Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[Gene Parmesan]

Premise: We can identify design by contrasting it against that which is not designed. A watch on the beach, for example.
Conclusion: LITERALLY EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED.

This is convincing for some people.

 

[Speedwell]

Premise: We can identify design by contrasting it against that which is not designed. A watch on the beach, for example.
Conclusion: LITERALLY EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED.

This is convincing for some people.

I'm afraid that won't do at all. It's fine as a faith-based proposition, but the whole point is to be able to prove the existence of a designer so you can shove it up the noses of people who aren't inclined to believe in it or, worse, already believe in a another designer you don't approve of.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I'm afraid that won't do at all. It's fine as a faith-based proposition, but the whole point is to be able to prove the existence of a designer so you can shove it up the noses of people who aren't inclined to believe in it or, worse, already believe in a another designer you don't approve of.

And this is the foundation of Intelligent Design. Stuff looks designed. But if everything is designed, there is nothing to compare it to; thus making "design" a completely meaningless description for anything.

 

[Armoured]

If it is all well understood then explain why certain birds are enabled with GPS systems which allow them to fly to specific nesting sites 10 k miles away is the result of nature alone while cars with GPS systems are intelligently designed? Really, why can't cars develop their own GPS systems via nature?

Because cars don't reproduce.

 

[Armoured]

If you can come up with a logically consistent argument for ID, by all means, please present it.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Naturalistic explanations attempt to explain reality absent God.

You're definitely adventuring out on your own here, I think. Are there any Christians reading now that would equate attempting to understand nature as also an attempt to discredit God?

I think the Christian apologist and mathematician John Lennox would say that you're trying to argue Creator vs Creation. Just because we can understand how an engine works that doesn't discredit the inventor.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed for flame/goad/mock/off topic, or quoting someone doing this.

 

[USincognito]

That <staff edit> does not go anywhere near explains how naturedidit. If nature alone can make an earthworm then why can't nature build a bridge or make a smartphone? If you left your car parked in the rain forest for a thousand years would you expect nature to reassemble into a F-15 fighter jet? All you demonstrate here is myopia and blind faith in the so-called creative power of nature.

When bridges and smartphones start reproducing and passing on genetic material to offspring, you might have an analogy. As far as cars and F-15s go, we often see evolution mischaracterized as Pokemon or X-Men, but I think this the first Transformers allusion I've seen.

 

[bhsmte]

Which is more complex: the worlds fastest supercomputer, the worlds most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an earthworm?

Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.

1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?

2. What would I think of someone if they firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the supercomputer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?

Until such time, that the ID folks, can come with a scientific definition of ID and most importantly, a falsifiable test to determine when ID is present, ID is not science just a faith belief. Even ID's star witness Dr. Behe testified under oath, that if ID was considered science, than astrology would also be considered science.

 

[dmmesdale]

When bridges and smartphones start reproducing and passing on genetic material to offspring, you might have an analogy.

The analogy stands. If nature can cause chemicals or goo to go to bacteria then nature can build bridges. At some point, the precursors to bacteria did not reproduce. If they did then the cause was some extrinsic source like laws or the sun. The whole process is bottom up. So again these are simply more ad hoc rescue or making things up. You cannot apply your standard consistently. If nature can do the one then nature can do the other. If nature cannot do the other then nature cannot do the one. Can't have it both ways.

As far as cars and F-15s go, we often see evolution mischaracterized as Pokemon or X-Men, but I think this the first Transformers allusion I've seen.

You can always take your puter and put it out in the sun and with the laws of physics and chemistry along with all that energy from the sun your puter may grow legs, develop a voice box, become sentient and talk to you. Evos do not like these analogies because it exposes what they really believe. They have to do damage control.

3. The demise of the LUCA: The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) is the hypothetical organism, that lived 4 billion years ago, for which there is no actual physical evidence of at all. It is only inferred because all life shares essentially the same genetic code. Recent scientific research indicates there is no reason to believe that it ever existed. As Professor Ford Doolittle states, “We do doubt that there ever was a single universal common ancestor.”7 Indeed, the idea that all living organisms are descended from a single ancestor is as preposterous as the discredited hypothesis that all human languages are descended from a prototypical tongue.

 

[pitabread]

Evos do not like these analogies because it exposes what they really believe.

We don't like these analogies because they are usually terrible and not analogous. Then we have to spend a bunch of time explaining why the analogy is terrible and not applicable.

This case is no exception.

 

[dmmesdale]

The analogy stands. If nature can cause chemicals or goo to go to bacteria then nature can build bridges. At some point, the precursors to bacteria did not reproduce. If they did then the cause was some extrinsic source like laws or the sun. The whole process is bottom up. So again these are simply more ad hoc exceptions or making things up. You cannot apply your standard consistently.
You can always take your puter and put it out in the sun and with the laws of physics and chemistry along with all that energy from the sun your puter may grow legs, develop a voice box, become sentient and talk to you. Evos do not like these analogies because it exposes what they really believe. They have to do damage control.

 

[Strathos]

I believe God created simple rules that He knew would give rise to complexity

 

[dmmesdale]

We don't like these analogies because they are usually terrible and not analogous. Then we have to spend a bunch of time explaining why the analogy is terrible and not applicable.

This case is no exception.

The problem is not with the analogy. It is your dogmatism. Here is another one. Finding the starship Enterprise on the moon complete with dummy instruction manuals. Yours would have us believe the source was intrinsic to the moon while we would argue an intelligent extrinsic of the moon. Based on the simple fact the moon cannot make a starship.

 

[Nat Page]

They rule out the inventor in the first place. They start with their conclusion. Like i wrote they attempt to explain reality absent God which is what naturalism is. It is an imaginary alternative reality.

Surely you can understand that if we are going to include a creator/inventor we must first show that a creator/inventor Exists in order for it to be included, if no evidence of existance is needed then any entity anyone can imagine can be included, am I being unreasonable?

 

[Speedwell]

The problem is not with the analogy. It is your dogmatism. Here is another one. Finding the starship Enterprise on the moon complete with dummy instruction manuals. Yours would have us believe the source was intrinsic to the moon while we would argue an intelligent extrinsic of the moon. Based on the simple fact the moon cannot make a starship.

If we found such a starship on the moon we would conclude design based on unmistakable evidence of human manufacture. Without such evidence it would be impossible to rule out the possibility that the object was produced by natural causes somewhere in the universe, not necessarily on or by the moon.

Design is purpose and as such is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design.

Considering the starship of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could come to no conclusion one way or another about the existence of a designer.

The suggestion that I would infer the existence of a designer in the case of the starship because of its functionality or complexity and deny it in a natural object of equal functionality or complexity out of ignorance or a desire to deny your pet theory is silly.

 

[pitabread]

The problem is not with the analogy.

No, the problem is definitely with the analogy.

Here is another one.

Please stop.

 

[dmmesdale]

Surely you can understand that if we are going to include a creator/inventor we must first show that a creator/inventor Exists

They infer a extrinsic living source based on the effects, not an observed cause. Same with their imaginary ancestors to bacteria. If you rule out the one then to be consistent, the other must be ruled out. LUCA must be ruled out because LUCA is unobserved according to your unscientific standards.

in order for it to be included, if no evidence of existance is needed then any entity anyone can imagine can be included, am I being unreasonable?

Yes you are. We do not have to observe the cause of an event. We reason from effect/event to cause. Identity is investigated after the cause is established. Not before. If a suit is evidence of a tailor then life is evidence of a living super intelligent cause.

 

[dmmesdale]

No, the problem is definitely with the analogy.



Please stop.

Right, stop up your ears.

 

[dmmesdale]

If we found such a starship on the moon we would conclude design based on unmistakable evidence of human manufacture.

It would be alien manufacture, not human.

Design is purpose and as such is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design.

Don't compare the voodoo of paleontology to the exacting science of making a starship.

Considering the starship of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture.

Not because of functionality? Complex functionality of that magnitude is the result of intelligent agents only. There is no other known cause for that given effect. It is a fingerprint for super intelligence.

If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could come to no conclusion one way or another about the existence of a designer.

Right, useless. We infer a cause based on what we do know by following the evidence. Not being afraid to to go where the evidence takes us.

The suggestion that I would infer the existence of a designer in the case of the starship because of its functionality or complexity and deny it in a natural object of equal functionality or complexity out of ignorance or a desire to deny your pet theory is silly.

There is nothing silly about inferring a living source for the simplest life normally associated with bacteria. Your rock tent example is out in left field. It is a diversion. If it is super complicated and contains complex machinery, information then its source is intelligence. The starship was analogous of bacteria, not a tent and a rock.