What do you think about "intelligent design"?

[Rising_Suns]

Originally posted by Chris H
Why would I have to be an electrician to wire your house?

Chris

Was the electrician wired by an electrician?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Rising_Suns
hey Pete,

well the concept of ID doesn't embody evolution...you can encorporate evolution into ID if you like....call it a harmony of creationism and evolution i suppose. Although, many ID proponents are anti-evolutionists...atleast this is what i've heard.

Okay, so far all I've gotten out of this is that IDer's are trying to discredit abiogenesis (and evolution as well, I guess; based on your assumption).

Do they actually have evidence of a designer? (Which, btw, I think would pretty awesome to see.) Or do they just use the "life is too complex to have formed by chance" argument?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Okay, so far all I've gotten out of this is that IDer's are trying to discredit abiogenesis (and evolution as well, I guess; based on your assumption).

Do they actually have evidence of a designer? (Which, btw, I think would pretty awesome to see.) Or do they just use the "life is too complex to have formed by chance" argument?

Not an ounce of hard evidence. All they have is the "life is too complex to have formed by chance" argument. I answered that one back in post #4 on this thread.

And they call it "science."

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Rising_Suns

I read your post again. This is what you said: "So much for ID: God is too complex to have appeard without a designer, yet He has none. So design does not require a designer after all." ID is not saying this. It's not putting limitations on God's ability.

So the principle of ID is that everything must have been created except God? Sounds like Biblical Creationism to me. and Creationism is not science.

I'm confused...Why does God automatically have to have a designer if He designed us?

 Because ID says so. The whole principle of ID is that complex phenomena cannot arise either "spontaneously" or "by chance." It therefore must have a designer. What is more complex than God? He, therefore, must have a designer. And that's the fatal flaw in ID.

Of course, you could easily claim that God, being supernatural, is above the laws of nature, including ID, the very hypothesis which "proves" his existence. Stormy tried that back in post #17.

But since science is the study of the natural world, that statement disqualifies both God and ID from the realm of scientific study.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Not an ounce of hard evidence. All they have is the "life is too complex to have formed by chance" argument. I answered that one back in post #4 on this thread.

And they call it "science."

So.... IDer's are trying to masquerade a disbelief in evolution, abiogenesis, etc, as science by merely attempting to refute science but not actually providing an alternate explanation or actual evidence for their claims? Very unscientific.

Incidentally, I was doing some web searching on the subject and came across an article: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Had a few ID arguments (Irreducible Complexity, etc) along with rebuttals. An interesting read.

edit: fixed stuff

 

[Sinai]

Rising_Suns: I'm confused...Why does God automatically have to have a designer if He designed us?

Nathan Poe: Because ID says so. The whole principle of ID is that complex phenomena cannot arise either "spontaneously" or "by chance." It therefore must have a designer. What is more complex than God? He, therefore, must have a designer. And that's the fatal flaw in ID.

Wait a minute. Until the big bang theory was firmly established, the scientific community thought the universe had always existed, that it had no beginning, and (presumably) had no designer, creator or instigator--it was a "steady state." Yet that didn't bother the scientists (except those who were Christian, Jew or Muslim, and whose religious belief asserted there was a beginning). So if science has no problem accepting an eternal universe, why is the concept of an eternal Supreme Being totally taboo?

 

[Rising_Suns]

Because ID says so. The whole principle of ID is that complex phenomena cannot arise either "spontaneously" or "by chance." It therefore must have a designer. What is more complex than God? He, therefore, must have a designer. And that's the fatal flaw in ID.

What I don't understand, as Sinai brought up, is why God had to be created in the first place...And taking the assumption that God is omnipresent, how does this refute ID?

 

[TheBear]

Rising_Suns,

Why do you resort to name calling?

 

[Rising_Suns]

Originally posted by TheBear
Rising_Suns,

Why do you resort to name calling?

When did I resort to name calling?

 

[RufusAtticus]

I'm guessing:

Originally posted by Rising_Suns
To Mr. Argumentative:

 

[Rising_Suns]

It was a joke...no insulting was intended, and I hardly think any was taken on my friend Rufus. But, if any offense was in fact taken, then I deeply apologize Rufus. Maybe I should put all my humor aside when talking on this board, so as to avoid offending the more sensative people.  

 

[Morat]

Morat,

please tell me how chemistry explains how matter and energy magically popped into existence. I would like to know.

  I see part of my post missed you. I will elucidate:

   To sum up: That wasn't your initial claim. Your initial claim was 'the origins of life and complexity', which arose on earth. When you were given an answer (chemistry), you moved the goalposts to something else.

  Does that help? Offhand, I know what field explains how matter and energy appeared (cosmology) but it doesn't use magic, so you'd probably be disapointed.

Sinai:

Wait a minute. Until the big bang theory was firmly established, the scientific community thought the universe had always existed, that it had no beginning, and (presumably) had no designer, creator or instigator--it was a "steady state." Yet that didn't bother the scientists (except those who were Christian, Jew or Muslim, and whose religious belief asserted there was a beginning). So if science has no problem accepting an eternal universe, why is the concept of an eternal Supreme Being totally taboo?

   It's taboo under intelligent design, because intelligent design says all complex things must have a Designer. If they allow any complex thing to exist, undesigned, then their concept is falsified.

   If you can say "Well God is the exception" then there is no reason you can't say "Well life is another one". Because even one complex, undesigned thing, is proof that complex undesigned things can appear.

   As for science and an eternal supreme being: Science doesn't have a problem with eternal. Science loves eternals and infinities. Uses them all the time. Has parties with them. Science doesn't have truck with the supernatural, because science can't study it. Natural tools don't work on the supernatural, so why bother?

 

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Sinai
Rising_Suns: I'm confused...Why does God automatically have to have a designer if He designed us?

Nathan Poe: Because ID says so. The whole principle of ID is that complex phenomena cannot arise either "spontaneously" or "by chance." It therefore must have a designer. What is more complex than God? He, therefore, must have a designer. And that's the fatal flaw in ID.

Wait a minute. Until the big bang theory was firmly established, the scientific community thought the universe had always existed, that it had no beginning, and (presumably) had no designer, creator or instigator--it was a "steady state." Yet that didn't bother the scientists (except those who were Christian, Jew or Muslim, and whose religious belief asserted there was a beginning). So if science has no problem accepting an eternal universe, why is the concept of an eternal Supreme Being totally taboo?

(emphasis mine)

You switched tense in the middle of that paragraph. Science HAD no problem accepting an eternal universe, because there was no theory that could've explained the mechanics of how the universe began. (Argument from Ignorance, for those of you keeping score at home).

 Then, as you yourself stated, "the big bang theory was firmly established." Scientists then  discarded the idea of an eternal universe in favor of one that had a beginning. They discarded the old theory (eternal universe) because of evidence of a new theory which supported the idea of a "big bang."

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Rising_Suns
What I don't understand, as Sinai brought up, is why God had to be created in the first place...And taking the assumption that God is omnipresent, how does this refute ID?

Okay, let's take it from the top... in very small steps.

Let us assume that God exists. let us further assume that He is omnipresent, which would mean he had no beginning and thus, no designer.

So far, so good.

If God is everything else He claims to be (omnipotent and omniscient), then he is, without question, the most complex phenomenon in this or any other universe.

Far more complex than life, the universe, and everything, which ID claims could only have arisen with the help of a designer.

But God Himself has no designer.

So it is possible for complex phenomena to arise without a designer.

So life, the universe, and everything, no matter how complex it appears to be, could have arisen without a designer, because God was able to do it.

This blatantly contradicts ID.

Questions?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

It's all rather silly, isn't it?

Alleged problem: Living organisms are too complex to have arisen by natural means.

Proposed solution: Postulate the existence of an exponentially *more complex* entity to serve as the designer of said organisms.

If that's what you call scientific progress, then I've got a free energy machine to sell you.

 

[Rising_Suns]

If God is everything else He claims to be (omnipotent and omniscient), then he is, without question, the most complex phenomenon in this or any other universe. Far more complex than life, the universe, and everything, which ID claims could only have arisen with the help of a designer.

right.  

But God Himself has no designer.

So it <I>is</I> possible for complex phenomena to arise without a designer.

So life, the universe, and everything, no matter how complex it appears to be, <I>could</I> have arisen without a designer, because God was able to do it.

This blatantly contradicts ID.

Ok bare with me on this...Lets first assume God himself doesn't have a designer because He is omnipresent.&nbsp;So in order&nbsp;for, as you say, &nbsp;"complex phenomina&nbsp;to arise", it had to come into existence from a previously non-existent space. Something couldn't have arisen if it was already in existence to begin with right? Thus, your logic only works if you think the universe and life have always existed, or else it had to have been created by something. And so lets assume that the universe and life has been in existence for ever, this still doesn't refute the possibility that God created it all, since He has also been in existence for ever. Now I'm not&nbsp;supportingt&nbsp;ID's stance&nbsp;as full-proof, because as you say, there is a "possibilty" through this particular&nbsp;logic that life&nbsp;could have always been in existence, and thus didn't absolutely need to be created. It's really a balance beam that can be argued over, but it will never be 100% in either direction. I hope you can admit the possibility that God could have created everything, but I can't admit the possibilty that God didn't create evertying, simply because I have more than just reason and logic to make this claim.

Offhand, I know what field explains how matter and energy appeared (cosmology) but it doesn't use magic, so you'd probably be disapointed.

I'd really like the hear how this works.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Rising_Suns
Ok bare with me on this...Lets first assume God himself doesn't have a designer because He is omnipresent.&nbsp;So in order&nbsp;for, as you say, &nbsp;"complex phenomina&nbsp;to arise", it had to come into existence from a previously non-existent space. Something couldn't have arisen if it was already in existence to begin with right?

I said no such thing. I only said that it does not require an intelligent force to design it. Of course life, the universe, and everything had a beginning, but that doesn't necessarily mean that an intelligent (let alone anthropomorphic) force had anything to do with it.

Perhaps this analogy will help:

You are standing at the foot of a mountain when an avalanche occurs. From where you are standing, you cannot see the top of the mountain, but you can still form a theory about what caused the avalanche.

Ok, the mountain is time. The avalanche is life, the universe, and everything. How did the avalanche begin?

Evolution: "Well, I can't say for certain how this big avalanche began, but I've seen snow fall downhill&nbsp;before, in little pieces. It wouldn't be too outrageous to assume that it started to pile up on the top of the mountain until it got too heavy, then it started to fall.&nbsp;It may&nbsp;have started small, but it&nbsp;grew and grew and spread out all over the mountain until it got to where it is now."

Intelligent Design: "Well, there is entirely too much snow to have just fallen here by chance. The only logical explanation is that there's somebody at the top of that mountain (which, remember, we can't see), who deliberately started an avalanche, knowing exactly where every last ounce of snow was going to land when it hit bottom."

All things considered, "Evolution" is my theory of choice. Yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect, but at least it's not a strawman.

&nbsp;

Thus, your logic only works if you think the universe and life have always existed, or else it had to have been created by something. And so lets assume that the universe and life has been in existence for ever, this still doesn't refute the possibility that God created it all, since He has also been in existence for ever.

Not what I'm saying at all. Anyway, if life always existed, when was it designed?

Now I'm not&nbsp;supportingt&nbsp;ID's stance&nbsp;as full-proof, because as you say, there is a "possibilty" through this particular&nbsp;logic that life&nbsp;could have always been in existence, and thus didn't absolutely need to be created.

But it was created. Evolutionists don't deny that. The question&nbsp;is how?

Evolution just doesn't deal with origins, just change. The scientific theory of how life began in the first place is abiogenesis, which I'm not really up on, so&nbsp;I'm not about to&nbsp;discuss it here. I'm sure the more scientific members of this forum can jump in and povide explanations and/or links.

I can say that abiogenesis, combined with evolution by natural selection, offers a paradigm that explains the mechanics of how life was formed and became what it is today. And it does so&nbsp;through natural means, with no need of a supernatual intelligence pulling the strings.

(Occam's Razor may not be a scientific theory, but it does carry some weight here. Why do we need a supernatural world, and all the baggage that comes with it, just to explain the natural world? But I digress...)

&nbsp;

It's really a balance beam that can be argued over, but it will never be 100% in either direction. I hope you can admit the possibility that God could have created everything, but I can't admit the possibilty that God didn't create evertying, simply because I have more than just reason and logic to make this claim.&nbsp;

Well, we can certainly agree to disagree. And we do agree on one point: it will never be 100% in either direction.

And yes, I would be willing to admit I was wrong and that God created everything...If I was given proof. Anyone who claims to be scientific must always accept the possibility that their ideas or theories are wrong, and be prepared to abandon them when they're proven wrong.

"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with it's skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age." --Carl Sagan

But too many people on the Creation/ID side think that punching holes in Evolutionary theory counts as "proof." By itself, it doesn't. Tearing down evolution does nothing to build the case for creationism or ID.

And although I'm certainly not out to "convert" you or anyone else to evolution, I am curious about your statement that "I can't admit the possibilty that God didn't create evertying [sic], simply because I have more than just reason and logic to make this claim."

What "more" do you have? Faith?&nbsp;The Bible? By all means, I have no problem with faith. but the lines between faith and superstition can be blurry... A touch of scientific skepticism can go a long way...

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a larger world, a world where both can flourish." ---Pope John Paul II.

(yes, I know the quotes constitute an Argument from Authority fallacy, but I can't resist. I'm only human.)

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Rising_Suns
Ok bare with me on this...

uh.......

.......no thanks....

 

[Sinai]

By the way, for whatever it's worth (which may not be anything), ancient Jewish sages speculated that God used a pinch of his own pure energy to form the universe.

Except for the theological part, that's not all different from what the big bang theory says......

 

[Rising_Suns]

Anyone who claims to be scientific must always accept the possibility that their ideas or theories are wrong, and be prepared to abandon them when they're proven wrong.

Too bad all scientists don't think like this.

"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with it's skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age." --Carl Sagan

agreed.

And although I'm certainly not out to "convert" you or anyone else to evolution

You don't need to convert a convert. I already believe in evolution buddy. I believe in creationism as well. Here's my take on how God created life:

One day, boom, there was matter and energy. Overtime, single cells were introduced (the "how" is irrelevant to my discussion). Those cells split, creating more complexity. Cells got more and more complex until one day, God decides that the cells have evolved into&nbsp;suitable creatures. God gives these creatures souls, and with it, will, morals, and an instinctive sense of right and wrong. Now, you can say adam was cellA and eve was cellB...why not right? I for one am not a fundamentalist that needs to take the bible on a word-for-word literal interpretation....or you can say that Adam was the male creature given the first soul and eve was the female creature given the first soul....either way you choose, evolution took place as well as creation. All this may have happened over 6 billion years, but remember, God is omnipresent. So 6 billion years ago, and today, and 6 billion years in the future are all right there in front of His face. So to limit God's ability by asking; "why did He need to take so much time to create the world", is an irrelevent question. Anyway, I got off on a tangent here. I think you now see where I'm coming from?

I am curious about your statement that "I can't admit the possibilty that God didn't create evertying [sic], simply because I have more than just reason and logic to make this claim."


What "more" do you have? Faith?&nbsp;The Bible? By all means, I have no problem with faith. but the lines between faith and superstition can be blurry... A touch of scientific skepticism can go a long way...

Yes, faith. True faith is not superstition either. True faith is an inner&nbsp;knowing, a personal connection to God. It must be nutured to grow and it takes time and real dedication. Where it gets hazy is when people who don't really have it, fake faith, or use it as a mask, or&nbsp;use the word loosely.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a larger world, a world where both can flourish." ---Pope John Paul II.

wise words.