How can we tell Intelligent design from non Intelligent design?

[Electric Sceptic]

Ha, ha ha ha. That sounds like the first commandment of the science of unintelligent human evolution.

There is no god but allah.

It's a simple fact, no more a 'commandment' than stating the same of gravity.

Evolution is an observed natural phenomenon. Your desire to pin 'intelligence' on it is transparent, without foundation and ultimately useless.

 

[john crawford]

In weeks of trying, you have so far offered absolutely nothing to support the idea of intelligent design. You have consistently failed to even define what you're talking about, and much of what you have said has left many of us with the impression that you don't know what ID even is.

I'm surprised you are still posting on the thread at all since you seem to add nothing to it in terms of intelligent design.

Why don't you go post on one of the unintelligent evolution threads if you don't like the idea of intelligent evolution by evolutionary design.

 

[Arikay]

The point is to see if Intelligent design holds any water. The first step to doing this is to define terms (something I was going to ask of you if you expanded on your points) and explain the basic premise of intelligent design. Explaining how we tell if something is intelligently designed or not gets to the core of the matter (as far as science is concerned).

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I'm surprised you are still posting on the thread at all since you seem to add nothing to it in terms of intelligent design.

Why don't you go post on one of the unintelligent evolution threads if you don't like the idea of intelligent evolution by evolutionary design.

Because I enjoy (a) watching you flounder as attempt to invent something that isn't there and (b) like to point out your failings so that less educated people will not be convinced by your nonsense.

 

[john crawford]

It's a simple fact, no more a 'commandment' than stating the same of gravity.

Evolution is an observed natural phenomenon. Your desire to pin 'intelligence' on it is transparent, without foundation and ultimately useless.

More ha, ha ha's. The effects of gravity may be intelligently measured and observed to be acting in accordance with the most fundamental laws of physics.

What laws of physics govern natural selection, genetic mutation and adaptive behavior other than the laws of probability, chance, randomness and accidentalism.

Your version of evolution is non-purposeful, non-directed, non-systematic, non-designed and unintelligent.

Without some intelligently designed description and explanation to account for the evolution and intelligent design of the human brain, unintelligent evolution remains inadequate to explain anything about the origin of species because it is not based on the natural and intelligent laws of physics.

 

[john crawford]

Explaining how we tell if something is intelligently designed or not gets to the core of the matter (as far as science is concerned).

I already listed 5 recognizable elements of something intelligently designed.

Don't you understand the meaning of these words?

If so, are they helpful, useful or not?

 

[TheUndeadFish]

John, you seem to be tacking "intelligent" on to a lot of different terms...

What exactly is intelligent measurement as opposed to normal measurement?
What is an intelligently designed description as opposed to a regular description?
What are intelligent laws of physics as opposed to just laws of physics?

 

[john crawford]

Because I enjoy (a) watching you flounder as attempt to invent something that isn't there and (b) like to point out your failings so that less educated people will not be convinced by your nonsense.

a) why do you enjoy watching people fail?

b) "less educated" than who?

 

[john crawford]

John, you seem to be tacking "intelligent" on to a lot of different terms...

What exactly is intelligent measurement as opposed to normal measurement?
What is an intelligently designed description as opposed to a regular description?
What are intelligent laws of physics as opposed to just laws of physics?

I prefer stressing the intelligent aspects of evolution rather than relying on the "normal" measurements, "regular" descriptions and "just" laws of evolutionary physics, as a counterbalance to the claim that evolution is an "unintelligent" natural process.

If evolution is an unintelligent natural process, how might I be assured that evolutionary thinking is not also the result of unintelligent brain processes?

I much prefer intelligent things to unintelligent ones, especially when it comes to an evolutionary accounting for our own degree of intelligence.

Now someone can ask how we may differentiate between intelligence and non-intelligence in evolution.

 

[Hydra009]

The effects of gravity may be intelligently measured and observed to be acting in accordance with the most fundamental laws of physics.

Can you name something that isn't measured intelligently?

Please stop trying to cram in "intelligent" before every third word, especially cramming it in where it doesn't belong. I'm still waiting for a comprehensive way to determine what in the natural world is intelligently designed and what is not.

 

[Clem is Me]

Denying the intelligent evolution of your intelligent mind and brain again, huh?

Intelligent evolution is an oxymoron.

 

[Hydra009]

I already listed 5 recognizable elements of something intelligently designed.

Don't you understand the meaning of these words?

If so, are they helpful, useful or not?

IMO, right now it is completely useless because you haven't explained what exactly you mean by each. As it stands right now, you might as well have said that the 6th recognizable element of something intelligently designed: blue.

 

[Arikay]

Yes, but the definition of words is often a big problem point in these discussions.
A better explanation would also be nice.

Like, would you consider a diamond an intelligently designed stone?

I already listed 5 recognizable elements of something intelligently designed.

Don't you understand the meaning of these words?

If so, are they helpful, useful or not?

 

[TheUndeadFish]

I prefer stressing the intelligent aspects of evolution rather than relying on the "normal" measurements, "regular" descriptions and "just" laws of evolutionary physics, as a counterbalance to the claim that evolution is an "unintelligent" natural process.

But just what are those intelligent aspects? You essentially invented new terms by putting "intelligent" in front of various words, but you haven't described what they mean.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

More ha, ha ha's. The effects of gravity may be intelligently measured and observed to be acting in accordance with the most fundamental laws of physics.

Which has nothing to do with the topic.

What laws of physics govern natural selection, genetic mutation and adaptive behavior other than the laws of probability, chance, randomness and accidentalism.

There are a host of natural laws and forces which govern natural selection and genetic mutation. All are unintelligent processes.

Your version of evolution is non-purposeful, non-directed, non-systematic, non-designed and unintelligent.

It's not my version. Unlike you, I don't have my own version. It is, simply, evolutionary theory.

Without some intelligently designed description and explanation to account for the evolution and intelligent design of the human brain, unintelligent evolution remains inadequate to explain anything about the origin of species because it is not based on the natural and intelligent laws of physics.

You know, no matter how many times you say that, it doesn't become fact. The laws of physics are not intelligent. Evolution occurs only because of the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. None of these laws are 'intelligent'.

a) why do you enjoy watching people fail?

I don't. I enjoy watching people talk nonsense and think they are making sense. It amuses me.

b) "less educated" than who?

Less educated than the many people on here who are telling you what nonsense you are spouting.

 

[gluadys]

Why don't you go post on one of the unintelligent evolution threads if you don't like the idea of intelligent evolution by evolutionary design.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Trying to incorporate evolution into ID doesn't work.

A biological feature either evolves (a natural process that has no intelligence or purpose) or it is purposefully designed by an intelligent being. It can't be both at the same time.

Now one could suppose the process was originally designed. But that doesn't make the process itself intelligent, nor are the products of the process intelligently designed as long as the designer simply lets it take its course.

In fact, this is what I have found reading ID material. The intelligent designing aspect is continually thrown back earlier and earlier (current favorite, the design of the DNA/RNA code). But this means that ID, if it is involved in the production of living forms at all, only occurs in the pre-biotic stage. All life forms have evolved.

And, of course, it may be that we will eventually be able to explain the genetic code without recourse to a designer either.

ID is simply god-in-the-gaps theology. Has nothing to do with science.

 

[djns9437]

Something that has evolved has not been designed. Evolution is an effect. It has no desire. Design implies desire.

If evolution is the cause or agent that produces life,what cause or agent produces evolution?

 

[Mistermystery]

If evolution is the cause or agent that produces life,what cause or agent produces evolution?

The theory of evolution is not the explaination for the very start of life. The theory of evolution is an explaination for the biodiversity of life, how it started is of no real intrest. That is left up to other theories to explain, like abiogenesis, allthough this one does not exclude the concept of God in any way.

 

[gluadys]

If evolution is the cause or agent that produces life,what cause or agent produces evolution?

Evolution does not produce life. It produces the diversity of living forms.

Whether life itself has a natural explanation is the study of abiogenesis.
If that question is answered in the affirmative, then chemistry is the agent that produces life.

The agents of evolution include mutations, natural selection, population dynamics, environmental impacts, etc. etc.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

If evolution is the cause or agent that produces life,what cause or agent produces evolution?

Nothing 'causes' evolution...it's merely the behaviour of a system as governed by the laws which make it up.