Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[philbo]

Like evolutionists, those of us who believe in a Creator could speculate about a lot of things too.....however God does not tell us what transpired before we were residents on this planet...perhaps he will explain one day when we have the capacity to fully understand. We obviously don't at present. Maybe humans are just too puffed up to listen?

"too puffed up to listen"?

..now, let me see, who does that remind me of here?

You are only guessing yourselves about what happened, so why should it worry us?

Just because you haven't looked closely enough at what evidence is around doesn't mean everyone else is guessing. I's this ignorant hubris that is particularly annoying: what you call "guessing" are conclusions drawn from evidence in multiple different fields, which rather convincingly lead to the same conclusions.

We can guess too but what does it matter?

So why would you care that evolution is pretty much the only conclusion that can be drawn from what is observed? But thank you for admitting that at least the Biblical genesis tale is guesswork.

We don't live in the past, we live in the present and perhaps we should be concentrating a whole lot more on how we can fix past mistakes to make our lives a little less perilous now and in the future?

I'd rather do that based on knowledge than faith.

What makes you think they are failures? Perhaps they served a purpose and once that purpose was achieved, they were no longer necessary? We have no idea why God specifically made anything and you have no idea why things evolved, except for adaptation in circumstances where a change of environment precipitated a necessary superficial change.

With an evolutionary explanation, there doesn't have to be a "why"; however, for design there does. If you cannot think, even conceive of a reason why things happened the way they appear, that is a strong argument for naturally-selected evolution. Saying "I don't know what God was thinking" has no explanatory power at all & is pretty much equivalent to saying "He wasn't involved at all".

The thing is.....neither of us can prove our position in any real way. All we can do is offer our opinions and hope for the best. You believe you are right...and so do we. Time will tell.

No, what we can do is see which explanation best covers the known data, and use the best explanation until a better one comes along. Rather than going with the one we want to believe until the "conclusive, 100% proof which will never happen because that's not the way the world works" is stumbled across. There is not an equivalence between one theory supported by all the available evidence and one that has one book written by men who had never even looked for or at anything remotely evidential. One has reason behind it, the other blind faith - I am willing to be convinced otherwise if a better explanation comes along; you evidently are not.

What makes you think that the universe is wasted? The Creator is not restricted by time so perhaps we are the starting point and he has long term plans for the whole thing? What makes you assume what you do about a being you know nothing about?

Oh, the irony: you do realize this whole thread is here because you're making assumptions about something you know nothing about?

But even you would have to admit that if mankind is somehow the intention of your God's creation, there's rather a lot of irrelevant material out there (our planet, our solar system, being less than a billionth part of this galaxy alone).. and if mankind isn't the aim of the whole place, why are we so worried about what this god thinks, anyway?

If there is no Creator, then there is no purpose to our existence. And no hope for the future apart from the appalling track record of human activity up to this point. Do you trust man to guarantee your future? I certainly don't.

Far be it from me to try and kick the crutch away from one who needs it, but there is no great purpose to our existence, none other than which we make ourselves. Mankind is very likely to destroy its future, so far no god has got in his way to stop it - no, I don't trust man to guarantee our future, but he's the best we've got.

What flaws are you talking about? "Perfect" simply means that something accomplishes the purpose for which it is made. Everything has its place....does science purport know what the purpose of everything living thing is? It has barely scratched the surface in its understanding.

Simple one: why is childbirth so extraordinarily painful and dangerous for humans? More than a century or two ago, life expectancy was a lot lower mainly because of death during childbirth (both for the mother and the child). Medical technology has improved things immeasurably, but for most of mankind's history, death during childbirth was a major factor. Is that your idea of perfect design?

Would you like to take a stab at all the other questions I raised? I would be interested in your answers.

Maybe you'd like to be a bit more precise about which questions you'd like answered

Civilisation? You are kidding, aren't you? Look at the world and tell me what civilisation you see? We are going backwards at the rate of knots.

Backward? To some fictional great civilization in the past? No, mankind is bumbling on as ever. I does depend on how you want to define "civilization", but I'd say we have more of it now than at any time in the past

The situation on earth is looking rather hopeless......tell me how science will save us from ourselves? It is too busy looking to feather its own nest and puffing up the egos of the ones receiving the accolades for their achievements and discoveries.

Sigh.. such a twisted outlook. Scientists are people, just like religious leaders who look to feather their own nests and puff up their egos.. Science has done more good things than you care to think about (e.g. reducing considerably the number of people who die in childbirth). Just because you're filtering out the good, doesn't mean it isn't there.

"Science" will not save us from ourselves, neither will any god. Mankind will have to do that job, or become extinct like most other species the planet has seen. Science has given us many tools that will speed up the process in whichever direction we end up heading.

God at least has a plan for the future that does not rely on humans to achieve it. I am comforted by that thought....I have faith in it. You can choose to believe whatever you like.

Well, as he doesn't seem to want to explain his plans directly, I'm just going to continue with the working assumption that they don't exist. Far be it from me to try and pull away your comfort blanket, but had you considered that his plan might be for mankind to destroy himself, making way for whatever comes next in the ineffable plan?

 

[jonathan180iq]

No actually, that is not what I have said at all.

Just because something has adapted to its environment doesn't mean that individual members of the same family were not individually created.

The thing is, you haven't actually said anything of substance, and that's my whole point.
How many times has someone asked you to define what a "kind" is? How many times has an answer been avoided by you, or any other creationist in the room?

If you can't even define the parameters of your data, how can you study the data accurately?

Adaptation is small changes to facilitate a changed environment or food source.

You're at least partially right. Evolution consists of changes and mutations both large and small, depending on a great number of external environmental factors. Some Evolutionary changes occur when a population experiences essentially identical environments and food sources, but they are separated by physical geographic characteristics. Under very similar circumstances, this original parent population still diverges from itself and becomes a separate species entirely. This is called Allopatric Speciation.

Allopatric speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's part of one study of evolutionary science called Cladogenesis, where a parents population splits into new populations, called Clades. This seems to be the only kind of evolutionary division that you are aware, based on the kind of questions that you keep asking and the over-arching points that you are making.

Cladogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To say that all these creatures are descendants of a common ancestor is ridiculous. These are all part of the rodent family. Species within a kind. Just as there are many species within the cat family....or the ape family.

Well looky there! I think you've finally done it! You've defined "kind"! This is great news!

Species within a kind, you say? Since, as you've said, they are all of the same "kind", you'll agree that the only thing Noah would have needed on his ship of happy mythology would have been one "kind" of rodent, right? All other rodent species within the rodent "kind" would be little more than micro-evolved versions of the same "kind"....

Which is the exactly the point that I was making with the rodent pictures, but you seemed to dislike that when it came from someone else.

These are your own words, using your own logic, based on admissions that you've already made about adaption and micro-evolution. I haven't added anything other than guidance through your own logically constructed framework.

Essentially, you've finally loosely defined "kind" as the taxonomical equivalent of Family.

Now, when you combine your own logic about adaptation and "kinds", is it really all that ridiculous to say that all of these creatures shared a common ancestor? Wouldn't all rodent species be related to an original parent rodent "kind"?

Mammal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - "Mammals (classMammalia/məˈmeɪli.ə/) are a clade of endothermicamniotes distinguished from reptiles and birds by the possession of hair,[a] three middle ear bones, mammary glands, and a neocortex (a region of the brain)." [Not to mention all of the other similarities that we've already discussed.]

Now, you can say all day long that God had to use the same building blocks or materials to put stuff together so of course everything would look similar... but is he that lacking in creativity that he had to make them essentially all the same? Following creationist modeling, the only differences, really, between the Shrew and the Blue Whale, are cosmetic. They aren't too terribly far apart on the similarities chart. As an example, there are more commonalities between the Blue Whale and the shrew than between the Blue Whale and the Whale Shark...

Creationist logic assets something, yet has no data or studies to support it. You guys make claims about something you know very little about and then try and tell us why our science is bad... It's absurd.

The evolutionary model, however, has thousands of studies, spanning every branch of academia, supporting it. You're making an assertion of truth, and rejecting centuries worth of scientific research, while attempting to replace it with "Magic loving sky people".

Think about it again and tell me which of the two stances is more ridiculous.

Trees, vegetables, fruit, grass and other forms of greenery are all species within the family of living things that feed other living things. Which came first?

Not all trees, grasses, or plants exist for the purpose of feeding other organisms. There exist predatory plants. There exist adapted versions of edible plants which are very poisonous. Like, straight deadly. The difference between the edible and poisonous versions are nearly indistinguishable for the uneducated eye. Do you accept that fact as adaptation, or were they specifically created for that purpose? You'll undoubtedly say it's adaptation, but that will create problems for your model of creationism, given that these plants have known evolutionary histories and what not.

Since you have begun your rhetoric with a false premise, this is rather a stupid argument even by evolutionary standards. Not all mammals are related or descended from the same original parent. This is more akin to what you believe...not what I believe. You have twisted everything I said.

If you think it's stupid, please remember that I'm only using the rules which you have created in this creationist apologetic attempt of yours.

They both have the same designer and Creator. We are both formed from the same basic materials of which we all bear the evidence in our DNA. You just interpret the evidence differently to us.

We actually study the evidence. That's a huge difference between us.
Seems like you guys look at a handful of bits and pieces and try and make apologetic arguments by reverse engineering your religious bias into your theories.

I believe that each species is individually hand crafted by a brilliant designer and that each has its place in the incredible ecology set in place by the same brilliant scientist and mathematician.

Wait a minute. Didn't you earlier state that Species exist under "kind"?

"Species within a kind..."

And haven't you already admitted that adaptation and micro-evolutionary changes occur, which would, by your own definition, create those species within the kind?

And are you speaking the same brilliant scientists and mathematicians that you earlier suggested have yet to bring anything beneficial or helpful to the human condition, and to our planet?

Seems to me that you're not quite being consistent...

This includes the ability to adapt for self preservation.

No animal the ability to adapt at the genotypical or phenotypical level for self-preservation. A Population can adapt. An individual can only hope for the best with the tools granted to them by their phenotype.

It doesn't include all life evolving from a single celled organism that happened to magically pop into existence by accident and then over millions of years, turn into all we see by a multitude of other very fortunate accidents involving random mutations......

Organic compounds are incredibly abundant in the Universe. Our planet alone, and based on what we've discovered from nearly every object that we've visited in our solar system, attests to this. While we don't have the answers for abiogenesis yet, we do have most of the other puzzle pieces already in place. The picture is nearly complete.... What you refer to as magic is actually exactly how life happens. Undoubtedly this is how it has happened, and has been happening, all over the Universe, since forever.

Now that is a complete fairy story.

We have evidence and data to support our position. That makes it the opposite of a fairy story.

You guys have... well, you have conviction. I'm sure that means a lot.

Your suggestions in that post are just silly....and nothing close to what I believe.

Again, those suggestions are based on your own rules and logic - at least what you've admitted to so far.
If you want to go ahead and take away your belief in micro-evolution so that it fits your creationist model better, then it would look more ridiculous and probably fit your belief system more accurately. You could also change your definition of "kind" to something more consistent and tenable to your argument. As it stands, you're accepting of too much evolutionary science to give you a fighting chance for debating it.

I'm beginning to think you might be a closet Evolutionist.

 

[Skwim]

.​

 

[Sapiens]

Like evolutionists, those of us who believe in a Creator could speculate about a lot of things too.....however God does not tell us what transpired before we were residents on this planet...perhaps he will explain one day when we have the capacity to fully understand. We obviously don't at present. Maybe humans are just too puffed up to listen?

Except for the fact that evolution is not a speculation but rather, for all intents and purposes it is a fact. The existance of a "creator" however, is a speculation, mainly on the part of humans who, unable to accept their place in an uncaring universe, must puff themselves up by imagining a personal relationship with an all powerful entity who rules the cosmos.

You are only guessing yourselves about what happened, so why should it worry us? We can guess too but what does it matter? We don't live in the past, we live in the present and perhaps we should be concentrating a whole lot more on how we can fix past mistakes to make our lives a little less perilous now and in the future?

You erroneously style good hard science as "guessing" because guessing is the best you can do and you're desperate to pretend that you're on an even playing field. It doesn't wash. If you want to fix a car would you use a manual written specifically about that make and model or a comic book about an all powerful master mechanic?

What makes you think they are failures? Perhaps they served a purpose and once that purpose was achieved, they were no longer necessary? We have no idea why God specifically made anything and you have no idea why things evolved, except for adaptation in circumstances where a change of environment precipitated a necessary superficial change.

Why must there be assumed a purpose?

The thing is.....neither of us can prove our position in any real way. All we can do is offer our opinions and hope for the best. You believe you are right...and so do we. Time will tell.

There you go again, still trying to pretend that your on the same level on a flat playing field ... you fool no one except (perhaps) yourself.

What makes you think that the universe is wasted? The Creator is not restricted by time so perhaps we are the starting point and he has long term plans for the whole thing? What makes you assume what you do about a being you know nothing about?

More of the same old arguments from ignorance.

If there is no Creator, then there is no purpose to our existence. And no hope for the future apart from the appalling track record of human activity up to this point. Do you trust man to guarantee your future? I certainly don't.

There are no guarantees, sorry if that's too scary for you, but it's time to grow up.

What flaws are you talking about? "Perfect" simply means that something accomplishes the purpose for which it is made. Everything has its place....does science purport know what the purpose of everything living thing is? It has barely scratched the surface in its understanding.

The list is damn near infinite, there are many items in every animal that are obvious kluges brought about by the limitation of natural selection only being able to work on the material at hand, no designer, no creator, starting from a clean slate would ever have designed or constructed organisms the way they are. From the nerves in the giraffe's neck to the whales hind legs to the fact that rabbits must eat their own feces or they will not be able to digest their food ... the flaws are everywere.

Would you like to take a stab at all the other questions I raised? I would be interested in your answers.

What questions would these be?

Civilisation? You are kidding, aren't you? Look at the world and tell me what civilisation you see? We are going backwards at the rate of knots. The situation on earth is looking rather hopeless......tell me how science will save us from ourselves? It is too busy looking to feather its own nest and puffing up the egos of the ones receiving the accolades for their achievements and discoveries.

Science has already saved us, from world wide plagues, from starving to death, from all sorts of calamities. It has also created challenges that we may not be able to rise to meet. If we fail to meet them the fault will more likely lie in our inability to get passed our mythologies than in peer reviewed science providing the wrong answers to our questions.

God at least has a plan for the future that does not rely on humans to achieve it. I am comforted by that thought....I have faith in it. You can choose to believe whatever you like.

That's one of the differences between us, I do not "believe" in anything, and all you've got is unsupportable belief.

When we see the capacity of the human brain in certain "gifted" individuals, we can see clearly that there is no reason why all humans should not have these abilities. "Genius" standards in math, science, art, music etc. demonstrate the potential capacity that we should all enjoy. But most of us fall well below these standards.

Half the people on earth are bellow average and always will be no matter what you do. It's called the "bell curve."

The funny thing is, we all want them and are frustrated by our present limitations. We all have a perception of the perfect outcome for our achievements, but disappointingly fall short of them. Why do we collectively feel we can and should do better?

Speak for yourself.

Why do other people's imperfections and shortcomings annoy us?

Because we'd like to see them do better and not stop resources that might provide a general rise in well being, the tide raises all boats.

If we are the products of evolution, why should we have any expectations at all?

Rather clearly because being the way we are gives our genes greater access to the gene pool of succeeding generations.

Why are humans the only creatures on the planet who can plan future events based entirely on choices made by analysing data?

I'd be careful about that sort of taxocentristic jingoism, it is likely to come back and bite you.

At what point did the animals swap instinct for cognitive planning? Was it then that we ceased to be animals? Can you pinpoint when that happened?

Since we are, in fact,animals ourselves (face it, we've don't photosynthesis, so we're not plants) and since many other animal species, from cephalopods to primates engage in planning and cognition, your question is just further expression of your combined ignorance and taxocentristic jingoism.

No actually, that is not what I have said at all.

Just because something has adapted to its environment doesn't mean that individual members of the same family were not individually created. Adaptation is small changes to facilitate a changed environment or food source. To say that all these creatures are descendants of a common ancestor is ridiculous. These are all part of the rodent family. Species within a kind. Just as there are many species within the cat family....or the ape family.

So, we can pin down one side of the concept of "kind." Are you supporting that view or did you misspeak?

Trees, vegetables, fruit, grass and other forms of greenery are all species within the family of living things that feed other living things. Which came first?

Logic would dictate (as would the lack of oxygen in the early atmosphere) that plants came about long before there were animals to eat them.

Since you have begun your rhetoric with a false premise, this is rather a stupid argument even by evolutionary standards. Not all mammals are related or descended from the same original parent. This is more akin to what you believe...not what I believe. You have twisted everything I said.

Sorry ... all mammal are descended from the same original parents. But that does bring up the other side of the "kind" question. You have implied that "kinds" are akin to taxonomic "families." It is only one step up, from family to class, for all mammals to be descended from the same original parents. But you say that can't be. May I take this as confirmation that you believe that "kinds" are directly analogous, in all circumstances, to the taxonomic level of "families?" Are you saying that your god made a single pair of cats and they evolved into everything from house cats to tigers? Are you saying that your god made a single pair of some deer-like creature and they evolved into everything from goats to hippos?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Eventually vapid assertions only serve to back you into a corner that you can't work out of with any intellectual honesty.

 

[outhouse]

Eventually vapid assertions only serve to back you into a corner that you can't work out of with any intellectual honesty.

Their practice is from within that corner.

Overcoming mental hurdles without using logic and reason is a skill set they have developed through fanaticism and fundamentalism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What those scientists observed back then, was adaptation. They ended up calling it "micro-evolution"......Then when they mentioned "macro-evolution" it sounded for all the world like it must have been the same process, only taken over a much longer period of time.

Call it adaptation if you wish. It’s just a semantic game on your part anyway.

and solely on adaptation within species for evidence.

This is false, and has been pointed out to you many, many times. You’ve even been provided with mountains of evidence showing why you’re wrong. And here you are repeating it again and again.

The macro-evolutionary process is not "fact" at all...it is supposition based on what scientists "think" "might have happened" ....this is what they actually say. This is not the language of fact. Some have tried to justify the language...but it is what it is.

If you’re so sure macroevolution is impossible, please provide evidence that there is some kind of barrier stopping speciation from occurring. Otherwise, you’re simply talking out of your behind. Nobody has been able to demonstrate anything of the kind as of yet. Not for lack of trying either, I bet.

It is an admission that they don't have all the answers.

It’s called intellectual honesty. You should try it some time.

In fact they have no more solid proof for macro-evolution than we have for intelligent design. Both are belief systems based on what people want to believe.

Proofs exist only in mathematics. Scientists rely on evidence from multiple fields of independent research spanning across multiple fields of science over the course of many years. Again, it’s funny how all available evidence compiled over the last 150+ years by hundreds and thousands of different scientists from all over the world happens to converge at the same conclusion. That the theory of evolution is reality.


Evolution is not a belief system. It’s an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. Science is not a belief system. It’s a systematic, self-correcting method of pursuing knowledge about the world we live in. Your comparison is inane.

Science is beneficial when it is used for the good of mankind, but it is also responsible for a lot of evil uses. Messing with the stuff of life, coupled with the power of the human ego, science is going where it ought not. Experimenting with genetics can sometimes help to solve a few medical problems but when it is done in other areas purely for profit, it is immoral.


Much of what science had produced has brought this planet to the brink of irrevocably drowning in its own artificially produced waste. Nature is genius at recycling...science isn't.

What does this have to do with anything being discussed?


Much of what science has produced has greatly expanded the human lifespan and quality of life. It's helped us better understand the workings of the world we live in, and beyond.

This planet operated quite brilliantly for a long time without the intervention of science.

I’m not even sure what this means.

But now in such a short space of time, we have technology that threatens our very existence.

Our very existence has been and always will be threatened by not only the universe that surrounds us, but by all kinds of natural events that occur all over the planet on a daily basis.


Human beings have always been threatening each other’s existence, even before we came up with the scientific method.

Science created weapons of mass destruction...it created the substances that are polluting the earth, the water and the skies. Then there are the nuclear power plants......Science has created monsters that generate dangerous waste that it cannot destroy. How clever......and how short sighted.

Humans created weapons of mass destruction. Humans created the substances that are polluting the earth, water and skies. Humans created nuclear power plants. Science isn’t a living creature, it’s a method used to gather information.

For all the good accomplished, there is an equal amount of what they consider merely collateral damage.


The planet ultimately pays for what science dreams up.

“Science” dreams up nothing, as it is not a conscious creature.


Solar and wind energy, electric cars, recyclable materials, etc. are products of the scientific method.



I still don’t know what the second half of your post has to do with evolutionary theory. I guess you’re just trying to demonstrate to us how much you dislike the scientific method that produced the computer that you’re typing on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When we see the capacity of the human brain in certain "gifted" individuals, we can see clearly that there is no reason why all humans should not have these abilities. "Genius" standards in math, science, art, music etc. demonstrate the potential capacity that we should all enjoy. But most of us fall well below these standards.

Says who?


People who are “gifted” are usually lacking in some other area, usually in social communication skills. Should we all “enjoy” that? I don’t know.

The funny thing is, we all want them and are frustrated by our present limitations. We all have a perception of the perfect outcome for our achievements, but disappointingly fall short of them. Why do we collectively feel we can and should do better?

I don’t know that we do collectively feel that way.

Why do other people's imperfections and shortcomings annoy us?

Different things annoy different people. Some people find the "imperfections" of their loved ones endearing.

If we are the products of evolution, why should we have any expectations at all?

Why shouldn’t we??

Why are humans the only creatures on the planet who can plan future events based entirely on choices made by analysing data?

Who says that we are?

At what point did the animals swap instinct for cognitive planning?

Who says they did?

Was it then that we ceased to be animals? Can you pinpoint when that happened?

We didn’t cease to be animals.


I still don't know what you mean when you say we only use a fraction of our brain's capacity.

 

[Zen Sensei]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).
Please Jared Jammer, since when did intelligent design becomes science?

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

 

[Zen Sensei]

Please Jarred Jammer, since when did Intelligent Design which is just a new name for Creationism becomes a science? Intelligent Design and Creationism is nothing but a faith based attempt at explaining creation from a religion point of view. Please demonstrate where they science is attributable to creationism or Intelligent Design from if you have the faintest understanding of what science is?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not what you called it, that's Master Splinter.

Like evolutionists, those of us who believe in a Creator could speculate about a lot of things too.....however God does not tell us what transpired before we were residents on this planet...perhaps he will explain one day when we have the capacity to fully understand. We obviously don't at present. Maybe humans are just too puffed up to listen?

How do we not have the current understanding? We have a record of how life has developed on this planet over the eons. We can see things such as humans and pigs have an internal anatomy that is similar enough to have some interchangeable parts (the similarities are "scary," as I heard one Creationist in school put it).

What makes you think they are failures? Perhaps they served a purpose and once that purpose was achieved, they were no longer necessary? We have no idea why God specifically made anything and you have no idea why things evolved, except for adaptation in circumstances where a change of environment precipitated a necessary superficial change.

That's rather cruel that god would do that. If god kills off things because they have served their purpose then god sounds more like a Machiavellian Prince.

If there is no Creator, then there is no purpose to our existence. And no hope for the future apart from the appalling track record of human activity up to this point. Do you trust man to guarantee your future? I certainly don't.

This is a common misconception of many theists. You constantly assume that having no god means no purpose, and you assume that there must be a purpose. And then from there the debate often goes to a deep interpretation of moral relativity, and there are very few hard moral relativists in life; even the moral relativists tend to draw a line.

When we see the capacity of the human brain in certain "gifted" individuals, we can see clearly that there is no reason why all humans should not have these abilities. "Genius" standards in math, science, art, music etc. demonstrate the potential capacity that we should all enjoy. But most of us fall well below these standards.

We have come to learn much of this is genetic. Some people are good communicators, some people are good thinkers. It's the differences though that make life what it is and make it enjoyable.

They both have the same designer and Creator. We are both formed from the same basic materials of which we all bear the evidence in our DNA. You just interpret the evidence differently to us.

You tend to leave out a lot of evidence, your interpretation requires heavy intervention by an external deity, and is apparently summed up "because God didn't tell us we can't know." Remaining ignorant should never be an option or consideration. If someone wont tell you, figure it out.

 

[JayJayDee]

How do we not have the current understanding? We have a record of how life has developed on this planet over the eons.

What you have is speculation about how scientists (who all support the theory of evolution) interpret the evidence.
This is what you all keep ignoring. Of course scientists are going to interpret their evidence to support evolution...why wouldn't they? Their reputations in the scientific community are at stake. Who wants to look like the bunny?

We can see things such as humans and pigs have an internal anatomy that is similar enough to have some interchangeable parts (the similarities are "scary," as I heard one Creationist in school put it).

If all living things have the same designer and maker, using the same perfect materials and anatomical systems that work to sustain life, why wouldnt we see similarities? Humans are part of creation. The only difference with mankind is that they alone reflect the qualities that make them.....like God. They alone have a sense of morality....a conscience that prods them when they do the wrong thing....they have a sense of time, as in a concept of past, present and future.

They have ability to communicate both verbally and by written language. They are "creators" too....with art, music, poetry and theatre. What survival advantage is there in those things?

They can plan for the future by analysing data that they know informs them about how a certain activity may turn out. They can make informed choices and most of us have a healthy fear of danger because of being able to foresee it.

They alone can contemplate their own demise and it doesn't sit well with them. We humans know that living things have a finite existence...animals do not know that they will die eventually. They have an instinctive "fight or flight" response to danger but no idea how their response will turn out. They live in the "now" but humans do not. We project our thoughts into the future and are also aware that the past contributes to who we become.

We do not accept death as a natural part of life, for the simple reason, we are not programmed for death. We are the only creatures who had the prospect of living forever, provided that we kept the law of our Creator. Who of us in good health looks forward to death? We fight it because it is foreign to our psyche. We grieve deeply when we lose a loved one, but it is a rare thing in the animal kingdom for them to genuinely grieve. Animals can experience a sense of loss, but it is simply a difficulty overcoming their own programming. Animals that mate for life or who exist in "family" troops, can experience loss of a family member, but they normally recover very quickly. Humans do not...grief affects people sometimes for the rest of their lives. This is what makes us NOT like apes or any other animal.

That's rather cruel that god would do that. If god kills off things because they have served their purpose then god sounds more like a Machiavellian Prince.

You are entitled to your view.

God is the Creator of life, which gives him the right to terminate it, if and when he sees fit. He doesn't need our permission or sanction.

I don't think it is ever a good policy to bite the hand that feeds you. I have never had a problem with the way God conducts himself. He has reasons for all he does, and he has no need to tell us about every detail of them....including the way he created life.

This is a common misconception of many theists. You constantly assume that having no god means no purpose, and you assume that there must be a purpose. And then from there the debate often goes to a deep interpretation of moral relativity, and there are very few hard moral relativists in life; even the moral relativists tend to draw a line.

Why should it be a misconception? It is human nature to ask "why?" about a lot of things. We have a sense of purpose in everything we do....even the simple act of brushing our teeth serves a purpose......so if we don't put effort into a major project without a purpose, then why would we think it strange that God would put us here without a purpose?

We have come to learn much of this is genetic. Some people are good communicators, some people are good thinkers. It's the differences though that make life what it is and make it enjoyable.

The point I was making was about the "capacity" of the human brain, not the genetics that makes super-intelligence possible in some people. The fact that there are geniuses among us serves to illustrate that we have way more capacity that what most of us normally exhibit. Savants, for example, push that capacity even further. They take "genius" to a whole other level. The possibilities are truly astounding.

You tend to leave out a lot of evidence, your interpretation requires heavy intervention by an external deity, and is apparently summed up "because God didn't tell us we can't know." Remaining ignorant should never be an option or consideration. If someone wont tell you, figure it out.

Well, no offence, but evolution is short on real evidence too. The scientists that examine the "evidence" in the fossil record rely on the "heavy intervention" of blind chance and random mutations that they only assume took place. That is a lot of assumption! Yet you denigrate us for assuming that a superior intelligence was responsible for creating what we see on earth.

Accepting a belief based on the evidence takes for granted that the evidence is indisputable......neither of us has such solid evidence. We each have a belief system, but you deny it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point I was making was about the "capacity" of the human brain, not the genetics that makes super-intelligence possible in some people. The fact that there are geniuses among us serves to illustrate that we have way more capacity that what most of us normally exhibit. Savants, for example, push that capacity even further. They take "genius" to a whole other level. The possibilities are truly astounding.

Savants have damage to the left anterior temporal lobe. It's one of those things that sometimes comes up with Autism. Autism is a neural development abnormality, and despite this, those on the high functioning side, such as those with Asperger's, are often very intelligent. Intelligence itself has to have the genetic potential, and it must be nurtured and brought to fruition by the environment. Einstein, for example, had a thicker corpus callosum and his was shaped differently than most people's. Alot of what who "we" are depends on the shape our of brain structures, and a lot of this is genetic.

Well, no offence, but evolution is short on real evidence too. The scientists that examine the "evidence" in the fossil record rely on the "heavy intervention" of blind chance and random mutations that they only assume took place. That is a lot of assumption! Yet you denigrate us for assuming that a superior intelligence was responsible for creating what we see on earth.

The fossil record is hardly the only thing scientists have uncovered and added to the heaping mountain of evidence that supports evolution.

God is the Creator of life, which gives him the right to terminate it, if and when he sees fit. He doesn't need our permission or sanction.

That is very Machiavellian.

If all living things have the same designer and maker, using the same perfect materials and anatomical systems that work to sustain life, why wouldnt we see similarities? Humans are part of creation. The only difference with mankind is that they alone reflect the qualities that make them.....like God. They alone have a sense of morality....a conscience that prods them when they do the wrong thing....they have a sense of time, as in a concept of past, present and future.

Not everyone has a conscious. And I'm pretty sure other animals have a concept of time, past, present, and probably the future as well.
Where are these "perfect materials?" What are they?

They have ability to communicate both verbally and by written language.

Many animals communicate with each other. It's even proven that humans and dogs can understand each other.

They can plan for the future by analysing data that they know informs them about how a certain activity may turn out.

Many animals have demonstrated that they too can predict how an activity will turn out.

They alone can contemplate their own demise and it doesn't sit well with them.

This is simply unproven. And because some animals, such as elephants, seem to have what we would call "mourning our dead," and because they are even known for visiting their dead, I am not convinced we are the only animal that knows death is coming.

we are not programmed for death.

Yes, we are. Cells wear out, DNA break down, and we die.

We are the only creatures who had the prospect of living forever

Without death there can be no life.

We fight it because it is foreign to our psyche.

You may fight it, but many of us have simply accepted that it is a fact of life.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What you have is speculation about how scientists (who all support the theory of evolution) interpret the evidence.
This is what you all keep ignoring. Of course scientists are going to interpret their evidence to support evolution...why wouldn't they? Their reputations in the scientific community are at stake. Who wants to look like the bunny?

So it's all a big conspiracy theory. That seems totally acceptable...

If all living things have the same designer and maker, using the same perfect materials and anatomical systems that work to sustain life, why wouldnt we see similarities? Humans are part of creation. The only difference with mankind is that they alone reflect the qualities that make them.....like God. They alone have a sense of morality....a conscience that prods them when they do the wrong thing....they have a sense of time, as in a concept of past, present and future.

Curious, isn't it, how God is also so incredibly like us? As if God himself were little more than a larger projection of ourselves...
And no. We humans are not the only creatures with a sense of morality. Some very basic study into animal cognition would make you feel embarrassed for writing such nonsense. All social animals have a moral sense.

They have ability to communicate both verbally and by written language. They are "creators" too....with art, music, poetry and theatre. What survival advantage is there in those things?

The larynx is pretty awesome, but it doesn't mean we are the only communicative beings on the planet. Again, very basic stuff here.
The survival aspect present in the arts comes from the very social construct of happiness, which drives indivdiuals and species towards longevity. Happier animals live longer and healthier lives. There are several bits of data which support this.

They can plan for the future by analysing data that they know informs them about how a certain activity may turn out. They can make informed choices and most of us have a healthy fear of danger because of being able to foresee it.

Yeah, most of the animals on the planet just run headlong into danger like a bunch of idiots. They can't predict future events, or avoid perils, or prepare ahead of time before a rain storm....
Seriously, have you never spent time on a farm or anywhere that animals live?

They alone can contemplate their own demise and it doesn't sit well with them. We humans know that living things have a finite existence...animals do not know that they will die eventually. They have an instinctive "fight or flight" response to danger but no idea how their response will turn out. They live in the "now" but humans do not. We project our thoughts into the future and are also aware that the past contributes to who we become.

Again - you need to do more animal behavior studying. You're really just embarrassing yourself yet you're blissfully content in your ignorance.
I can only assume that you actually believe the things you are writing here, which means the foundation of your inttrapersonal apologetics are quite flawed.

We do not accept death as a natural part of life, for the simple reason, we are not programmed for death. We are the only creatures who had the prospect of living forever, provided that we kept the law of our Creator. Who of us in good health looks forward to death? We fight it because it is foreign to our psyche. We grieve deeply when we lose a loved one, but it is a rare thing in the animal kingdom for them to genuinely grieve. Animals can experience a sense of loss, but it is simply a difficulty overcoming their own programming. Animals that mate for life or who exist in "family" troops, can experience loss of a family member, but they normally recover very quickly. Humans do not...grief affects people sometimes for the rest of their lives. This is what makes us NOT like apes or any other animal.

YOU do not accept death a natural part of life simply because it's scary. You're absolutely programmed to die. You were born as part of a seemingly endless life cycle of the birth and death of living things on this planet which has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. You and I are going to die just like everything else that has ever existed. It's a terrifying concept for a cognizant being to realize that cognition is only temporary. And the creation of beliefs about how to avoid that terrifying reality have been numerous and ongoing apparently since our species became cognizant. Your particular death avoidance fantasy is no more special than any of the others that you reject, and you know this to be true, or you would not continually engage in apologetic defenses for it. You require intrapersonal and external platitudes in order to continually self-validate your belief system. You express a sense of loss and mourning for a loved one in exactly the same way, and part of the brain, as all of the other higher mammals because you are exactly the same as all of the other higher mammals. The same is true for me and everyone other human being on the surface of this planet. Regardless of belief or faith system or lack of faith system. There are just no two ways around it. Death is part of existence and there is nothing outside of wishful delusion to state otherwise.

Accepting a belief based on the evidence takes for granted that the evidence is indisputable......neither of us has such solid evidence. We each have a belief system, but you deny it.

Again, this seems to be the only tactic that you guys have in your attempts to invalidate science, or anything else that you assume to run contradictory to your fantasy. If you can somehow convince people that there is a dispute of some kind among scholars or among the lay people about "interpretations" then you feel as if you've gained an equal footing with science. This is why you guys continually, to the point of absurdity, claim that the issue isn't the data but the interpretation of the data.

Using your own logic, again, if you want to honestly follow that line of reasoning, then you'll admit that even your interpretation of the data is only one of any number of very valid interpretations, right? Christians interpret data one way, which oddly enough is only ever self-affirming. Hindus interpret data one way, which oddly enough is only ever self affirming. Muslims interpret data one way, which oddly enough is only ever self affirming.... You see where this leads. You want to play this game only to a point, stopping of course at your own version of self-affirming interpretations, attributing everything to the God of your mythology. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT SCIENCE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID - BIAS.

Any implications from scientific discoveries about the supernatural are unintended. It is not a belief system. It is nothing more than a system of observing occurrences and collecting data. It is not an emotionally driven method for discrediting supernatural claims or religious presuppositions. If/when that happens, it is merely a byproduct of knowledge about an area to which humanity was previously ignorant and decided to fill that ignorance with deity or hokum. Your pushback against science as some evil entity solely focused on destroying your concept of god is quite frankly laughable. It's obvious that your ignorance of many things which reject or deny is based on your willingness to remain so. Again, I'm only assuming this, but you seem to base the validity of your own faith on whether or not you can somewhat intelligibly discredit entire fields of human knowledge and study... Are you so blinded by your faith that you truly believe that every scientist (except the ones that share the same faith as you of course) are part of some global conspiracy Hell-bent, and with the sole purpose, to discredit your one cultic off-shoot of an off-shoot of an off-shoot of a previous version of Mesopotamian mythology? Is that really your basis of how the human condition and knowledge works?

"It doesn't agree with me, therefore it must be a conspiracy against the very fabric of human history and the will of God. Thank goodness I'm on the right side, though!"

I truly hope not, but I honestly see no other explanation for your continued willful ignorance.

 

[JayJayDee]

To tell you the truth @jonathan180iq, I am rather surprised that my posts are still receiving any attention from the intelligencia....especially from one who feels the need to advertise his IQ.

All I can say is that there must be things said on this thread that stir you guys to repeatedly post a rebuttal. If my posts were nonsense, then I assumed that the thread would have died a natural death by now. But here we are over 630 posts later......and you are still protesting.

I am left to wonder if the common logic presented for an Intelligent Designer must be making you uncomfortable. I see that none of you can answer the simple questions that I have posed thus far. You can provide us with disgruntled words and ruffled feathers but you all know that you have no absolute "proof" of your beliefs about evolution at all. Protesting that educated guessing is science "fact" is dishonest. Can you not just admit that the conclusions of the evolutionary scientists are "assumptions" based on what they "believe" happened.....is it really all that hard?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To tell you the truth @jonathan180iq, I am rather surprised that my posts are still receiving any attention from the intelligencia....especially from one who feels the need to advertise his IQ.

All I can say is that there must be things said on this thread that stir you guys to repeatedly post a rebuttal. If my posts were nonsense, then I assumed that the thread would have died a natural death by now. But here we are over 630 posts later......and you are still protesting.

I am left to wonder if the common logic presented for an Intelligent Designer must be making you uncomfortable. I see that none of you can answer the simple questions that I have posed thus far. You can provide us with disgruntled words and ruffled feathers but you all know that you have no absolute "proof" of your beliefs about evolution at all. Protesting that educated guessing is science "fact" is dishonest. Can you not just admit that the conclusions of the evolutionary scientists are "assumptions" based on what they "believe" happened.....is it really all that hard?

There is a certain challenge to try and help someone who accepts 1+1 = 2 but does not accept 2+2= 4. Its a morbid curiosity several people have. Me included. It has nothing to do with the validity of the opinion that 2+2=5.

 

[philbo]

All I can say is that there must be things said on this thread that stir you guys to repeatedly post a rebuttal. If my posts were nonsense, then I assumed that the thread would have died a natural death by now. But here we are over 630 posts later......and you are still protesting.

That's a new one on me, an argumentative fallacy that "if people continue to rebut drivel, therefore it's not drivel"

You obviously don't know much about arguing on the internet

I am left to wonder if the common logic presented for an Intelligent Designer must be making you uncomfortable. I see that none of you can answer the simple questions that I have posed thus far. You can provide us with disgruntled words and ruffled feathers but you all know that you have no absolute "proof" of your beliefs about evolution at all. Protesting that educated guessing is science "fact" is dishonest. Can you not just admit that the conclusions of the evolutionary scientists are "assumptions" based on what they "believe" happened.....is it really all that hard?

In other words, you haven't actually read and understood many of the replies to you. I am surprised people are still replying (yeah, including myself) as you show a blinkered desire to ignore almost everything that doesn't fit, and you keep on with the strawmen. You obviously think we believe something someone else who doesn't understand has told you we believe, and no amount of explaining exactly what we believe can change your preconception of what we believe.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

To tell you the truth @jonathan180iq, I am rather surprised that my posts are still receiving any attention from the intelligencia....especially from one who feels the need to advertise his IQ.

All I can say is that there must be things said on this thread that stir you guys to repeatedly post a rebuttal. If my posts were nonsense, then I assumed that the thread would have died a natural death by now. But here we are over 630 posts later......and you are still protesting.

I am left to wonder if the common logic presented for an Intelligent Designer must be making you uncomfortable. I see that none of you can answer the simple questions that I have posed thus far. You can provide us with disgruntled words and ruffled feathers but you all know that you have no absolute "proof" of your beliefs about evolution at all. Protesting that educated guessing is science "fact" is dishonest. Can you not just admit that the conclusions of the evolutionary scientists are "assumptions" based on what they "believe" happened.....is it really all that hard?

I'm a little disappointed that you would write this. Quite a few people on this thread have taken time and effort to interact with you. Even if the results are disharmonious with your position, I would not be so disdainful of that.

You should be happy that you have a forum like this to express your ideas, and that there are others willing to challenege them.

 

[jonathan180iq]

To tell you the truth @jonathan180iq, I am rather surprised that my posts are still receiving any attention from the intelligencia....especially from one who feels the need to advertise his IQ.

That's cute.
If you'd like to actually know why my forum handle is what it is, and what it means, you're free to ask me.

All I can say is that there must be things said on this thread that stir you guys to repeatedly post a rebuttal. If my posts were nonsense, then I assumed that the thread would have died a natural death by now. But here we are over 630 posts later......and you are still protesting.

Don't feel too special - the guy who thinks the Garden of Eden was a sphereical world that sank into the depth of Lake Van has thousands of responses spanning hundreds of pages and it continues to grow.

It's simple really. You're a human being. Your behaviors and thoughts, regardless of how different they might seem from my own, are developed and processed in a an incredibly similar way to mine. The fact that you can continually create hurdles for any mental challenge in order to maintain a preconceived faith system, I find fascinating. It's often disturbing, but fascinating nonetheless. I'm also an educator, and when I recognize more primitive thought processes deflecting logic and reason, or causing people to create flaws within their own rationality, I tend to chime in. Case in point would be your apparent explanation of how you think Micro-evolution works and then refusal to follow that process to it's end result, as has been pointed out to you several times. All you ever say is "well, no one has addressed my questions so obviously I'm right..." We did address your questions by asking you follow them to their logical conclusions. You seem to approach Evolutionary science as some harbinger of terrible information, and you fill your rhetoric with contemptible disdain for it, yet you accept the premise and foundation of it...

You simply don't know enough about the rest of Evolutionary biology to rationally address it. You get stuck on the emotional affection for your religious beliefs and you see any expansion on learning more in the scientific arena as a threat to that. You even basically admit this by your constant "refuting" of science, making claims of it all being based on assumption, as if we don't already know what is assumption and what is actual science. Your admitted source material is the Watchtower, right? As I've said before, does a science textbook make me an expert on JWs? You're simply ignorant of science. And that's not a bad thing on it's own. I'm ignorant of many topics. But where I am ignorant, I don't pretend to be a expert. If I did, wouldn't you call me on it? If I pretended to know everything about JWs after reading an anti-JW blog, and I came into your church and started making false accusations, wouldn't you say something about my bogus claims? Wouldn't you maybe hint that I needed to do some more research because I was kind of making myself look like an idiot?

Look, honestly, your faith means little or nothing to me. I think people are free to maintain whatever kind of crazy beliefs that they want. If you wanted to worship the Purple Clown Monkey from Venus, I wouldn't care. (I think that would actually be pretty awesome.) If you did that, I would submit to your knowledge of the PCM from V over my own. I wouldn't lecture you on Venus, or Clown Monkeys, or the color Purple. When you make scientific claims, and feign knowledge about evolutionary biology and other such matters, and attempt to teach a certain theology using your bogus claims, you're being intellectually and personally dishonest, even if you don't realize it.

Also, you at least need to learn to be consistent in your own application of logic, lest you keep making foolish statements about areas that you know nothing about. And you at least need to practice a little more intellectual honesty. The above examples I've given you, if you'd just read them as a personal note and not as an attack, you'd understand that. When you make claims about animal cognition and morality, and you know very little about the subjects, you're making false arguments and you're embarrassing yourself. When you make claims implying that science is involved in some sort of conspiracy to undermine the foundation of theology and religious teachings, you're making yourself look foolish. If you knew even a couple of actual scientists, you'd quickly understand why we tell you otherwise. There are actual scientists on this forum who can speak for themselves, but generally just ignore stuff like your posts because they see no reason in addressing the ravings of ignorance. As I've mentioned, I'm an educator, and seeing people screaming very opinionated things that are absolutely incorrect makes my brain hurt.

I am left to wonder if the common logic presented for an Intelligent Designer must be making you uncomfortable. I see that none of you can answer the simple questions that I have posed thus far. You can provide us with disgruntled words and ruffled feathers but you all know that you have no absolute "proof" of your beliefs about evolution at all. Protesting that educated guessing is science "fact" is dishonest. Can you not just admit that the conclusions of the evolutionary scientists are "assumptions" based on what they "believe" happened.....is it really all that hard?

First of all, anyone with any credibility in this thread has told you numerous times that there are some assumptions made in science. That's absolutely true and no one is denying that. Assumptions in science, however, aren't maintained if they are discredited, they are simply thrown out with the bath water. That's what separates science from theology - science can easily jettison failed ideas, whereas theology maintains failed ideas either forever or takes way too long to finally let them go.

On the whole ID thing, I promise to you on anything that you need me to promise upon that if Intelligent Design had some actual science behind it that it would be taught as a viable option in science classrooms all over the nation, and probably the world. ID simply does not have the backing because it does not have the science. It is an interpretive philosophy and very little else. Would you want us teaching the Vedic Creation story as science? Hindu philosophers can make as many valid apologetic arguments that they want to about how the Vedas are factually accurate if you just interpret the data the right way...but would you want the Vedic interpretation of data taught as science? Why not? Because it's philosophy and not science, right? Apply that same level of discern to your faith system and you'll understand why ID is similarly expelled from scientific teaching.

Again, please spend a couple of hours on Google Scholar one weekend reading about basic evolutionary biology. Set aside your presuppositions about Creators and deities and conspiracy theories and try to actually read what is written in the articles and studies, and you will start to see and feel differently than you currently do. You'll also start to see that science makes no claims about god or the supernatural... None at all. They simply don't care what implications their discoveries make. They are more focused on accuracy and accountability than anything else. They even critique themselves in their studies and explain how and why their studies need to be reevaluated and tested again and again to ensure accuracy.

Keep your faith, but educate yourself.

 

[philbo]

If you'd like to actually know why my forum handle is what it is, and what it means, you're free to ask me.

Can I guess?

Your name's jonathan, you're good at darts and you spend a lot of time waiting in lines?