Because order is by design
So is there a designer then?
Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread
- Thread starter blackzeus
- Start date
So is there a designer then?
@Mission249 You need to post more here. 27 posts since 2012 and you re-emerged strong. I commend you.
1) Yes at the bolded, you're completely right, because complexity isn't a universal concept, light doesn't consist of photons, and atoms don't have quarks and leptons
2) Yes at lawyering, you're right, trying to claim that a theory states more than it states and words don't mean what it means is not lawyering
3) I already watched your video before, look at the first page and the discussion on junk DNA. Scientists previously assumed it held no relevant information, only to realize in the last few years they were completely wrong. Claim what you don't understand to be unintelligent, that's the scientific way brehs
I can't say that scientifically, I can only state that there is a pattern, there is an order, there is a degree of complexity that suggests design. Maybe in 10,000 years from now we'll know for sure scientifically if there was a God-like designer or not, but right now we don't know that, we can only infer, but inference isn't scientific, it's philosophical
So that suggests a designer?
Are we being scientific or philosophical here? We're begging the question at this point. Again, yes, philosophically, we can deduce that a design implies a designer. Scientifically, we have to prove it. Science /= philosophy, although both draw parallels from each other. ID is based on empirical data, not philosophy
What do you mean "genesis by evolution"? I'm not claiming anything is true. I'm just saying just because it's unlikely for something to happen, doesn't mean it could not or did not. Making the assumption that it could not happen is what I object to.
Well it might be the case that we're talking about different things when we talk about chaos or randomness. An event unguided by an intelligence doesn't necessarily mean it happen it happened randomly.
This is why people view ID as the dishonest, pseudoscientific garbage that it is. What else could design something intelligently except a thinking entity? It's implied in the very language.
We're being English. Scientifically though, are you assuming there may be a designer that you can't prove at this time?
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[4][5][6] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.[n 2]
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
ID doesn't make an objection, ID notes that it's statistically improbable, whether or not that ruffles your feathers is your problem, that's what the math says
Please rephrase the last sentence, not sure what you're trying to
The empirical data suggests order, order suggest design, thus "Intelligent Design". Now to take the leap into stating there is a "Designer" would be unscientific at this point because how would we quantify this entity? Is it a physical entity? Ethereal? It the entity just a thought wave? A magnoelectric signal? Is the entity an ancestor we lost contact with? Is it an entity at all? Perhaps ID is a waterfall of sorts, and the cosmos expands in an orderly fashion, similar to the domino effect. Whatever the situation is, the point is simply that it wasn't random, that's all, nothing more, nothing less, and if the suggesting that empirical data suggests a certain conclusion is pseudoscientific, I suggest you buy a dictionary my man
Last edited:
If you want my OPINION, my OPINION is that it is correct to infer that design infers a designer, but incorrect to infer that a God-like being exists, but how and where to begin, I have no idea, the biodiversity on earth alone would millions if not billions of years to create, there are supercomputers less powerful than a human brain, and there are approximately 9 billion of us on the planet
The point is I think to think one single entity created the cosmos is a bit absurd at worst, and overwhelming at best, that individual would have to have been the most bored hobbyist in the world. Imagine having nothing better to do for a billion years 
My opinion is that ID has something that sort of builds on itself, kind of like how an avalanche starts from a snowflake, but again, this is pure conjecture, and has nothing to do with the empirical data
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
ID's proponents admit they don't actually have a scientific theory.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html
ID, in fact, has no “theory,” despite its proponents’ claim to the contrary and their propensity to call themselves “theorists.” Meyer’s colleagues at the Discovery Institute are, in fact, quite open about this. I quoted ID theorist Paul Nelson, who wrote: “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem … we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” The retired Berkeley lawyer, Philip Johnson, considered the founder of ID, made similar comments: “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked-out scheme.” The absence of a clear and well-articulated theory is disastrous for ID, and excludes it from scientific consideration, because it makes it impossible to put any observations in context as evidence either for or against the theory.