Is evolution stupid?

[Travis St. Hubbins]

If something is not intelligent then what is it?

Unintelligent.

 

[sparklecat]

If something is not intelligent then what is it?

Not intelligent.

 

[Donut Hole]

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

Evolution is a natural process. Natural, unconscious processes are not "stupid" or "intelligent" any more than a rock is. You are anthromophising.

Essentially, it's "not stupid" and "not intellignet" at the same time. It's also "not bald" and doesn't "have a hairstyle." Nor does it "like watching sports" or "not like watching sports."

 

[Bargainfluger]

If something is not intelligent then what is it?

*walks in for the first time, reads this post*
Ohh, I know!
*flails hands wildly in the air*
If something's not intelligent, it's STUPID!
Haha, score.
*smug, self-satisfied grin.*

Is this how you played this thread out in your mind, John?

 

[JohnR7]

Is this how you played this thread out in your mind, John?

The objective is to get evos to back down on their unwarrented attack on intelligent design theory.

 

[JohnR7]

Evolution is a natural process.

Yet they claim the process can somehow create intelligence. If it can create intelligence, then why not an intelligent design?

 

[Lithium Hobo]

Yet they claim the process can somehow create intelligence. If it can create intelligence, then why not an intelligent design?

Do you even know what evolution is? Judging by your posts, you have no idea.

 

[Asimov]

Yet they claim the process can somehow create intelligence. If it can create intelligence, then why not an intelligent design?

John, could you answer my questions in my intelligent design thread?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The objective is to get evos to back down on their unwarrented attack on intelligent design theory.

And how precisely did you plan on achieving your objective?

 

[Donut Hole]

Yet they claim the process can somehow create intelligence.

You're catching on.

If it can create intelligence, then why not an intelligent design?

Yeah, cuz whenever you have something, it must be "made" by something else which has an arbitrary characteristic that the first thing has.

Look! It's a woman. Therefore, whoever painted it must be a woman. :o

Irrefutable proof that Leonardo Da Vinci was actually a woman.

Believe whatever you like. Just keep in mind that there's no evidence in favor of "intelligent design." You're just playing word games with yourself.

 

[corvus_corax]

First of all we start off with the premise that evolutionists reject the concept of intellegent design. They have never studied the theory of intelligent design

Some, perhaps most havent. To categorize all of those who accept evolutionary theory in such a way is to presume knowledge you do not have.

so they really do not know what they are rejecting other than to say the design is NOT intelligent. So if it is not intelligent what is the design? It must be a stupid design. Of course their response to this is the same response you will always get out of them, denyal and evasion.

I realize that "stupid" is an antonym for "intelligent", but you are using it incorrectly. We really have three choices-
1- Use the word in a way that is generally accepted, such as the way the dictionary defines it.
2- Just assign whatever definition you want to the word, thus confusing people as to your meaning.
or
3- Assign whatever meanings you want to the word, but please let us know exactly what definition you have applied to the word.

I mean really JohnR7, how chartreuse can you be, throwing all this wood ash around the entire car? (See what happens when you assign your own meanings to words?)

As far as I know the theory of intelligent design says nothing about a creator. That would be creatonism that talks about a creator. Intelligent design is willing ot accept that natural laws could be the creator, but that question then is where did or does the natural laws come from?

So wait...ID says the laws themselves could be the intelligent creator, but what or who created the laws? That type of regressive questioning actually does imply that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Furthermore 'intelligent' implies (or rather, states overtly )having intelligence, the faculties of thought and reason and abilities of the mind. Now how can you honestly say that ID says nothing about an intelligent creator or designer?
The only way to do so is to mangle the words 'intelligent' and 'design' to such a degree as to make them incomprehenisible.

 

[raphael_aa]

If a design is not intelligent perhaps it may be stupid. But what if its not a design at all?

lines come in 2 sizes: long or short. Long and short are 2 meaningful adjectives that qualify the noun 'line'. Long and short cease being meaningful when we apply them to a word that does not have that quality. Therefore just because a circle is not long doesn't make it short either. This isn't about metaphysics, or about science or even theology. This whole thread is just based on bad grammar.

 

[JohnR7]

please let us know exactly what definition you have applied to the word.

What is the difference between a smart bomb and a dumb bomb?

 

[corvus_corax]

If a design is not intelligent perhaps it may be stupid. But what if its not a design at all?

Run: Sarcasm mode/
There is design, and it's intentional. You "just dont want to see it" *

lines come in 2 sizes: long or short. Long and short are 2 meaningful adjectives that qualify the noun 'line'.

No.... short means not long. And of course I am speaking in objective terms, not subjective terms

Long and short cease being meaningful when we apply them to a word that does not have that quality.

Didnt you read what I wrote?? Short= Not Long

Therefore just because a circle is not long doesn't make it short either.

Some circles are long. Others are short. Again, Im speaking objectively, not in subjective terms.

This isn't about metaphysics, or about science or even theology. This whole thread is just based on bad grammar.

Well, (get ready for the non-sequiter), you just dont understand ID. You have never studied ID. Never. Not once. Yes, you an all evolutionists. **
And I wont bother (now or ever) to correct my really, really bad choice of terms.

\End run: Sarcasm mode

I think you have nailed the entirety of JohnR7's threads on the head. Bad grammar without the cajones to admit to such.

* see HERE
**see HERE

 

[corvus_corax]

What is the difference between a smart bomb and a dumb bomb?

Question with a question
Great
Just great

Now, do you care to actually give us a definition of your word, or are you going to go on playing semantics?

Please just be honest and forthright and answer my question. Be christlike and be honest, be forthright.

Or admit that you refuse to do so.

 

[corvus_corax]

Alright Ive decided to answer your question. As you will see, your allegory fails. Have fun with that. I am addressing your question to demonstrate that your allegories fail.

A smart bomb is a precision guided munition. Aha! one might think...they are therefore smart, they are intelligent.

They are neither.

"Smart bomb" is a colloquialism, nothing more, nothing less.
NOBODY in the military (that Ive spoken to) thinks that smart bombs are actually smart or intelligent.
Get it yet?
No?

I'll expand on this then.

A dumb bomb is a munition that depends on gravity to reach it's target. Hence the terms dumb bomb, iron bomb, and gravity bomb.
A smart bomb isnt guided by eyesight calculations that depend on sheer falling (ie gravity) to reach their target.

Smart bombs include visually guided weapons, laser guided weapons, satellite guided weapons, and radio-controlled munitions,

These bombs arent ACTUALLY smart or intelligent.

Next time you decide to use an allegory, I suggest you do your research first.

 

[Numenor]

They have never studied the theory of intelligent design

John, it's clear from your posts that you have never studied evolution, but to say that all evolutionists have never studied ID is just plain dishonest. Not very Christian is it.

 

[JohnR7]

John, it's clear from your posts that you have never studied evolution

Nonsense, I know a lot more about evolution than the average person does.

 

[corvus_corax]

To expand on your dumb vs smart bomb metaphor-
Both bombs have had an intelligent designer (humans).
So your metaphor is reduced to
1- Every aspect of the universe, intelligent or lacking intelligence (including evolution) is dependent upon an intelligent source as its creator
or
2- ...

So yeah, despite your ID claims of "ID doesn't presuppose an intelligent designer" (paraphrased), your adherence to ID (most un-christian to deny God as THE designer) is belied as Creationism.

Shame on you for denying the Word and God as Creator.

 

[JohnR7]

A dumb bomb is a munition that depends on gravity to reach it's target. Hence the terms dumb bomb, iron bomb, and gravity bomb.
A smart bomb isnt guided by eyesight calculations that depend on sheer falling (ie gravity) to reach their target..

Ok, so there are dumb bombs and dumb bombers and there are smart bombs and smart bombers. With any combination of the above. Only science instead of "smart" and "dumb" likes to use the words "optimal" and "apparant".

I am not talking about a designer, I am only refering to the design itself. It really is two different things no matter how much IDers like to claim that a "smart" or "optimal" design could only be produced by a smart or intelligent designer.

There are those who would like to claim that a optimal design does not need a intelligent designer because natural selection can produce a optimal design.