What's the current state of Intelligent Design?

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Other than Stephen Meyer's Dissent From Darwinism and Behe's Darwin Devolves* being published in the past few years, I haven't heard much from the ID camp these days.

What exactly are they up to these days? Any ID breakthroughs to talk about? Any new or exciting things coming out of the ID camp?

Have they figured out how to detect design in biological organisms yet?

(* On a side note, I find it interesting that Darwin is referenced in the titles of their books. I've always found it odd that those in the creationism/ID camps continue to fixate on Darwin.)
 

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You can detect design in biological organism, if you have an organism with several unique parts working those parts together towards an functionality, and if one of those core parts are removed the main functionality is removed, like in the eyes, if you remove the core optic nerve you loose vision, if you remove the lense you loose vision, if you remove, etc etc, this works on electronics and cars etc too. If you remove the engine the car can't move, if you remove the sterring wheel, the car can't work its functionality, etc, in computers the same if you remove the cpu the computer can't compute, or the memory, etc etc.

So yes you can detect design perfectly, specially the more complex designs.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You can detect design in biological organism, if you have an organism with several unique parts working those parts together towards an functionality, and if one of those core parts are removed the main functionality is removed, like in the eyes, if you remove the core optic nerve you loose vision, if you remove the lense you loose vision, if you remove, etc etc, this works on electronics and cars etc too. If you remove the engine the car can't move, if you remove the sterring wheel, the car can't work its functionality, etc, in computers the same if you remove the cpu the computer can't compute, or the memory, etc etc.

So yes you can detect design perfectly, specially the more complex designs.
Since that is not how biological components are assembled, hacking them to pieces like that doesn't demonstrate anything except that the components are functionally interrelated. Biological structures evolve their components gradually in situ and the functionality evolves along with them. In order to "disassemble" a biological structure you have to back it down the presumed evolutionary pathway, step by step.

But Pitabread asked, what is new with ID? Yours is an old and long-debunked argument.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
How can I detect 'design' or not, in each of these two images?:

Rock1.png Rock3.png
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How can I detect 'design' or not, in each of these two images?:

View attachment 281701 View attachment 281702

Like i said, those parts are not "unique", they are not interacting towards working towards some functionality, like a computer, or an *human eye* or a car.

This is not a debunked argument, this works, the eye has unique parts designed to work towards providing vision, the computer the same with a different functionality, and the car the same, you can make excuses, but STOP, think about it well, and you can detect design in cars computer planes , and biological organisms too.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
As I see it, ID was as attempt to slip creationism past the courts disguised as non religious. It didn’t work, so there’s not much remaining attraction. Plausible paths for evolving several of the supposedly irreducible structures have been pointed out.
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As I see it, ID was as attempt to slip creationism past the courts disguised as non religious. It didn’t work, so there’s not much remaining attraction. Plausible paths for evolving several of the supposedly irreducible structures have been pointed out.

Do you even believe God created us as he wanted? with an Eternal soul inside?, from what i read it seems not.

Anyway staying in topic, you can detect design like i explained...
Even documentaries explaining evolutoin can't avoid the slips of saying the word design, or beatiful, good design, etc.
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Answer assumes its conclusion! .. (And that has nothing to do with complexity or otherwise!)

The same conclusion saying a car was designed with some rules and logic, works on biological organisms too, so, this doens't seem a bit curious to you? anyway evolution is a very hard thing to kick out of your mind.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Did God create us in our current form directly? Of course not. Are we as he wanted? Sure.

For me a creationist is someone that believes God had in mind what persons will become and made it happen, is a 'creation' of his... i don't believe he would put a soul in a body he didn't created in one way or another, also this means we were designed our souls are designed and souls have specific things that work with the body, so thinking we were a design from God being a christian and having met God and his Holy spirit, even the 'craziests' parts of the bible are not so incredible anymore, do i have my doubts in what to think, sure, i prefer to think the world is old, but i am not a product of lucky changes.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You can detect design in biological organism, if you have an organism with several unique parts working those parts together towards an functionality, and if one of those core parts are removed the main functionality is removed, like in the eyes, if you remove the core optic nerve you loose vision, if you remove the lense you loose vision, if you remove, etc etc, this works on electronics and cars etc too.

It sounds like you're referring to Behe's irreducible complexity concept. However, it's never been borne out that irreducible complexity is an indicator of design. What's more, we know how irreducibly complex systems in biological organisms can evolve.

Unfortunately, function is not a good indication of design.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The same conclusion saying a car was designed with some rules and logic, works on biological organisms too, so, this doens't seem a bit curious to you?

The reason we know cars are designed is because we have pre-existing knowledge of how they are made. We don't have such knowledge of biological organisms in nature.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Like i said, those parts are not "unique", they are not interacting towards working towards some functionality, like a computer, or an *human eye* or a car.
There is an abundance of functional design documentation which supports a hypothesis of design behind cars and computers.
There's also plenty behind how an eye detects images .. but zip documents which objectify the design of an eye.

I would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the right hand image wasn't of something which was designed .. and yet this has nothing to do with uniqueness, or not, of its parts(?)

NBB said:
This is not a debunked argument, this works, the eye has unique parts designed to work towards providing vision, the computer the same with a different functionality, and the car the same, you can make excuses, but STOP, think about it well, and you can detect design in cars computer planes , and biological organisms too.
And yet, I think I can also detect design in the right hand image(?)...
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It sounds like you're referring to Behe's irreducible complexity concept. However, it's never been borne out that irreducible complexity is an indicator of design. What's more, we know how irreducibly complex systems in biological organisms can evolve.

Unfortunately, function is not a good indication of design.

That concept with a bit of tweaking can separate human designs from everything else very well, its just happens complex biological designs pass the test too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is an abundance of functional design documentation which supports a hypothesis of design behind cars and computers.
There's also plenty behind how an eye detects images .. but zip documents which objectify the design of an eye.

I would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the right hand image wasn't of something which was designed .. and yet this has nothing to do with uniqueness, or not, of its parts(?)

And yet, I think I can also detect design in the right hand image(?)...

First, what is the right hand image?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That concept with a bit of tweaking can separate human designs from everything else very well, its just happens complex biological designs pass the test too.

Like I said, irreducible complexity is not a barrier to evolution. We know how irreducible complex structures can evolve. No need for deliberate design.
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is an abundance of functional design documentation which supports a hypothesis of design behind cars and computers.
There's also plenty behind how an eye detects images .. but zip documents which objectify the design of an eye.

I would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the right hand image wasn't of something which was designed .. and yet this has nothing to do with uniqueness, or not, of its parts(?)

And yet, I think I can also detect design in the right hand image(?)...

I see you mean the picture, this 'test' based on irreducible complexity can separate the 'machine' like designs from everything else. which is basically all complex nature and human complex machines, so if it passes the test, it should be designed, engineered or i don't know made with intelligence. this doesn't mean everything done by humans is going to pass the test.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Like I said, irreducible complexity is not a barrier to evolution. We know how irreducible complex structures can evolve. No need for deliberate design.

They have a lot of stories of how things may have evolved, they don't actually know how a brain with the whole body evolved, this i can say for sure. DNA is similar to all animals, and there is design choices similar in nature, and etc, i get it, but i don't buy an amoeba can evolve into a human with random changes being accepted by natural selection, less knowing God, and that we have a soul inside.
 
Upvote 0