Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[The Barbarian]

Well just at first glance I noticed the Appendix. That is such an old falsified belief that it is a vestigial organ it's not even funny anymore...

Of course, it's vestigial. In other animals, it's where crude plant material is fermented. In humans, it's a place where useful bacteria can survive digestive disorders. As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs are often repurposed. "Vestigial' does not mean "useless."

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The 'natural hypothesis' is "natural"?

If we can't "know' either way we should have faith that the way we believe is the truth.

Yeah, no. That's not a good way to find truth.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

And what does the evidence suggest...?

That life diversifies according to observable natural causes such as reproduction, mutation and selection. That the laws of physics and chemistry are consistent throughout the observable Universe and with regard to biological processes.

And what is natural causation...?

In short? The observable laws of Chemistry and physics.

Nature causes something, or what...?

Presumably, an intelligent agent defying the laws of chemistry and physics. Might be a "god", whatever that might be, or other more advanced lifeforms, or a computer simulation, which of course begs the question of their own origins.

but it seems more like "carnal" hypothesis to me...

Wat?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think it requires an absent, deistic God--I strongly favor the theology behind theistic evolution, but I'm curious as to how other theistic evolutionists around here approach the theological questions involved. Saying it isn't an issue isn't a response. It was certainly an issue for me moving from non-theism to theism, so I don't think it's something that ought to be swept under the table.

If we're specifically going to attack ID as unintelligent, I think we have the responsibility to explain how evolution demonstrates some sort of hidden divine intelligence. Otherwise it is not clear how deism or pantheism doesn't follow.

... I'm pretty sure that the added context of "the Bible" prevents all of this from simply falling into deism or pantheism. So, I'll sweep the issue under any table I find. Besides, I've got to hide the philosophical dirt somewhere!

 

[Silmarien]

... I'm pretty sure that the added context of "the Bible" prevents all of this from simply falling into deism or pantheism. So, I'll sweep the issue under any table I find. Besides, I've got to hide the philosophical dirt somewhere!

Well, there's the question of whether a biblical account of reality is consistent with evolution. My concerns are specifically related to how Abrahamic religions approach the question of suffering. If suffering is and has always been built into the natural order of things and was not a result of the Fall, then the whole notion of divine providence seems to collapse, unless propped up by a novel conception of how evolution fits in with Christian theology and divine goodness.

@Speedwell seems to favor the idea that it is our understanding that is "fallen" rather than the natural world itself, which is certainly possible, but to my eye seems to fit better with a Vedic interpretation of human impressions as in some sense illusory. I am not sure how you can salvage good and evil, sin and salvation, if what is wrong with us is the way we conceptualize these things at all. Whatever the answer might be in this scenario, it seems highly unlikely to be the Christian one. If the Incarnation truly happened, then the divine picture of what benevolence looks like should not be ineffable to us, so I'm uncomfortable retreating into Mysterianism to try to reconcile the Christian revelation with a reality that at least on the surface looks very different from it.

This is probably the wrong part of the forum for these particular questions, though. I just don't like to see theistic evolutionists focus exclusively on the scientific issues, both because theistic evolution tends to just get wrapped into atheistic evolution, and because there are genuine theological issues involved. There's certainly an argument to be made that evolution is too cruel to be reconciled with Christian theism, which may be an underlying issue for some Creationists. (Though I don't see how ID would help them here.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, there's the question of whether a biblical account of reality is consistent with evolution. My concerns are specifically related to how Abrahamic religions approach the question of suffering. If suffering is and has always been built into the natural order of things and was not a result of the Fall, then the whole notion of divine providence seems to collapse, unless propped up by a novel conception of how evolution fits in with Christian theology and divine goodness.

@Speedwell seems to favor the idea that it is our understanding that is "fallen" rather than the natural world itself, which is certainly possible, but to my eye seems to fit better with a Vedic interpretation of human impressions as in some sense illusory. I am not sure how you can salvage good and evil, sin and salvation, if what is wrong with us is the way we conceptualize these things at all. Whatever the answer might be in this scenario, it seems highly unlikely to be the Christian one. If the Incarnation truly happened, then the divine picture of what benevolence looks like should not be ineffable to us, so I'm uncomfortable retreating into Mysterianism to try to reconcile the Christian revelation with a reality that at least on the surface looks very different from it.

This is probably the wrong part of the forum for these particular questions, though. I just don't like to see theistic evolutionists focus exclusively on the scientific issues, both because theistic evolution tends to just get wrapped into atheistic evolution, and because there are genuine theological issues involved. There's certainly an argument to be made that evolution is too cruel to be reconciled with Christian theism, which may be an underlying issue for some Creationists. (Though I don't see how ID would help them here.)

Hmmmm..........................you've basically hit the nail on the head, and on that of several nails in fact. In looking over what you've said, I don't know whether to give your response a 'thumbs-up,' a 'green check-mark of agreement, or a 'funny face.' How about all three?

I think I can substantively address at least a few of your points, but since you've got several lines of concern all entwined here, with each needing to be explored, deliberated over and discussed, this might not be the best part of the forum in which to dive 20,000 leagues deep into these issues. We can, but I'd hate to try to do so with you being on what I hope is an enjoyable vacation and all. I will say that in some ways I agree with @Speedwell, although I might have a few other things to say in addition to what he has said.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why can't they just say that when the bible says "made in his image", it just means that homo sapiens shares those same, or similar, "metaphysical / abstract / transcending" properties. And that the stuff we actually observe (our physical bodies and the stuff it contains) just be part of the natural order of things?

...some have, actually.

Why wouldn't an all powerful god be able to create a system of "self assembling biological machines" that evolve over time, in such a way that at some point a species arrives that is capable of higher learning, which then gets "chosen" to receive such properties? Or that the system is set up in such a way that such a species inevitably arises at some point?

Could be. But who knows where the Wizard of Oz's door is so that we may knock on it and ask Him?

Not that I think any of that is convincing off course... to me, it all sounds much like the undetectable pink graviton pixies that somehow make gravity work. But at least, such an approach doesn't require you to ignore and downright deny solid scientific inquiry and conclusions.....

Yes, at least.

 

[Silmarien]

Hmmmm..........................you've basically hit the nail on the head, and on that of several nails in fact. In looking over what you've said, I don't know whether to give your response a 'thumbs-up,' a 'green check-mark of agreement, or a 'funny face.' How about all three?

I think I can substantively address at least a few of your points, but since you've got several lines of concern all entwined here, with each needing to be explored, deliberated over and discussed, this might not be the best part of the forum in which to dive 20,000 leagues deep into these issues. We can, but I'd hate to try to do so with you being on what I hope is an enjoyable vacation and all. I will say that in some ways I agree with @Speedwell, although I might have a few other things to say in addition to what he has said.

Equal parts enjoyable and exhausting, but I'll be happy to get home in a week. Tagging Spain on at the end of the trip might have been a mistake, since we need to get up at 5:30 tomorrow morning now to catch this flight.

I'll have to make a thread in apologetics when I return, since this is actually a pretty serious issue for me. (I do think it has solutions, but they tend to involve serious theological innovation.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Equal parts enjoyable and exhausting, but I'll be happy to get home in a week. Tagging Spain on at the end of the trip might have been a mistake, since we need to get up at 5:30 tomorrow morning now to catch this flight.

I'll have to make a thread in apologetics when I return, since this is actually a pretty serious issue for me. (I do think it has solutions, but they tend to involve serious theological innovation.)

Ok. Sounds like a good discussion is forthcoming, then. Enjoy the remainder of your vacation, Sil!

 

[pat34lee]

I disagree on the flood personally, I think it was in reference to whatever killed the dinosaurs. I believe in evolution, but I believe that God created this universe and everything inhabiting it. I also believe his son Jesus Christ gave Himself for our sins.

Why would Jesus do that if sin wasn't the problem?

If sin brought death, disease and suffering into a perfect
universe, that would be something.

If death had been around for billions of years, then he was
crucified for nothing because God created death and evil.
This is why Darwinism was created by those who hate God.

 

[pat34lee]

So, you accept that the organ has evolved at least 29 times, possibly as many as 41 times?

Or are you just quoting this in some kind of pragmatic way, because you'll quote just about anything that you feel supports the point you are making at that specific time, while you would reject the same information later when trying to make some other point?

The point is that it is improbable to the point of impossible
for the eye to evolve once. It is absurd to believe it could
happen dozens of times, and all become perfect eyes.

 

[Brightmoon]

Why would Jesus do that if sin wasn't the problem?

If sin brought death, disease and suffering into a perfect
universe, that would be something.

If death had been around for billions of years, then he was
crucified for nothing because God created death and evil.
This is why Darwinism was created by those who hate God.

Darwin was in university to train as a minister. I don’t think he hated God when he wrote OOS. And by the way there’s no such thing as Darwinism. Darwinian evolution is just natural selection

The point is that it is improbably to the point of impossible
for the eye to evolve once. It is absurd to believe it could
happen dozens of times, and all become perfect eyes.

evolving more than once is why your mammalian camera eye doesn’t look like a squid’s camera eye . Neither look like a scallop’s blue pinhole eyes but the same genetic switches control their development. In humans that make-an-eye-here gene switched on as part of the developing brain . And if you look at an accurate anatomy drawing of the human brain the eyes are part of it.( I guess they leave them out because it looks freaky )

 

[Brightmoon]

Scallop eyes!

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point is that it is improbable to the point of impossible
for the eye to evolve once. It is absurd to believe it could
happen dozens of times, and all become perfect eyes.

That's nice, but the point wasn't about eyes....

And arguments of incredulity won't be leading anywhere.

 

[AirPo]

View attachment 241213

As usual this is a screenshot as my phone won’t let me link

Considering ID was designed as a con, and so many creations fell for it, I wouldn't say it's not intelligent.

 

[Speedwell]

Considering ID was designed as a con, and so many creations fell for it, I wouldn't say it's not intelligent.

ID is the "cold fusion" of biology. Generally, ID proponents attribute rejection of it to a fear that the "designer" might turn out to be God, but they have no real explanation for why scientists who are also theists, even Christians, reject it as well.

 

[AirPo]

ID is the "cold fusion" of biology. Generally, ID proponents attribute rejection of it to a fear that the "designer" might turn out to be God, but they have no real explanation for why scientists who are also theists, even Christians, reject it as well.

Because they are loath to admit to themselves that it's all just a con.

 

[Smidlee]

ID is the "cold fusion" of biology. Generally, ID proponents attribute rejection of it to a fear that the "designer" might turn out to be God, but they have no real explanation for why scientists who are also theists, even Christians, reject it as well.

That's easy. Because their belief in the principle of continuity
Isaac Newton rejected this old belief which is why he wrote the law of gravity explains how our solar system operates but not it's origins. We now know Isaac math even breaks down on the grand scale of galaxy which is why scientist believe in the invisible dark matter and dark energy.
This old religious belief was around during the days of the gospels as apostle Paul ran into them.

 

[xianghua]

Kind-of... the telling quote in the New Scientist article is from Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who says that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see. Rather, it emphasises the extent to which evolution has coped with the flawed layout. “The shape, orientation and structure of the Müller cells help the retina to overcome one of the principal shortcomings of its inside-out wiring,” says Miller.

im not sure i understand miller (because of the english i guess). if this "backward structure" improve vision then its a good design.

Other effective camera-style eyes have evolved that don't have the 'inside-out' structure of vertebrate eyes, e.g. cephalopod eyes.

so an octopus see better than human?

 

[xianghua]

Funny how neither of these sources considers it a problem for evolution.

who said its a problem for evolution? funny.