence, tells you everything you need to know.
They seek evidence of design. This means that they formed their conclusion before they did the work. They are not concluding design. They are assuming it before even asking the question.

The theory of intelligent design

Not a theory (in the scientific sense). Theories explain sets of facts within a well defined scope and are supported by all relevant evidence and, most importantly, are testable and falsifiable.

As Behe admitted during the Dover trial, ID "theory" is about as scientific as astrology "theory".

holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Yet when asked to do so, not a single one of them can. Neither has ANY such study ever been published (or even only submitted for publication) in any of the mainstream scientific journals.

In other words, this work simply has never been done to the extent of being scientifically viable and credible.

It is even so bad that these guys started their very own "journals" so that they could publish their "papers" and agree with eachother and then call it "peer reviewed".

Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures

IRC has been debunked several times over. In fact, several of the structures that Behe in 1996 branded as being "irreducibly complex" have since then rationally be explained by identifying the evolutionary pathways by which those structures evolved.

Another thing which was admitted by Behe himself during the Dover trial - only to then repeat these PRATT's after the trial. Creationist Dishonesty at work, in all its glory.

In reality, IRC is no more or less then an argument from ignorance. "we don't know how this structure came to be naturally, therefor it is design" is what it amounts to. Nothing more or less.

, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Which is explained through evolutionary biology and requires no "designer".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I really don't wish to convince anyone who isn't convincible. That is a personal choice

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

Well, if you're going to post that from where I first linked to it in the other thread, as if it weren't accompanied by a critique of the "predictions", I suppose I'll have to copypasta the critique:

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Firstly, I don't see much information there. I see no data, I see no reasoning, just statements.

Secondly:

(1) No definition of "irreducibly complex", the "evidence" ignores the thorough debunking of the flagellum as being "irreducibly complex".
(2) No quantification of the term "suddenly", the "evidence" misrepresents the Cambrian explosion.
(3) No explanation as to why this should be the case rather than the opposite, and does not distinguish ID from evolution.
(4) No explanation as to why any junk DNA should be expected, no quantification of the term "much", does not distinguish ID from evolution.

And that's it. 4 "predictions" for an entire theory of a complex tapestry of life, none of which can actually be tested because they use vague and unquantified terminology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I really don't wish to convince anyone who isn't convincible. That is a personal choice

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

When you are defending a model that seeks to be injected into high-school science classes, then you are no longer talking about "personal choices".

As for your link: make your own point.

As so many of us have asked you already, create a thread and answer those points:
- describe the methodology and define the terms properly
- describe the null hypothesis
- explain how it is testable / falsifiable

 

[Yennora]

1. The definition of "Intelligence" from dictionary.com "knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information."

2. Intelligence can be defined as a set of information, what is the definition of science? "A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject"

3. Finally knowledge "Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject"

So science is a set of "information", which is intelligence, if we were living in a random unorganized reality, we wouldn't have to acquire this set of information in the first place, I believe we would be living in a messy monochromatic unpleasant reality, eating one sort of food maybe, with asymmetrical physical bodies (hence unpleasant to look at), and we would not have music, we would not enjoy food or each others or anything in general, we would be pointless.

Your arguments are exactly as if I went outdoor now and saw a car parked in front of my house with a broken headlight, so as a result I claimed it is not a result of design and a result of mere chance because it is not perfect.

NOTE: Intelligent does NOT equal PERFECT, but can be seen as near Perfect.

Now can you all stop oppressing your minds and admit we live in a designed/beautiful world? Where we can have the ability to enjoy ourselves fully? But this world has some flaws, we don't know the reason behind the flaws, I have seen a scientific article provided by the University of Manchester on how Cancer is a man-made/caused disease for example, it is a result of misusing natural resources.
Check: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-10-scientists-cancer-purely-man-made.html


So to deny ID is illogical, take your little sibling/child to a garden that was not touched by a human and ask her/him whether they see a beautiful design or NOT, and you will see that all of you are oppressing your own minds to deny a designer.

 

[KCfromNC]

1. The definition of "Intelligence" from dictionary.com "knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information."

2. Intelligence can be defined as a set of information, what is the definition of science? "A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject"

3. Finally knowledge "Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject"

So science is a set of "information", which is intelligence

In the same way a written report from the FBI could be intelligence on a particular person. But the pieces of paper aren't intelligent - that would be and example of equivocation, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

1. The definition of "Intelligence" from dictionary.com "knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information."

2. Intelligence can be defined as a set of information, what is the definition of science? "A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject"

3. Finally knowledge "Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject"

This is equivocation. You used definition 4 from Dictionary.com, whereas what you wanted was definition 1:

capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

So science is a set of "information", which is intelligence, if we were living in a random unorganized reality, we wouldn't have to acquire this set of information in the first place, I believe we would be living in a messy monochromatic unpleasant reality, eating one sort of food maybe, with asymmetrical physical bodies (hence unpleasant to look at), and we would not have music, we would not enjoy food or each others or anything in general, we would be pointless.

The current scientific understanding is not that we live in a random disorganised reality, it's that we live in a reality organised due to the understood and yet-to-be-understood laws of nature.

Your arguments are exactly as if I went outdoor now and saw a car parked in front of my house with a broken headlight, so as a result I claimed it is not a result of design and a result of mere chance because it is not perfect.

It's more like seeing a car parked in front of your house where the wire that connects the horn to the battery goes from the battery under the driver's seat, then back to the engine compartment to connect to the horn rather than connecting to it directly, and so claiming that it doesn't seem like it was designed well, and especially not by a designer who, himself, is purported to be perfect.

NOTE: Intelligent does NOT equal PERFECT, but can be seen as near Perfect.

God is supposed to be infinitely intelligence and omniscient, isn't he? He's also supposed to be perfect.

Now can you all stop oppressing your minds and admit we live in a designed/beautiful world?

I will "admit" anything for which I'm shown compelling evidence. I've never seen any argument for a designer that is even slightly compelling.

Where we can have the ability to enjoy ourselves fully?

I can enjoy myself fully. I see no need to invoke a designer to do so. I don't even understand how or why the two are supposed to be connected.

So to deny ID is illogical, take your little sibling/child to a garden that was not touched by a human and ask her/him whether they see a beautiful design or NOT, and you will see that all of you are oppressing your own minds to deny a designer.

My nephew is very religious, so I'm sure he'd think it was designed. My nieces are less so, and I'm sure at least one of them would think the idea very silly. I don't really know what this experiment would prove.

 

[TBDude65]

I never said I knew it. I believe it by faith. But not that it was designed, but that it was created--a distinction which is lost on some of our theist colleagues, I'm afraid.

Clearly my mistake if I attributed something to you incorrectly. Sorry about that. I was engaging in multiple conversations on the same topic and got responses crossed.

I don't have a problem with people believing things contra to my own views/beliefs or those of the scientific community in general. What bugs me is when people distort language to present a false narrative of what their views/opinions/beliefs are based on. Religious beliefs aren't science, but they were never intended to be because science post-dates Christianity by over a milliena. It also bugs me when people try and inject their religion into science. It's not science. It not only distorts the science, it also cheapens their religious beliefs.

 

[Chriliman]

It need not be and isn't for those approaching it properly:

IMO saying God intelligently designed biological life is analogous to saying human parents intelligently designed their baby. To me, it makes more sense to say biological life as we see it now is just a part of the process of how God reproduces sons and daughters. It's less about design and more about intentional reproduction.

I intended to have kids so I made love to my wife and voila! I didn't design the child, but that doesn't mean I didn't intend to create the child. See the difference?

Edit: that's not to say that in the future we may have designer babies, but whether God would approve of that I'm not certain. He may approve if it prolongs life and decreases infant mortality. There is scripture that speaks of no more dead infants and being 100yrs old as still youthful. Interesting...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious that life's design, has a design and a designer behind it...? It should be obvious that Life or this reality was engineered and has an engineer behind it...

I think that's a huge assumption, but I will say that from my limited perspective, I would expect an intelligently designed universe to look significantly different from a universe that was not intelligently designed. What I see is a universe that appears to have developed according to a relatively simple set of fundamental physical rules, and which, while we don't have explanations for every detail, gives no reason to doubt that we eventually will be able to fully explain its development according to those (or related) physical rules. Only the origin of the universe, if there is such a thing, seems to have the potential to defy satisfactory explanation for the foreseeable future - although history suggests that what makes a satisfactory explanation can change...

Why do you deny that there is a "mind" behind all we see and know...?

I don't, but I see nothing to suggest it.

 

[Radrook]

Based on your approach, I think that's a small subset of the group of people you don't wish to convince. But don't change based on me because



Yes, it is just as testable as astrology. At least that's what ID proponents testified in court. If their answer changes when there are no legal penalties for lying I think we all understand why.

Your comparison of astrology with ID is ridiculous and reveals a profound ignorance concerning both subjects..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your comparison of astrology with ID is ridiculous

Yet, it is what the cdesign proponentsist Michael Behe said under oath: that ID is just as scientific as astrology is.

You probably know him. It's his arguments that you keep repeating here over and over. Irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and other such arguments from ignorance/incredulity, .. are his inventions.

and reveals a profound ignorance concerning both subjects..

So, I guess that means that the Intelligent Design scientists are ignorant about intelligent design.

Awesome.

 

[KCfromNC]

Your comparison of astrology with ID is ridiculous and reveals a profound ignorance concerning both subjects..

You really ought to read the testimony of people advocating for ID before telling me I'm ignorant of what they said.

 

[Radrook]

You really ought to read the testimony of people advocating for ID before telling me I'm ignorant of what they said.

I am not questioning your honesty concerning what was said. I am questioning the premise that it represents what ID stands for simply because that individual made that statement which is now being given a meaning way far beyond what he originally intended it to mean.

Intelligent Design and Astrology - Randal Rauser

 

[Speedwell]

What I see is a universe that appears to have developed according to a relatively simple set of fundamental physical rules, and which, while we don't have explanations for every detail, gives no reason to doubt that we eventually will be able to fully explain its development according to those (or related) physical rules.

That's what we all see. I would like to point out that none of that denies the existence of God or rules out His creative involvement with the universe. Those who attempt to "see" something different have another agenda, beyond that of asserting a creator god's existence