Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[NoMayo15]

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

I'm not bothered by the math. I recognize the uniqueness of our current situation on this planet. What "ruffles my feathers" are people who extrapolate that to mean something more than what it means.

Please rephrase the last sentence, not sure what you're trying to

What I'm saying is that some of these terms are ill-defined. Like, if we're talking about just evolution, that isn't a purely random process. Typically when people use random, they're contrasting it with guided by intelligence. I'm not sure what you mean by random.

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

HA! If anyone should be using a MJ smiley, it's me.

 

[tmonster]

If it works logically then it works scientifically. Don't back away from that aspect of the argument. Design implies designer. If your definition of this well established word does not, then what semantically distinguishes this "design" from evolution? Why not just call it evolution?

Yep, I've been seeing it since the beginning. It's why his whole argument falls apart. I call it "blackzeus math". Define an arbitrary, vague human-centric, individual perception of "complexity" that means nothing to a universe that deals with light-years and atoms. Inject this unquantifiable non-sense into some legitimate, but simple mathematical induction. Attack all attempts at defining terms as "lawyering" instead of being scientific and precise. Then base your whole argument on that.

At best he's just ignorant to how the scientific method works, at worst he's reveling in the vagueness and handwavy-ness of his argument in order to do his usually equivocating, hand-waving, and goal-post moving. Case in point, I link him to a brief, really insightful video about how the "design" isn't really intelligent, and looks exactly how evolution theorized it would look. His response is basically: "Weelllll....it's not THAT intelligent :shrugs:"



How intelligent is it? Enough for him to win the debate and rationalize his pre-existing beliefs I suppose.

LOL, I almost posted that video a few pages back but I did not want to cast pearls upon swine

 

[noon]

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

You're right that does sound absurd.

 

[blackzeus]

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.

More lawyering from scientists

1) ID is a theory about the genesis of the universe, yes, you are correct in that it doesn't explain biodiversity or biological design, but then again, that's not the point of the theory

2) Why do we as proponents of ID have to propose a COMPARABLE alternative to the Darwinian theory. We don't disagree with natural selection and adaptation, we disagree with the genesis of the universe being a random occurrence.

3) The absense of a theory is not disastrous for ID, ID isn't trying to be "successful", ID is what it is, you can choose to accept or reject the data, but it is there and it states what it states

 

[tmonster]

No it doesn't, it states that if we subjectively know a walking cane is a product of intelligent design, and the chair is more complex than the walking cane, then the chair also must have been made by intelligent design. It's about varying degrees of complexity, not the designer, please don't twist the argument.

 

[blackzeus]

I'm not bothered by the math. I recognize the uniqueness of our current situation on this planet. What "ruffles my feathers" are people who extrapolate that to mean something more than what it means.

Ok

What I'm saying is that some of these terms are ill-defined. Like, if we're talking about just evolution, that isn't a purely random process. Typically when people use random, they're contrasting it with guided by intelligence. I'm not sure what you mean by random.

Wait, are you saying we agree on something?!

HA! If anyone should be using a MJ smiley, it's me.

It's a free country

 

[NoMayo15]

Wait, are you saying we agree on something?!

I'm sure we agree on a lot! Its where we disagree that irks me.

 

[blackzeus]

@NoMayo15 when I use the word random it's in contrast to order. Basically, in the sense I am using it, randomness = disorder/chaos. Ergo, according to ID, the entire cosmos expanding at a fixed rate being spawned by randomness is statistically impossible.

 

[blackzeus]

I'm sure we agree on a lot! Its where we disagree that irks me.

Well speak your mind homey. What do we agree on, and where do we branch off? Maybe we can find a bridge of understanding to connect our two paths, no homo

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

More lawyering from scientists

It's an admission from ID's own proponents that ID is not a scientific theory.

At this point, I have to assume this thread is a work.

 

[NoMayo15]

Well speak your mind homey. What do we agree on, and where do we branch off? Maybe we can find a bridge of understanding to connect our two paths, no homo

As long as you don't assert the universe was necessarily created by a thinking entity, then we agree.

 

[blackzeus]

It's an admission from ID's own proponents that ID is not a scientific theory.

At this point, I have to assume this thread is a work.

1) Philip Johnson, a lawyer is the founder of an idea more than 3000 years old?

2)

“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.”

So what does ID not having a biodiversity/biological design theory have to do with ID's premise that the universe is not a chance occurrence? If I theorize 1+1 = 2, is it mandatory that I also theorize that what 2+3 is equal to?

3) The whole reason that there is no ID theory about biological design in the first place IS BECAUSE ID DOESN'T DISAGREE WITH NATURAL SELECTION OR ADAPTATION. Those are valid theories on biodiversity and biological design.

4) ID doesn't discount evolutionary theory about the origin of species may be true, ID states that the empirical data suggest that is a highly improbable conclusion.

 

[blackzeus]

As long as you don't assert the universe was necessarily created by a thinking entity, then we agree.

Well technically speaking, which was one of the anecdotes in this thread, the cosmos is expanding at a fixed rate, no? So theoretically, all we'd have to do is go to the edge of the universe, and watch God's real estate development project in process Since that's obviously highly improbable, so is the idea of some sort of thinking entity being the grand designer of the WHOLE universe, that would be analogous to saying Adam created every last human being on the planet. Now, that doesn't exclude that there there might not be some alien God-like being behind the creation of conditions suitable for life on earth, but that's a whole other topic. But IMHO there is no way the ENTIRE universe was created by one physical entity, I just don't see it being possible. HOWEVER, that as well is opinion, not fact, we may discover one day in the distant future there really does exist a God-like designer, but I highly doubt it.

 

[tmonster]

It's a free country

quick question, how long ago did the grand designer create the universe and how long ago did he/she create the earth?

 

[NoMayo15]

Well technically speaking, which was one of the anecdotes in this thread, the cosmos is expanding at a fixed rate, no?

I don't know. From what I thought, the rate of the universe expansion was increasing, but I don't really study and keep up with a lot of this stuff.

But IMHO there is no way the ENTIRE universe was created by one physical entity, I just don't see it being possible.

But why? Who are you to even determine what's possible in the realm of cosmology. I might agree with you, but probably for a different reason.

we may discover one day in the distant future there really does exist a God-like designer, but I highly doubt it.

Me too