Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[Steve Petersen]

Intelligent design might be logical, and possibly rational, but it is in NO WAY scientific. It is not testable and it makes no predictions that can be falsified.

 

[dmmesdale]

Intelligent design might be logical, and possibly rational, but it is in NO WAY scientific.

Why not? So truth seeking is subordinate to definitions by anonymous tribunals who decide what is and what is not scientific? Quote.
''We don't care whether a particular proposition is true or not, we just care if it fits our naive, tautological, self-serving definition of science.'' If there are two possibilites for a given effect then science only allows for one? Really?

It is not testable

Testable with the explanatory power to that of competing hypos.

and it makes no predictions that can be falsified.

Quote.

''The argument from design would predict any attempt to rationally explain the origins of functional complexity and specified information. (In DNA or Bacteria) as being the results of some unguided, undirected process is hopeless and will end in failure.''

''If you wish to assert that the bacterium, along with all its astonishing nanotechnology, it's genetic information processing system, and the enormous amounts of preloaded digitally encoded information, are the result of an unguided process, the extraordinary heavy burden of proof is on you.'' These are from Rabbi Moshe Averick.

I can tell you one way you can falsify ID. Just find the starship Enterprise on the moon along with dummy instruction manuals and show how its source is the moon.

 

[bhsmte]

Why not? So truth seeking is subordinate to definitions by anonymous tribunals who decide what is and what is not scientific? Quote.
''We don't care whether a particular proposition is true of not, we just care if it fits our naive, tautological, self-serving definition of science.''
Testable with the explanatory power to that of competing hypos.

''The argument from design would predict any attempt to rationally explain the origins of functional complexity and specified information. (In DNA or Bacteria) as being the results of some unguided, undirected process is hopeless and will end in failure.''

''If you wish to assert that the bacterium, along with all its astonishing nanotechnology, it's genetic information Processing System, and the enormous of preloaded digitally encoded information, are the result of an unguarded process, the extraordinary heavy burden of proof is on you.''

Show us the falsifiable test to determine when ID is present.

Also, since Dr. Behe (ID's star witness) had to admit under oath, that if ID was science, than astrology was as well, I wish you good luck.

 

[dmmesdale]

Can anything be proposed as the cause of the event? will anything do or must any proposal always contain those three letters (God) before it is even considered? just saying 'God' explains absolutely nothing in fact saying a God did it opens a whole new can of worms, but I believe that was the idea of saying 'Goddidit' right from the outset, it caused uncertainty and confusion in the minds of the simple people the concept was first aimed at, they could not understand it so they just went along with it,
that's why "The Emperor's New Clothes" written by Hans Christian Andersen is such a perfect analogy for religious belief, most people don't understand they just go along.

Does nature grant you a right to life? Does nature grant you a right to equality?

How bout this Freud quote.

''The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.''

Any meaning assigned is subjective fiction no different then supposed God belief. Now that we have established life is objectively meaningless, why are you not as contented as a cow out in the field somewhere? That being since you probably have it better than most of the humans who have ever lived?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Does nature grant you a right to life? Does nature grant you a right to equality?

How bout this Freud quote.

''The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.''

Any meaning assigned is subjective fiction no different then supposed God belief. Now that we have established life is objectively meaningless, why are you not as contented as a cow out in the field somewhere? That being since you probably have it better than most of the humans who have ever lived?

Rights are a man made construct. Not really the same wheelhouse as Intelligent Design in biology.

 

[dmmesdale]

Rights are a man made construct. Not really the same wheelhouse as Intelligent Design in biology.

So you admit you have no rights from nature. That means your default must be the king can do no wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you admit you have no rights from nature. That means your default must be the king can do no wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

That comment is off-topic since it belongs in the Ethics & Morality section. The OP topic is 'Can intelligent design be a logical & rational answer?' Try and stay on topic.

 

[pitabread]

''The argument from design would predict any attempt to rationally explain the origins of functional complexity and specified information. (In DNA or Bacteria) as being the results of some unguided, undirected process is hopeless and will end in failure.''

This is not a scientific prediction. It comes across little better than a schoolyard taunt.

 

[Speedwell]

So you admit you have no rights from nature. That means your default must be the king can do no wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

It's beginning to seem that your position is, that if we don't accede to your ID theory, we can't believe in God as creator.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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?

And it's just that obvious to me. Some are so tuned to/conditioned by all the hype, that they have completely blinded themselves.

It's the epitome of "Can't see the forest for the trees."

And yes, laugh if one will but there has to be a power to make so many miss something so obvious, hence... the devil did make them do it.

Some people are just way too easy.

 

[pitabread]

And yes, laugh if one will but there has to be a power to make so many miss something so obvious, hence...

This is kinda funny to me since in roundabout way it reinforces what we've long known about creationism/ID/etc: that's it lockstep with religion. You ever notice that belief in ID/creationism always seem to follow from religious belief and not the other way around?

Meanwhile if you look at mainstream science, it's not bound by anything. It crosses cultures, languages, religious beliefs, generations. At the end of the day, science is science. It's the great equalizer.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's beginning to seem that your position is, that if we don't accede to your ID theory, we can't believe in God as creator.

?

God IS the ID/intelligent designer...what you said makes no sense.

If you call what the bible says he did, a theory, what do you think Bible believing Christians are going to think?

Yep, the "half way in between" people that seem to complicate the situation. But in the end it isn't complicated at all. With God, it's all or nothing, we believe him or we don't...there is no half way...He even so much as tells us that.

If we aren't for God, we're against him.

 

[Kenny'sID]

his is kinda funny to me since in roundabout way it reinforces what we've long known about creationism/ID/etc: that's it lockstep with religion.

Well, Duh. lol...go figure. I hope it's been known all along, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out the creator and what he requires of us IS religion, or better yet, "all there is/the meaning of it all"....take it or leave it.

And in your bout of brilliant deductions, did you also notice Atheism is the lockstep against religion. See how smoothly that works out. As perfect as math.

 

[pitabread]

Well, Duh. lol...go figure. I hope it's been known all along, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out the creator and what he requires of us IS religion, or better yet, "all there is/the meaning of it all"....take it or leave it.

Except that IDists will often try to purport that ID is scientific. Granted, that's been exposed in the past, but it kinda makes you wonder what the purpose of ID is in the first place. To make religious beliefs sound "science-ish" I guess?

And in your bout of brilliant deductions, did you also notice Atheism is the lockstep against religion.

You'll notice though that I never referenced atheism; I was referencing science. Science does not require any particular religious faith one way or the other. As I said, it's the great equalizer.

 

[Speedwell]

?

God IS the ID/intelligent designer...what you said makes no sense.

God is the maker of heaven and Earth and of all things, both visible and invisible. Whether or not He is the Discovery Institute's "designer" is what we are discussing.

If you call what the bible says he did, a theory, what do you think Bible believing Christians are going to think?

Yep, the "half way in between" people that seem to complicate the situation. But in the end it isn't complicated at all. With God, it's all or nothing, we believe him or we don't...there is no half way...He even so much as tells us that.

If we aren't for God, we're against him.

We get it, Kenny. Only "Bible-believing" Christians are real Christians.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Except that IDists will often try to purport that ID is scientific. Granted, that's been exposed in the past, but it kinda makes you wonder what the purpose of ID is in the first place. To make religious beliefs sound science-y I guess?

This is the first I've heard of that being any major purpose. Science is nothing on it's own, just a term. If ID is provable by mans use of science, so be it. It at least seems probable they would, but as to using that to push God, why try?

If you know anything at all about psychology, even if we proved it beyond a shadow, (Just the OP makes it so obvious, if it were a snake, it would have bitten you) if you don't want to see it you won't. Certain minds just switch it off....it's actually phenomenal.

You'll notice though that I never referenced atheism; I was referencing science. Science does not require any particular religious faith one way or the other. As I said, it's the great equalizer.

And did you notice I never referenced you referencing Atheism?

 

[Kenny'sID]

God is the maker of heaven and Earth and of all things, both visible and invisible. Whether or not He is the Discovery Institute's "designer" is what we are discussing.

And?

The Discovery Institute?

We get it, Kenny. Only "Bible-believing" Christians are real Christians.

I agree...why do you bring it up?

 

[Speedwell]

And?

The Discovery Institute?

Intelligent Design is the invention of a group of militant Calvinists in Seattle calling themselves the Discovery Institute. It is not just the vague general notion that God is the "designer" of the universe, it is a very specific hypothesis with a very specific political agenda attached.

Never heard of it? Then why have you signed on?

I agree...why do you bring it up?

Because I'm a Christian and find your attitude towards me offensive. I don't deny your faith, after all.

 

[pitabread]

This is the first I've heard of that being any major purpose.

That really does seem to be the real reason for the existence of ID. Remember back in the 2000's, there was a push to get ID in the classroom. This resulted in the Dover trial where it was exposed as basically being 'creationism's trojan horse'.

Beyond that was else has ID contributed to the sciences? Nothing as far as I can tell.

Science is nothing on it's own, just a term. If ID is provable by mans use of science, so be it.

Sure, but that hasn't happened yet.

It at least seems probable they would, but as to using that to push God, why try?

Like I said, religion always seems to precede ID; you can't have one without the other. Which begs the question as to what ID is in the first place. It hasn't proven it's any kind of legitimate avenue of scientific inquiry. It seems primarily used as an evangelism tool.

If you know anything at all about psychology, even if we proved it beyond a shadow, (Just the OP makes it so obvious, if it were a snake, it would have bitten you) if you don't want to see it you won't. Certain minds just switch it off....it's actually phenomenal.

Science is science. Certainly there would be those that have trouble accepting it, but if ID were proven to be overwhelmingly scientifically true, it would be probably the single most profound discovery in human history. It would take some time, but if that's where the science truly led that that's ultimately what would be accepted.

The problem is it's never been anywhere close to that. Right now it's largely in the realm of pseudo-science.

And did you notice I never referenced you referencing Atheism?

Then why bring it up?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because I'm a Christian and find your attitude towards me offensive. I don't deny your faith, after all.

It's a general attitude, and I'll always generally feel that way. Maybe you need to block me?

Intelligent Design is the invention of a group of militant Calvinists in Seattle calling themselves the Discovery Institute. It is not just the vague general notion that God is the "designer" of the universe, it is a very specific hypothesis with a very specific political agenda attached.

Never heard of it? Then why have you signed on?

Signed on to what?