Unintelligent Design

[tcampen]

However, the "bad designer" argument is becoming obvious as nothing more than another angle, another ploy to dismiss any deity because there's simply no desire to believe in one.

No. There can still be a diety, only that being did not intellegently create us. It goes to the specific claims of intellegent design (which is creationism in sheep's clothing.) If the claim is true, we would expect certain findings. Since we find too much in opposition to the claim of intellegent design, it is unreasonable to hold to that assertion.

I know I'm coming off pretty irrational here. At this point, I simply don't care one bit if I do, because this whole line of argument has been exposed. If you don't want to believe in any god, fine, don't. Kindly cease wrapping it up in the disguise of any kind of genuine problem with the science of it all because it doesn't wash any more. Your motivation is crystal clear. There's no, "well I would believe in a deity if you took all of these problems away". It's the precursor of the mother of all coprolites.

One could easily be a Deist and avoid these issues, while still maintaining the existence of a god. It's not about the existence of a god in general, but the specific properties of a particularly asserted god. If a claim is going to be made, and if the evidence contradicts that claim, one should reasonably reject it.

 

[edrogati]

No. There can still be a diety, only that being did not intellegently create us. It goes to the specific claims of intellegent design (which is creationism in sheep's clothing.) If the claim is true, we would expect certain findings. Since we find too much in opposition to the claim of intellegent design, it is unreasonable to hold to that assertion.

One could easily be a Deist and avoid these issues, while still maintaining the existence of a god. It's not about the existence of a god in general, but the specific properties of a particularly asserted god. If a claim is going to be made, and if the evidence contradicts that claim, one should reasonably reject it.

So we've got a deity, but a stupid one. Or the Christian God does not exist. Very appealing argument you've made.

 

[Skaloop]

So we've got a deity, but a stupid one. Or the Christian God does not exist. Very appealing argument you've made.

Not necessarily a stupid deity, just one who does not intervene in the happenings of the universe.

 

[Paconious]

So we've got a deity, but a stupid one. Or the Christian God does not exist. Very appealing argument you've made.

This argument is backed up by the evidence. There is no general irreducible complexity found on the human body.

 

[consol]

No. I am rapidly becoming convinced that there isn't one single feature of the human body which would fit your criteria for good design. As such, I don't buy the complaint. This has absolutely nothing to do with your perception of poor design and everything to do with your lack of desire to believe in anything but yourself.

First off it's not a complaint, it's the creationists who are advocating a designer, no one else,
we are merely pointing out a few flaws in the creationist Gods designs, to us it's all complete bunkum anyway.

If you have problems with theology, this isn't the forum in which to discuss it. And that's where your issue lies, theology, not biology. I acknowledge that there are many, many aspects of the ways that our bodies are put together that don't make sense to me. However, the "bad designer" argument is becoming obvious as nothing more than another angle, another ploy to dismiss any deity because there's simply no desire to believe in one.

Intelligent Design is part of the creationists call, they say things are so perfect they must have been designed,
when we point out the fact that our design is not altogether perfect, somehow it's us that are in the wrong,
in fact, all of the flaws in our design would point to evolution and not a creator,
I think we all agree that if a God made us he did not do a very good job,
it seems that once again creationists have got it wrong, 'Unintelligent Design' would be a better call.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'angles and ploys'.

I know I'm coming off pretty irrational here. At this point, I simply don't care one bit if I do, because this whole line of argument has been exposed. If you don't want to believe in any god, fine, don't. Kindly cease wrapping it up in the disguise of any kind of genuine problem with the science of it all because it doesn't wash any more. Your motivation is crystal clear. There's no, "well I would believe in a deity if you took all of these problems away". It's the precursor of the mother of all coprolites.

No one is talking about not believing in a God, we are talking about creationists advocating God as a designer,
and it's creationists who are bringing science into religion, no one else.
And it's creationism that should not wash, in fact it should not even be entertained.

 

[Bombila]

So we've got a deity, but a stupid one. Or the Christian God does not exist. Very appealing argument you've made.

Millions of Christian TEs manage to avoid the ID fallacy without assuming no Christian God, no god at all, or a stupid god.

Your own theology hints in many places that God does not directly intervene most of the time. What prevents you from thinking God set life in motion, as one would push a ball to a toddler, and let it roll?

Trying to shoehorn God, in a very specific manner, into the picture by defending the ridiculous claims of the ID conmen is neither honest nor sensible. ID has never managed to effectively refute evolution science, nor have they ever successfully defended their own theories, including in a US court of law in front of a conservative judge.

 

[edrogati]

Millions of Christian TEs manage to avoid the ID fallacy without assuming no Christian God, no god at all, or a stupid god.

Your own theology hints in many places that God does not directly intervene most of the time. What prevents you from thinking God set life in motion, as one would push a ball to a toddler, and let it roll?

Trying to shoehorn God, in a very specific manner, into the picture by defending the ridiculous claims of the ID conmen is neither honest nor sensible. ID has never managed to effectively refute evolution science, nor have they ever successfully defended their own theories, including in a US court of law in front of a conservative judge.

Because the rest of the Bible beyond Genesis speaks of God's intervention on a regular basis. I'm not defending any ID conmen. I'm defending my own point of view. If you think that I'm being dishonest, then as I thought, this discussion is rapidly ending. My point of view is not, as ID seems to me, something that was come up with on the back of a napkin at a Denny's a few years ago because the YEC movement was faltering. My point of view is something I've developed with a lot of thought, prayer and yes, study of science, over much of my life. The suggestion that I toss my beliefs in God out the window because they are bothersome to certain interpreters of science is beyond arrogant and as such, I think I'll determine myself what's acceptable for me to believe and think.

 

[edrogati]

Not necessarily a stupid deity, just one who does not intervene in the happenings of the universe.

Which is the descriptive antithesis of the Christian God.

 

[edrogati]

This argument is backed up by the evidence. There is no general irreducible complexity found on the human body.

Since when am I the defender of ID? I believe in a specific, identified, deity who did the designing. ID is nonspecific, doesn't identify any designer and leaves it up to the ID proponent as to whether or not they worship the designer as a god.

 

[Skaloop]

Which is the descriptive antithesis of the Christian God.

Exactly. Hence why I do not believe He exists. I will entertain the idea of a vague, general, non-interactive god, but the specific God described in the Bible is nearly an impossibility. To steal from the title of an interesting book, God is a failed hypothesis. There are many things we should see if God exists, and yet we do not. We should see some effect of prayer, we should see some advantage in the lives of Christians, we should see inexplicable occurrences (eg-miracles) on a regular basis. We do not. The only reasonable conclusion is that God does not exist. But a god might; it's just not involved in our existence.

 

[edrogati]

First off it's not a complaint, it's the creationists who are advocating a designer, no one else,
we are merely pointing out a few flaws in the creationist Gods designs, to us it's all complete bunkum anyway.

Exactly, the whole thing is a flaw. Which was my point. The idea that you're putting forth a "few flaws" when you believe the whole thing is a flaw is duplicity.

Intelligent Design is part of the creationists call, they say things are so perfect they must have been designed,
when we point out the fact that our design is not altogether perfect, somehow it's us that are in the wrong,

You're in the wrong because you pretend that you're even entertaining the matter, when in fact the reality is anything but.

in fact, all of the flaws in our design would point to evolution and not a creator,
I think we all agree that if a God made us he did not do a very good job,
it seems that once again creationists have got it wrong, 'Unintelligent Design' would be a better call.

Unintelligent and stupid are generally fairly close definitions.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'angles and ploys'.

Choosing the design argument as opposed to the age of the universe argument are two different angles of the whole system of disbelief. Pretending that you are even entertaining that there might be some parts of the human body that have no flaws is a lie, a ploy.

No one is talking about not believing in a God, we are talking about creationists advocating God as a designer,

By definition, God, in bringing the universe into being, designed it. If you don't believe that God designed things, you don't believe in God. Period.

and it's creationists who are bringing science into religion, no one else.

You bring science into religion to try to dismantle it. It's not like all of a sudden creationists started talking about geology, so the atheists decided to respond in defense. You had already discarded the religion on ostensibly scientific grounds.

And it's creationism that should not wash, in fact it should not even be entertained.

How nice of you to point out what people should think. I suggest making up some uniforms and a salute before implementing it though.

 

[edrogati]

Exactly. Hence why I do not believe He exists. I will entertain the idea of a vague, general, non-interactive god, but the specific God described in the Bible is nearly an impossibility. To steal from the title of an interesting book, God is a failed hypothesis. There are many things we should see if God exists, and yet we do not. We should see some effect of prayer, we should see some advantage in the lives of Christians, we should see inexplicable occurrences (eg-miracles) on a regular basis. We do not. The only reasonable conclusion is that God does not exist. But a god might; it's just not involved in our existence.

I see effects of prayers on a regular basis, I see advantages to my life as a Christian every day and miracles have taken place more than once in my immediate family. I'm genuinely sorry that those things haven't happened to you. Based on those things happening to me, it is a reasonable conclusion for me that God DOES exist. I suspect that the events in my life will be passed off as anecdote, coincidence, hearsay, delusion, hallucination or whatever else to dismiss them. At this point, I know there's no effort at all to find any truth in Christianity and active effort to dismiss any evidence found, so you'll forgive me if I don't go running to throw my Bible in the burn pile.

 

[Skaloop]

I see effects of prayers on a regular basis

Such as? Because every actual study of prayer shows no effect. I am sure you can understand why I don't view prayer as an effective strategy.

I see advantages to my life as a Christian every day

I won't deny that there are some advantages to being Christian. But they are easily chalked up to a sense of community and belonging rather than any divine intervention. People who are a part of any supportive group show the same advantages, not just Christians.

and miracles have taken place more than once in my immediate family.

Such as? I am genuinely interested. I myself have had "miraculous" occurrences, but upon further inspection they are not so miraculous.

I'm genuinely sorry that those things haven't happened to you.

What exactly do you mean by that? Because I have had several interesting things happen to me. I just attribute them differently than you.

Based on those things happening to me, it is a reasonable conclusion for me that God DOES exist.

And countless people have probably been through the same sort of things and not come to the same conclusion. I guess it does depend on what actually happened to you and yours, so I won't speak more on that until I know some details.

I suspect that the events in my life will be passed off as anecdote, coincidence, hearsay, delusion, hallucination or whatever else to dismiss them. At this point, I know there's no effort at all to find any truth in Christianity and active effort to dismiss any evidence found, so you'll forgive me if I don't go running to throw my Bible in the burn pile.

I am not asking you to burn anything. The events you cite most likely will be passed off as you suggested because they can be so passed off. If there is a logical, natural explanation for something, why should we entertain supernatural explanation? If you have something that defies a natural explanation, I would be interested in hearing it; thus far nobody who has claimed such a thing has been able to back it up.

 

[Bombila]

Because the rest of the Bible beyond Genesis speaks of God's intervention on a regular basis. I'm not defending any ID conmen. I'm defending my own point of view. If you think that I'm being dishonest, then as I thought, this discussion is rapidly ending. My point of view is not, as ID seems to me, something that was come up with on the back of a napkin at a Denny's a few years ago because the YEC movement was faltering. My point of view is something I've developed with a lot of thought, prayer and yes, study of science, over much of my life. The suggestion that I toss my beliefs in God out the window because they are bothersome to certain interpreters of science is beyond arrogant and as such, I think I'll determine myself what's acceptable for me to believe and think.

Please don't infer insults which are not there, and not intended. My reference to 'shoehorning God in...' refers to IDists. I am under the impression that you are not an IDist, just trying ideas on for size. But, really, perhaps you could clarify and say what you actually believe. Your earliest posts here strongly indicated that you are a TE. If that is not accurate, then I have misjudged those posts.

Also, do you really think my beliefs were thought up on a napkin? I'm considerably older than you, and have had many years to thoughtfully consider and study my position.

I am an agnostic. In the post (86) to which the above quote is your reply, I offered the example of Theistic Evolutionists, and to Deism. These are attempts to suggest to you that there are ways to reconcile your beliefs with science and the natural world.

In post 92 , you make this response to Skaloop, who tells you something about Deism:

"I see effects of prayers on a regular basis, I see advantages to my life as a Christian every day and miracles have taken place more than once in my immediate family. I'm genuinely sorry that those things haven't happened to you. Based on those things happening to me, it is a reasonable conclusion for me that God DOES exist. I suspect that the events in my life will be passed off as anecdote, coincidence, hearsay, delusion, hallucination or whatever else to dismiss them. At this point, I know there's no effort at all to find any truth in Christianity and active effort to dismiss any evidence found, so you'll forgive meif I don't go running to throw my Bible in the burn pile."

Neither Skaloop nor I are telling you to throw out your Bible or your beliefs. Also, you you do not know what amount or kind of effort any participant here has gone to, or is making, wrt 'find(ing) any truth in Christianity'. Some of us have gone to great lengths.

The issue in this forum, however, is that many of us find no truth in Creationism, and even less truth in Intelligent Design. As for an active effort to dismiss evidence of those beliefs: what did you expect? We don't believe them; we never are given good evidence to support either notion, and we are truthful about it - the name of this forum is Creation and Evolution.

Really, you might prefer discussing prayer, miracles, etc in General Apologetics, or even in one of the Closed to Non-Christians sections of the site.

 

[edrogati]

Such as? Because every actual study of prayer shows no effect. I am sure you can understand why I don't view prayer as an effective strategy.

You expect a deity to perform like a circus clown for a clinical trial? I can see why you reject them all. The God that I believe in doesn't do miracles on demand for some guy in a lab coat.

I won't deny that there are some advantages to being Christian. But they are easily chalked up to a sense of community and belonging rather than any divine intervention. People who are a part of any supportive group show the same advantages, not just Christians.

Those that want to chalk them up that way will.

Such as? I am genuinely interested. I myself have had "miraculous" occurrences, but upon further inspection they are not so miraculous.

What exactly do you mean by that? Because I have had several interesting things happen to me. I just attribute them differently than you.

And countless people have probably been through the same sort of things and not come to the same conclusion. I guess it does depend on what actually happened to you and yours, so I won't speak more on that until I know some details.

My father survived a traumatic brain injury and his road to recovery started the precise minute my grandfather, an agnostic MD, prayed that, if God truly existed, would he save his son. Just before that, as in the minute before, my father lay in the ICU with every indicator on the monitors going the opposite of the way they needed to be were he to survive the night. After that prayer, everything was stable and not one medical person on staff that night claimed one bit of credit or gave any reason that anything that they had done had anything to do with that turnaround. From that point in my grandfather's life, he had a strong faith in God.

I am not asking you to burn anything. The events you cite most likely will be passed off as you suggested because they can be so passed off. If there is a logical, natural explanation for something, why should we entertain supernatural explanation? If you have something that defies a natural explanation, I would be interested in hearing it; thus far nobody who has claimed such a thing has been able to back it up.

I suspect your answer for my father's case would be something like unrelated spontaneous recovery coincidental to my grandfather's prayer. And you'll want some sort of proof beyond the scars in my father's skull from the surgical instrument used to relieve his subdural hematoma that he ever received the injury or was even in the hospital. And you'll find it convenient that my grandfather is dead. I guess it's a good thing for my father and myself that our God listens to prayers unrelated to micrometers and stop watches.

 

[Danyc]

You expect a deity to perform like a circus clown for a clinical trial? I can see why you reject them all. The God that I believe in doesn't do miracles on demand for some guy in a lab coat.


.

Sorry Edrogati, but if prayer has a physical effect, it can be examined. That's just all there is to it.

If prayer does indeed work in this physical realm, then it can be studied. Studies have shown that prayer has little to no effect; if I am not mistaken, I believe it has actually been shown to have a slightly negative effect on average.

It is true that God doesn't perform for people. But that's not how studies like these are done. The scientists conducting the research don't pray for things once a day, and then write down how many of their prayers are answered. They study the prayers of others, and the effectiveness of such prayers.

 

[MoonLancer]

You expect a deity to perform like a circus clown for a clinical trial? I can see why you reject them all. The God that I believe in doesn't do miracles on demand for some guy in a lab coat.


Those that want to chalk them up that way will.



My father survived a traumatic brain injury and his road to recovery started the precise minute my grandfather, an agnostic MD, prayed that, if God truly existed, would he save his son. Just before that, as in the minute before, my father lay in the ICU with every indicator on the monitors going the opposite of the way they needed to be were he to survive the night. After that prayer, everything was stable and not one medical person on staff that night claimed one bit of credit or gave any reason that anything that they had done had anything to do with that turnaround. From that point in my grandfather's life, he had a strong faith in God.


I suspect your answer for my father's case would be something like unrelated spontaneous recovery coincidental to my grandfather's prayer. And you'll want some sort of proof beyond the scars in my father's skull from the surgical instrument used to relieve his subdural hematoma that he ever received the injury or was even in the hospital. And you'll find it convenient that my grandfather is dead. I guess it's a good thing for my father and myself that our God listens to prayers unrelated to micrometers and stop watches.

how long do you think your father would have lived without hospital treatment?

Do you think that if we took two groups who believe in God and Jesus, and denied one group health care and trips to the hospital... which group do you think would have the most survivors and which group would be more healthy?

Put your faith to the test, refuse all types of medical treatment and see if God helps you out. See if he puts blood back into your body. See if he cuts out that appendix... see if he heals ANY aliment that is never known to have healed without medical intervention.

You say your father was healed by God, would that same God heal him if he had an amputated arm and refuses to wrap the wound out of ignorance? would god FORCE his wound to close? would god regenerate that arm? Why does God only heal those that could be so easily denied to have been healed by him? It must be some kind of joke right? Seems like kids that wake up in the middle of the night at Christmas only to be told they just missed Santa. But oh look, presents... he must be real.

 

[edrogati]

how long do you think your father would have lived without hospital treatment?

Do you think that if we took two groups who believe in God and Jesus, and denied one group health care and trips to the hospital... which group do you think would have the most survivors and which group would be more healthy?

Put your faith to the test, refuse all types of medical treatment and see if God helps you out. See if he puts blood back into your body. See if he cuts out that appendix... see if he heals ANY aliment that is never known to have healed without medical intervention.

You say your father was healed by God, would that same God heal him if he had an amputated arm and refuses to wrap the wound out of ignorance? would god FORCE his wound to close? would god regenerate that arm? Why does God only heal those that could be so easily denied to have been healed by him? It must be some kind of joke right? Seems like kids that wake up in the middle of the night at Christmas only to be told they just missed Santa. But oh look, presents... he must be real.

He was undergoing medical treatment at the best hospital in the entirety of upstate New York. The professionals had kept him alive to a certain point but ultimately weren't able to overcome what was going on with my father's body. The doctors told my mother to let my father go. My grandparents prayed, his crisis ended and then the doctors and nurses took back over again.

My family is not made up of people who think medical care is somehow not trusting God. My grandfather, the same one in this account, was a physician for 55 years. My father was and still is a medical imaging technician with 35 years working with various diagnostic modalities. My grandmother was a physical therapist. My aunt is a medical lab technician.

God gave people brains for a reason. Using them is doing exactly what God intended. So to make claims about Christians not using medical care because God should fix things for them is ridiculous in the extreme. Par for the course, frankly.

 

[edrogati]

Sorry Edrogati, but if prayer has a physical effect, it can be examined. That's just all there is to it.

True, but I can't help it if the examiners are always in the wrong place. Either that or the effects are disregarded, but honest scientists wouldn't disregard evidence, would they?

If prayer does indeed work in this physical realm, then it can be studied. Studies have shown that prayer has little to no effect; if I am not mistaken, I believe it has actually been shown to have a slightly negative effect on average.

Thanks for answering my question. They would.

It is true that God doesn't perform for people. But that's not how studies like these are done. The scientists conducting the research don't pray for things once a day, and then write down how many of their prayers are answered. They study the prayers of others, and the effectiveness of such prayers.

Or chalk it up to natural causes. Or assign it some designation which dismisses it.

 

[Danyc]

True, but I can't help it if the examiners are always in the wrong place. Either that or the effects are disregarded, but honest scientists wouldn't disregard evidence, would they?

No, an honest person would not disregard evidence. Most people are mostly honest. Not all scientists are honest, and all claims should be carefully scrutinized. As with any group, not everyone is perfect, and scientists don't escape that judgment, but they're just people, like s, and they fall victim to biases. They may not even realize it. However, a good test of honesty is corrobation. Do other studies and findings match up?



[/quote]