What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[Hespera]

quote yguy "And you've read every paper that has bearing on evolution and made up your own mind?"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Of course that is impossible and not a question to be asked except for browbeating / rhetorical reasons.

However, i did read all the way the OT and the NT and found nothing that would be a verifiable piece of data that serves to falsify evolution.

Anyway, it mixes up bats and birds, and says pi=3.0 so i dont think its a science book.
Its a collection of stories by people who say they saw and heart things. Nothing that can be verified. No more than the Australian Aboriginie's stories can.

As for making up one's own mind, the vast majority in any religion were born into it and just, as is human nature, believed what they were told as kids. Kinda like mom teaches you to be scared of spiders, and you are still scared as an adult.

And the religion stuck too, despite the illogic, despite the improbability that they had the odd luck of ALL being born into the one true church. All of the one true churches.

 

[maybenotcrazy]

First of all, an intelligence does not have to create anything!!!!
However, if we were to look at an "evolved" organism and find the hallmarks of intelligence in it, i.e. irreducible complexity as they say it would be hard to say that something irreducible, non functional in any way could have evolved from some sort of simples. But if this doesn't make sense to you I have failed. So intelligent design is a negative theory, it tells you what there would not be rather than what there would be. Proving a negative however isn't hard. All you have to do is find a contradiction to evolutionary theory and it is wrong in that case. Wrong in one case may not discredit it but wrong in more than one! You bet there's a problem. Bird wings may sound like a case closed thing, oh yeah, birds evolved from dinosaurs but how useful could it have been for birds to develop a cape around their arms and hands and lose the use of their fingers from the start, you have irreducibility right there. I mean how do you know the first feathers weren't so long they hobbled the animals? People think in only one way, oh the feathers got longer and longer until they were just right like goldilocks. Is it intelligent to make a small animal fly? You bet. It gives them so many advantages it is not even funny is it sensible for wings to just evolve from arms no.

 

[Baggins]

Bird wings may sound like a case closed thing, oh yeah, birds evolved from dinosaurs but how useful could it have been for birds to develop a cape around their arms and hands and lose the use of their fingers from the start,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060501100950.htm

One plausible argument mean IC fails, here are two.

 

[maybenotcrazy]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060501100950.htm

One plausible argument mean IC fails, here are two.

you have to be careful about saying that. Plausible arguments don't disprove, contradictions do. So if I was wrong about wings kill me but it doesn't mean god didn't design them. I believe in creationism by faith and no amount of argument will work to disprove it to me BUT I do acknowledge that evolution is a plausible theory for those without faith. Faith comes from seeing that god works in our lives and then trusting him. It works because if God is so good to us why would he lie. God has been so good to me I would not ever consider the possibility that his word is false. In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth... that is my view.

And. There is a plausible loophole in the article. WAIR is viewed as a means by which young birds climb slopes. Well what does that have to do with evolution per se. It is possibly fallacious.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

First of all, an intelligence does not have to create anything!!!!
However, if we were to look at an "evolved" organism and find the hallmarks of intelligence in it, i.e. irreducible complexity as they say it would be hard to say that something irreducible, non functional in any way could have evolved from some sort of simples.

Nope: irreducible complexity is not a hallmark of an intelligent designer, simply evolution by natural selection can indeed lead to instances of them.

That is, since irreducibly complex systems can evolved unaided, one cannot use them as evidence of a designer.

But if this doesn't make sense to you I have failed. So intelligent design is a negative theory, it tells you what there would not be rather than what there would be. Proving a negative however isn't hard. All you have to do is find a contradiction to evolutionary theory and it is wrong in that case.

Correct. One can provide all the evidence you want, and it would still be 'just' a theory. Just one piece of evidence that contradicts it, however, and the whole thing comes crashing down.

Wrong in one case may not discredit it but wrong in more than one! You bet there's a problem. Bird wings may sound like a case closed thing, oh yeah, birds evolved from dinosaurs but how useful could it have been for birds to develop a cape around their arms and hands and lose the use of their fingers from the start, you have irreducibility right there. I mean how do you know the first feathers weren't so long they hobbled the animals? People think in only one way, oh the feathers got longer and longer until they were just right like goldilocks.

Actually, that's exactly what happened: scales became more and more like modern feathers because each intermediate step was more useful than the last. Eventually, there came a point where longer feathers would become a burden, and thus the selection pressure that caused long feathers to evolve in the first place ceased to act.

Is it intelligent to make a small animal fly? You bet. It gives them so many advantages it is not even funny is it sensible for wings to just evolve from arms no.

The evolution of feathers (and, thus, wings) is a well-documented phenomenon. Initially, feathers weren't used for flying, but rather for keeping warm. As time wore on, these warming feathers allowed the organisms to have them to glide in a rudimentary fashion. This has an obvious benefit, and eventually gave rise to true flight.

We can see something like this in flying fish, squirrels, and snakes: animals which have unique morphological adaptations that allow them to glide. Eventually, these traits may give rise to true flight.

Flying snakes! Eek!

 

[Hespera]

you have to be careful about saying that. Plausible arguments don't disprove, contradictions do. So if I was wrong about wings kill me but it doesn't mean god didn't design them. I believe in creationism by faith and no amount of argument will work to disprove it to me BUT I do acknowledge that evolution is a plausible theory for those without faith. Faith comes from seeing that god works in our lives and then trusting him. It works because if God is so good to us why would he lie. God has been so good to me I would not ever consider the possibility that his word is false. In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth... that is my view.

And. There is a plausible loophole in the article. WAIR is viewed as a means by which young birds climb slopes. Well what does that have to do with evolution per se. It is possibly fallacious.

Interesting statement that evolution is plausible for those without faith.
I'd like a chance to discuss that with you and see just what that means, and what else it might apply to.

For example, when you say "no amount of argument" would ever change your mind....argument is just argument but there sometimes are plain facts to lay on the table. One might argue the possibility that a spuuse is unfaithful, you might not want to accept it. But there are forms of evidence that cant be denied. Then what?

Your other objections to the truth of evolution center around the fact that you dont see how it could actually work. I would be happy to take any and all one at t time and explain them. Easier in person of course. But just coz I dont understand a lot of math doesnt mean it isnt real. Just means I dont get it.

Let me toss out an idea that does not literally match the (very simplified!) account of creation in genesis. It is a way to have a creator and evolution in perfect harmony.

See, God would know everything that is going to happen, because He is said to see the end the beginning and all between-time is nothing to Him,
and He sure would not need to be in a hurry to do anything!

Suppose you take a hose and a lot of loose sand, and run water across it.
After a while you will create a whole miniature watershed, a little river with all the meanders, cut banks, sand bars, braided channels, incised meanders, distributaries, a delta, etc and so on. It is all very mathematical and intricate. You didnt have to plan it, and all it took was the raw materials, the governing principles of gravity etc, and the energy of water flowing thru it.

Now, the evoluiton of life is more intricate, of course; but life still works with the principles of nature, the laws of chem, physics etc.

So the way I see it, IF there is a god, what he did was set things up so they could run by themselves, and then in effect, sat back to watch what happened.

See in the end what you are thinking about is not faith in GOD but faith that you have / others have a way to know just exactly how to interpret the Bible, and that the Bible gives you a way of knowing all about God.I think faith in the Bible is quite different form faith in God...who knows, perhaps dangerously different.

And when the Bible says things that are at variance with reality (like calling a bat a bird) well that seems to me like a sign that people are supposed to use their (god given) brains. That is the opposite of clinglng ever more fiercely to what you already think, no matter what.

 

[Baggins]

you have to be careful about saying that. Plausible arguments don't disprove, contradictions do. So if I was wrong about wings kill me but it doesn't mean god didn't design them. I believe in creationism by faith and no amount of argument will work to disprove it to me BUT I do acknowledge that evolution is a plausible theory for those without faith. Faith comes from seeing that god works in our lives and then trusting him. It works because if God is so good to us why would he lie. God has been so good to me I would not ever consider the possibility that his word is false. In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth... that is my view.

And. There is a plausible loophole in the article. WAIR is viewed as a means by which young birds climb slopes. Well what does that have to do with evolution per se. It is possibly fallacious.

In order to falsify IC we don't have to show how birds developed just that there are plausible mechanisms for how they developed.

WAIR is viewed as a means by which young birds climb slopes. Well what does that have to do with evolution per se.

It gave them an advantage

IC says this cannot happen, we say here are two ways in which it could have happened, so IC falls.

Also you don't believe god at all, if god did exist than what he produced was the universe not the bible, so why would you believe the bible which was written by men over what we know of what he did produce the universe? Seems barmy to me to ignore what he did make in order to believe what he obviously didn't.

If you want to ignore science that is your look out, more good jobs for the rest of us

 

[Naraoia]

And...?

And false statement =/= logical contradiction.

Yes.

Thanks.

No, but the truth of it having been Christmas during Christmas is. Obviously your problem is that you think the truth changes because of where you are, spatially or temporally. It doesn't.

Please, show me a source, because that doesn't make sense. In effect, you are saying that "I'm a baby" is a true statement regardless of the fact that I'm actually in my twenties. Moreover, it also means "I'm a baby" and "I'm an adult" are simultaneously true, which is a contradiction.

I acknowledge that logic doesn't always make sense, but I'll need a source I trust more than your assurances to swallow that.

I have no idea how to make it any plainer.

Then just drop it. I'm getting a bit tired of banging my head against the wall anyway.

All I know is, nothing you've posted is consistent with that definition.

How, please?

No, I equate "logically possible" with the previously stated definition.

Which is "it doesn't lead to a logical contradiction". How many times do I have to tell you that a logical contradiction is between two propositions, not a proposition and the real world?

Try to grasp this: logical contradictions happen within logical systems. The real world is not a logical system. (although it may be described by one - I hope you see a subtle difference there)

If you think lab technicians aren't witnesses, you need to think again.

I have, and I stand by my point. It's not the same kind of thing to report the results (recorded on the spot, as they appear) of a repeatable experiment and to report a unique event from memory.

What do you trust more when you try to remember a lecture you heard ages ago: your memory or a tape recording you made at the time?

I haven't done that, just exposed its hidden premise.You plainly implied it here:

"Right" is what remains after you've excluded everything else you could think of.​

What you think I implied is not the same as what I wanted to imply. I can excuse you for misunderstanding the point as it was first worded (even though I'm pretty sure you knew perfectly well I didn't mean what you interpreted into it). I can't excuse you for sneering at the clarification, which plainly states that I didn't imply that on purpose.

So, apologies for not being absolutely foolproofly clear enough to begin with, but I think now I've made my stance clear enough.

You can no more get "close to" objectivity than an an electron can be halfway between two discrete energy levels in QM. In strictly probabilistic terms you can increase your chances of getting it right from ten out of trillions to eleven out of trillions.

Unless measurements are biased, taking more independent measurements will give you a better estimate of the true value of whatever you're measuring.

(Before you misinterpret my post again, I'm not saying that science is necessarily unbiased as a whole, or in particular areas. What it definitely is is a place where people actively strive against bias.)

And you've read every paper that has bearing on evolution and made up your own mind?

Why would I have to read all of them? The ones I do read consistently confirm that evolution is a good description of the living world (or, in the case of Behe and Snokes 2004, fail to reject it). Of course, sampling always involves uncertainty, but it's ridiculous to say that you have to read every single paper published about a theory to accept or reject it.

(Not to mention that it's utterly impossible for a single person to read even a small fraction of all the evolution literature. Google Scholar, for example, turns up over 8.5 million results for "evolution".)

 

[maybenotcrazy]

Interesting statement that evolution is plausible for those without faith.
I'd like a chance to discuss that with you and see just what that means, and what else it might apply to.

For example, when you say "no amount of argument" would ever change your mind....argument is just argument but there sometimes are plain facts to lay on the table. One might argue the possibility that a spuuse is unfaithful, you might not want to accept it. But there are forms of evidence that cant be denied. Then what?

Your other objections to the truth of evolution center around the fact that you dont see how it could actually work. I would be happy to take any and all one at t time and explain them. Easier in person of course. But just coz I dont understand a lot of math doesnt mean it isnt real. Just means I dont get it.

Let me toss out an idea that does not literally match the (very simplified!) account of creation in genesis. It is a way to have a creator and evolution in perfect harmony.

See, God would know everything that is going to happen, because He is said to see the end the beginning and all between-time is nothing to Him,
and He sure would not need to be in a hurry to do anything!

Suppose you take a hose and a lot of loose sand, and run water across it.
After a while you will create a whole miniature watershed, a little river with all the meanders, cut banks, sand bars, braided channels, incised meanders, distributaries, a delta, etc and so on. It is all very mathematical and intricate. You didnt have to plan it, and all it took was the raw materials, the governing principles of gravity etc, and the energy of water flowing thru it.

Now, the evoluiton of life is more intricate, of course; but life still works with the principles of nature, the laws of chem, physics etc.

So the way I see it, IF there is a god, what he did was set things up so they could run by themselves, and then in effect, sat back to watch what happened.

See in the end what you are thinking about is not faith in GOD but faith that you have / others have a way to know just exactly how to interpret the Bible, and that the Bible gives you a way of knowing all about God.I think faith in the Bible is quite different form faith in God...who knows, perhaps dangerously different.

And when the Bible says things that are at variance with reality (like calling a bat a bird) well that seems to me like a sign that people are supposed to use their (god given) brains. That is the opposite of clinglng ever more fiercely to what you already think, no matter what.

I have faith in others who wrote the bible under the inspiration of the spirit of God. I have faith in the God who gave me by reading the bible a new outlook on life. I am blind to the evidence because I know that with God there is possibility beyond human comprehension, from just a bit beyond it to way beyond it. Tell me how one would conceive of a being who exists outside of our time system and is omnipotent and omniscient. I believe it would be, based on that assumption he exists that he would be able to make things look the way they aren't for the sake of making faith necessary to believe in him. Faith is not a simple thing, don't get me wrong. I had much trouble with the idea before I went nuts. I lost my mind thinking about God and ended up one of his most ardent supporters. I will not give up what I won over the last two and a half years for something as mediocre next to what I experienced on my own as simple human knowledge based on science. For the bulk of human history man has not known of evolution it made no difference in his life whatsoever. Now that we do who's to say the views on it won't change. I believe they will. As we think harder about it we will find more inexplicable things it will fail or at least become an idle game for "intellectuals" to ponder. I think it is far more profitable to have a good relationship with god than to be smart. I guess I was never meant to be intelligent like all of you so shoot me.

 

[Hespera]

I have faith in others who wrote the bible under the inspiration of the spirit of God. I have faith in the God who gave me by reading the bible a new outlook on life. I am blind to the evidence because I know that with God there is possibility beyond human comprehension, from just a bit beyond it to way beyond it. Tell me how one would conceive of a being who exists outside of our time system and is omnipotent and omniscient. I believe it would be, based on that assumption he exists that he would be able to make things look the way they aren't for the sake of making faith necessary to believe in him. Faith is not a simple thing, don't get me wrong. I had much trouble with the idea before I went nuts. I lost my mind thinking about God and ended up one of his most ardent supporters. I will not give up what I won over the last two and a half years for something as mediocre next to what I experienced on my own as simple human knowledge based on science. For the bulk of human history man has not known of evolution it made no difference in his life whatsoever. Now that we do who's to say the views on it won't change. I believe they will. As we think harder about it we will find more inexplicable things it will fail or at least become an idle game for "intellectuals" to ponder. I think it is far more profitable to have a good relationship with god than to be smart. I guess I was never meant to be intelligent like all of you so shoot me.

For sure for God to exist He /She/ It would have to be utterly beyond our comprehension.

Just one thing you said tho. You said "more inexplicable things" about evolution. You'd have to start with one before there will be more.
So far nobody has come up with anything inexplicable, not in evolution.

 

[maybenotcrazy]

For sure for God to exist He /She/ It would have to be utterly beyond our comprehension.

Just one thing you said tho. You said "more inexplicable things" about evolution. You'd have to start with one before there will be more.
So far nobody has come up with anything inexplicable, not in evolution.

Anybody can come up with explanations but are they really what they seem to be. I mean I remeber hearing lewis carroll saying something like: I can think of a number of impossible things before lunchtime... You can think of a bunch of explanations before lunchtime but are they really explanations or are they just fancies. I say the same thing regrettably about religion. You can say all the things you want to prove it to people but unless they want to hear them they won't. For years before I believed I asked God, who truth be told I somewhat believed in to make me fully believe. HE DID. As far as I know he is as proven as any mathematical theorem or as obvious as the day is light and the night is dark. Who is to say I am really crazy for thinking this. I feel like the woman in contact now.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For sure for God to exist He /She/ It would have to be utterly beyond our comprehension.

Just one thing you said tho. You said "more inexplicable things" about evolution. You'd have to start with one before there will be more.
So far nobody has come up with anything inexplicable, not in evolution.

Well, that's not entirely true. There are a great many questions and debates between evolutionary biologists. They all agree that common descent happened, don't get me wrong, but they don't all agree on precisely how it happened.

*removes nit-picking hat*

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Anybody can come up with explanations but are they really what they seem to be. I mean I remeber hearing lewis carroll saying something like: I can think of a number of impossible things before lunchtime... You can think of a bunch of explanations before lunchtime but are they really explanations or are they just fancies. I say the same thing regrettably about religion. You can say all the things you want to prove it to people but unless they want to hear them they won't. For years before I believed I asked God, who truth be told I somewhat believed in to make me fully believe. HE DID. As far as I know he is as proven as any mathematical theorem or as obvious as the day is light and the night is dark. Who is to say I am really crazy for thinking this. I feel like the woman in contact now.

Insanity is rejecting the reality you see before you, denying the undeniable. That's what you're doing. Even a mathematical disproof of the existence of God wouldn't sway your faith (and no, that isn't a good thing).

 

[yguy]

And false statement =/= logical contradiction.

And of course I never said anything that contradicts that.

Please, show me a source, because that doesn't make sense. In effect, you are saying that "I'm a baby" is a true statement regardless of the fact that I'm actually in my twenties.

No, I'm saying the fact of your existence as a baby in the 80's is just as true now as it was then.

Then just drop it.

If by that you mean retract it, not a chance.

How, please?

I've been trying to get it through your skull for days now.

How many times do I have to tell you that a logical contradiction is between two propositions, not a proposition and the real world?

Since I've known that from the beginning, I wouldn't be the one to ask.

Try to grasp this: logical contradictions happen within logical systems. The real world is not a logical system.

Fact not in evidence.

(although it may be described by one - I hope you see a subtle difference there)

I do, but it makes no difference. Whether the world is a logical system or whether it can accurately be represented by a logical system, no proposition which is known to contradict either is logically possible.

What do you trust more when you try to remember a lecture you heard ages ago: your memory or a tape recording you made at the time?

A tape recording requires no interpretation, assuming its verbal content is the object of the inquiry. Experimental data and conclusions drawn from it do.

Unless measurements

This isn't about measurements, for crying out loud.

Why would I have to read all of them?

Because any one that you don't read has the theoretical potential to contradict what you think you know.

The ones I do read consistently confirm that evolution is a good description of the living world

Evidently you don't consider human beings a part of the living world, then, as our uniquely human attributes can hardly be accounted for by evolutionary theory.

(Not to mention that it's utterly impossible for a single person to read even a small fraction of all the evolution literature.

Which is why you rely on people you trust to sift through it for you - or to draw attention to that literature which supports what you believe, depending on how you look at it.

Not that I would expect to find any anti-evolutionary literature coming out of scientific bodies any more than I would expect anti global warming literature to show up at realclimate.org unless they think they can shoot it down.

 

[Beccs]

I would agree that ID does not qualify as a falsifiable hypothesis. It's not a hypothesis because it's an observation of the obvious, and it's not falsifiable because it's true.

Agree.

It's as obvious as the fact that invisible fairies paint rainbows . . .

 

[MoonLancer]

so that's how they get their... its so obvious!

It's not a hypothesis because it's an observation of the obvious, and it's not falsifiable because it's true.

I bet primitive people thought many things where observations of the obviouse. we know that many of them today are not true.

The death of id and creation as science comes from your lips.

it's not falsifiable

and so it falls into the same category as all other unsubstantiated claims. "its true because it is" is the worst kind of logic imaginable.

 

[Split Rock]

Hi maybenotcrazy

you have to be careful about saying that. Plausible arguments don't disprove, contradictions do. So if I was wrong about wings kill me but it doesn't mean god didn't design them. I believe in creationism by faith and no amount of argument will work to disprove it to me BUT I do acknowledge that evolution is a plausible theory for those without faith. Faith comes from seeing that god works in our lives and then trusting him. It works because if God is so good to us why would he lie. God has been so good to me I would not ever consider the possibility that his word is false. In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth... that is my view.

First of all, I want to congratulate you for being one of the few (if not only) creationists posting here that understands what the term "faith" means. Believe it or not, it has become popular among creationists here to claim that their "faith" in Jesus as Christ is the same as having "faith" that the Domino's pizza delivery guy will bring your pizza in 30 minutes. No, I'm not kidding.

Second, most Christians in the world do not have a problem accepting evolution, so it is not necessarily a theory for those without faith.

Third, I find it much more sensible that an all-powerful god would set the universe in motion, with all that was necessary to create that which He wants, without having to tinker around with his creation at given intervals. Thus, one can accept that there is a god, without having to accept creationism.

Just my three cents worth.

 

[Split Rock]

Agree.

It's as obvious as the fact that invisible fairies paint rainbows . . .

Maybe a better anology would be that invisible fairies create Fairy Rings (circles of mushrooms) by dancing in a circle after a rainstorm... since that was once what people believed.

 

[yguy]

and so it falls into the same category as all other unsubstantiated claims.

Like macroevolution, you mean?

 

[SiderealExalt]

Like macroevolution, you mean?

Someone should do more research.