Expelled

[Tinker Grey]

And how would you posit the why God made the flagellum as he did?

Supposing you posit a why: How would you use this to make a prediction?

 

[Mallon]

Under ID, one can posit "why" the Designer did it that way. Knowing the "why's" of the Designer allows for making predictions.

I've never heard that before. I've only ever heard it said that ID can tell us THAT a designer made something, not WHY it was made.
But assuming you're right, WHY did the designer make Cymothoa exigua, a parasite which bores its way through a fish's gills, feeds on the blood of the tongue, and eventually becomes the fish's tongue itself. A very complex life-cycle, to say the least.
What does ID theory tell you about why a designer would do it that way?

 

[Willtor]

I've never heard that before. I've only ever heard it said that ID can tell us THAT a designer made something, not WHY it was made.
But assuming you're right, WHY did the designer make Cymothoa exigua, a parasite which bores its way through a fish's gills, feeds on the blood of the tongue, and eventually becomes the fish's tongue itself. A very complex life-cycle, to say the least.
What does ID theory tell you about why a designer would do it that way?

Wow. That boggles the mind. What a strange, strange creature.

Cymothoa Exigua

 

[LoG]

And how would you posit the why God made the flagellum as he did?

Why was it designed that way. What is the purpose it serves. Is it the most efficient design for the function it performs.

Supposing you posit a why: How would you use this to make a prediction?

If we were to assume the designer was looking to create an ecologically balanced habitat, internally and externally, predictions could be made as to what function a particular organism serves to that end. How it augments the greater good.

Another aspect that could be considered is whether there is more then one designer working in opposition to one another.
.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Expelled: Buyers Remorse.

As Ben goes further and further off the rails, how do you IDers and creationists feel about having this man represent you in the ID debate?

Does his encouraging of smoking pot to make Expelled make sense offend you? Or did you think that was a funny joke?

What about Ben's homo-erotic jokes in his TV show and other routines? Is that an image the ID movement wants to have linked to it?

Now that Ben is slipping back into his old routines and jokes, are you sure that Ben was a good choice for this movie at all?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why was it designed that way. What is the purpose it serves. Is it the most efficient design for the function it performs.

I don't understand your answer.

Let me ask my question a different way. How do you know why God did something? What procedures does one go thru to conclude that X is the reason God did something?

If we were to assume the designer was looking to create an ecologically balanced habitat, internally and externally, predictions could be made as to what function a particular organism serves to that end. How it augments the greater good.

Another aspect that could be considered is whether there is more then one designer working in opposition to one another.

I think this is very backwards. You assume a designer wants balanced habitats because you see balanced habitats (and you see how habitats becomes balanced after they've been knocked out-of-whack). So balanced habitats are used by you to predict 2 things: 1) that a designer cares about balanced habitats, and 2) that balanced habitats are what nature moves towards.

So nature tells you about god and nature tells you about nature. So, why do we need god in the mix to discover nature. After all, your procedure didn't use god to discover nature ... it used nature to discover god.

 

[Bombila]

Interesting perspective.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/expelled.shtml

 

[LoG]

I don't understand your answer.

Let me ask my question a different way. How do you know why God did something? What procedures does one go thru to conclude that X is the reason God did something?

The tests, procedures etc. would not be much different from what archaeologists go through to determine what sort of people designed and made the artifacts they left except now we would be using biological lifeforms as evidence.

I think this is very backwards. You assume a designer wants balanced habitats because you see balanced habitats (and you see how habitats becomes balanced after they've been knocked out-of-whack). So balanced habitats are used by you to predict 2 things: 1) that a designer cares about balanced habitats, and 2) that balanced habitats are what nature moves towards.

Either the assumption is design for balanced habitats with the goal being ongoing life or we have to assume that life was designed to move towards disorder and destruction.

So nature tells you about god and nature tells you about nature. So, why do we need god in the mix to discover nature. After all, your procedure didn't use god to discover nature ... it used nature to discover god.

Do we limit our studies of ancient civiliations to the artifacts they produced or do we extend the research to get an idea of who they were, what they were about, their aspirations, their outlook on life etc.?

 

[Tinker Grey]

The tests, procedures etc. would not be much different from what archaeologists go through to determine what sort of people designed and made the artifacts they left except now we would be using biological lifeforms as evidence.

You make it sound so easy and yet I can't imagine a single procedure by which I could test God's purposes. If by referencing archeologists you mean we look at stuff and then guess, well maybe that'd work -- but essentially you're guessing.

Archeologists etc., do some pretty good work so maybe we could infer stuff about God. But I don't you'd like the results. You should read some of the scathing critiques about ID that argue that whoever designed the eye was an idiot along with several other examples (some aorta looping around something, I forget).

Either the assumption is design for balanced habitats with the goal being ongoing life or we have to assume that life was designed to move towards disorder and destruction.

But you got your assumption from observation of nature. You didn't start with an assumption from God's character and derive that nature should be balanced.

This is Collins' and Lewis' moral law all over again. (Not that that's a bad thing -- but, they knew what it was for.)

Do we limit our studies of ancient civiliations to the artifacts they produced or do we extend the research to get an idea of who they were, what they were about, their aspirations, their outlook on life etc.?

Of course, we don't.

Look. All 3 of your paragraph show what I was arguing about: That we might be able to infer stuff about God by observing creation -- BUT, you've discovered God thru nature; you've NOT discovered nature by starting with God.

Natural selection tells us how we might breed new bacteria to fight others (I mean, of course, anti-biotics). Nothing about ID suggests how knowing God made a bacteria and/or how we might use that information to make antibiotics. We don't know that an intelligent designer wouldn't suddenly go in a new direction. The fact that he never does suggests that evolution IS his tool.

That God might oversee each process to ensure its outcome (I don't think any competant God should need to oversee his processes any more than GM should assign an engineer to ride with you in your car just in case) may provide comfort to the IDist. I rather suspect that this comfort isn't different than the TE's comfort when he/she considers that the processes work.

In short, 1) you discover God from nature and not vice-versa, and 2) you might infer stuff about God from nature but you still don't predict nature from God.

In the end, all an ID do is respond to the effects of evolution by saying "isn't God wonderful". A TE, at least, can predict what it is he/she is going to praise God for.

 

[busterdog]

Expelled: Buyers Remorse.

As Ben goes further and further off the rails, how do you IDers and creationists feel about having this man represent you in the ID debate?

Does his encouraging of smoking pot to make Expelled make sense offend you? Or did you think that was a funny joke?

What about Ben's homo-erotic jokes in his TV show and other routines? Is that an image the ID movement wants to have linked to it?

Now that Ben is slipping back into his old routines and jokes, are you sure that Ben was a good choice for this movie at all?

You mean he made a great movie AND we get to stone him for being less holy than we?

What a treat all around!

My choice to make the movie would be Jesus. But, HE has not returned just yet. But, as long as we are speaking theoretically, I am not worried about presenting a pointless observation.

 

[Mallon]

Why was it designed that way. What is the purpose it serves. Is it the most efficient design for the function it performs.

But again, how do you know that it is the most efficient design for the function it performs?

If we were to assume the designer was looking to create an ecologically balanced habitat, internally and externally, predictions could be made as to what function a particular organism serves to that end. How it augments the greater good.

Even if it does "bad" things?
If you're going to argue that the death and suffering caused by parasitism is essentially bad -- yet it contributes to a balanced ecosystem -- what are the consequences of this type of thinking as far as far as your concordist reading of the creation story is concerned? Were ecosystems unbalanced before the Fall?
The implications, I think, are pretty heavy. Yet it strikes me that most anti-evolutionary concordists don't want to think about it.

Another aspect that could be considered is whether there is more then one designer working in opposition to one another.

So again, what are the implications for your faith? Is this really the kind of stuff we want to be teaching our children by introducing it into the science classroom? That there's not one, but two creators?

 

[busterdog]

But again, how do you know that it is the most efficient design for the function it performs?

Hmmmmm....

As in, if efficiency were the issue, maybe we shouldn't have things like penquins?

What is efficiency?

 

[shernren]

Efficiency = work performed / energy input.

Simple stuff.

I <3 physics.

 

[busterdog]

Efficiency = work performed / energy input.

Simple stuff.

I <3 physics.

Not when its a question of whether efficiency is measured by the organism or by its ecosystem, or by who knows what (Whom) else.

 

[Mallon]

Not when its a question of whether efficiency is measured by the organism or by its ecosystem, or by who knows what (Whom) else.

What do you mean?

 

[shernren]

... bear in mind, of course, that it was a creationist who first proposed maximum "efficiency" as a possible way to use ID to make predictions.

 

[Prahudka]

... bear in mind, of course, that it was a creationist who first proposed maximum "efficiency" as a possible way to use ID to make predictions.

Do you a creationist scholar? Who?

 

[busterdog]

What do you mean?

Certain traits are more beneficial to an ecosystem, or God's plan if you will, than they are to the species.

Is it efficient for rabbits to tend toward toluremia when the population is in surplus? They are susceptible to disease but apparently incapable of a more efficient method of controlling their own populations.

Wouldn't it be more efficient for Penguins to swim north and learn to live on the beach in Ipanema?

 

[Mallon]

I still have no idea what you're talking about, busterdog. You're using the term "efficiency" in a way no biologist ever has.
I've also never heard of a biologist talk about traits that "benefit an ecosystem". But wouldn't that which is beneficial to an ecosystem also be beneficial for those species that inhabit it?

Leave it to a lawyer to talk biology.