If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory...

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does a two headed animal arouse your curiosity? Does it strike you as inherently wrong? And so did they help us understand the importance of maintaining a healthy body and habitat when having our own children? some insight into the formation of new lives?

easy one this time!

Now, I'm afraid I have to call this comment "rubbish" (with all due respect -- it's just a word I like).

All the exercise, nutritious eating, hand-washing and tooth-brushing you can think of will not prevent a child being born with spina bifida, or two children conjoined so tightly at the head/brain that they can never be separated and therefore never stand up. I could post a thousand and more images that would tear the heart right out of you, but what would that prove (except my own heartlessness)?

What "insight" are you claiming?

 

[Jose Fly]

nothing about this suggests the millions of significant design improvements are blundered upon by accident.

When it comes to life on earth, every single trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms. Conversely, not one thing has been observed to come about via supernatural "design".

So even at the most basic level of consistency with observations, evolutionary theory is far superior.

Intelligent design leaves a practically identical record re. these observations.

It does? Why? Why would a "designer" make things appear as if they're the product of billions of years of evolution, when they really weren't?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When it comes to life on earth, every single trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms. Conversely, not one thing has been observed to come about via supernatural "design".

So even at the most basic level of consistency with observations, evolutionary theory is far superior.

That's one speculation, but we cannot observe, measure, repeat an experiment where a single cell morphs into a human, by relying purely on 'evolutionary mechanisms' (random accidents) to make significant design improvements

We can observe, measure, repeat practically identical fingerprints of design being left by intelligent design though.

It does? Why? Why would a "designer" make things appear as if they're the product of billions of years of evolution, when they really weren't?

Belief in Darwinism is about 19% in the US according to Gallup, so apparently, for most of us, he didn't!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes. Both the jellyfish and I prefer the world we evolved to inhabit -- even though, as you say, it is the same one. And we both prefer it for the very simple reason that we are both different creatures.

The jellyfish is neither happy nor sad, fearful nor hopeful, because it is does do cognition. I do. You do. I recognize my world -- and yes I prefer it, probably because I can't have any other -- but I know it for what it is, too. I could be diagnosed with prostate cancer tomorrow, or my lover could be hit by a bus. You children could be taken and raped by Boko Haram, or a particularly virulent flu strain could easily take out 50 million people world-wide. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Good people will suffer unimaginably, and really, really bad people will die, contentedly rich, beside their young mistress in their own bed. Donald Trump, Kim Jong-In or one of those looney Ayatollah's in Iran (or India and Pakistan) could start a nuclear war that would kill millions and devastate our planet for centuries.

If you put all of this under the control of a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient "creator," then I'm afraid I have to tell you that I think you are afflicted with some really, really severe cognitive dissonance. If I call it all "natural," because my observation says "this is the way it's always been, because we evolved in a world in which every creature competes for limited resources," I think that I am probably on firmer ground.

I may be wrong -- but I don't think so.

I take your point, but again- would you trade all this fear for the oblivion of a Jellyfish? because you can, and some people unfortunately do. But most of us, by the fact that we are still here, prove that we prefer to take the good with the bad,

True, none of us are getting out of here alive, and it's probably not going to be very pleasant, but would you give up every moment of joy, love, inspiration, adventure that you've ever had in your life- including erasing all memory of ever knowing your lover, to avoid it?


Good and bad literally define each other just as left and right, and that's what gives our lives the meaning we value. As another member here said, it's not that s**t happens, it's that s**t matters

 

[Guy Threepwood]

. Meteors and earthquakes play no role in supporting anything

You and I would not be here without them

Or do you think these would have made good pets?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I take your point, but again- would you trade all this fear for the oblivion of a Jellyfish? because you can, and some people unfortunately do. But most of us, by the fact that we are still here, prove that we prefer to take the good with the bad,

True, none of us are getting out of here alive, and it's probably not going to be very pleasant, but would you give up every moment of joy, love, inspiration, adventure that you've ever had in your life- including erasing all memory of ever knowing your lover, to avoid it?


Good and bad literally define each other just as left and right, and that's what gives our lives the meaning we value. As another member here said, it's not that s**t happens, it's that s**t matters

But you see, when I consider everything that you say here, it points, in my mind and based upon the science that I know, to point irrevocably to undirected evolution by natural selection. That is far and away the easiest and most direct way to understand what we know of the world. It takes a great deal more fiddling to try and reconcile all that with a creator -- benevolent or otherwise. In this case, Mr. Occam win's, for me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You and I would not be here without them

Or do you think these would have made good pets?

I do not think you can be serious in suggesting that the purpose of meteors was to rid the planet of dinosaurs so that mammals could run the show for a while. Once again, infinitely easier not to create them in the first place!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But you see, when I consider everything that you say here, it points, in my mind and based upon the science that I know, to point irrevocably to undirected evolution by natural selection. That is far and away the easiest and most direct way to understand what we know of the world. It takes a great deal more fiddling to try and reconcile all that with a creator -- benevolent or otherwise. In this case, Mr. Occam win's, for me.

well yes I am drifting off topic here!

& I agree with you, evolution is the easiest, most direct way to explain the observation, it's an entirely intuitive, elegant, comprehensive theory which has the blessing of Mr Occam.

Therein lies the problem, the exact same could, and was, said for classical physics. Which was far more directly observable, testable than evolution, but was simply too simple to account for reality beyond superficial observation.

It took a great deal more fiddling to try to reconcile physical reality with underlying guiding instructions specifying pre-determined outcomes once considered undirected

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do not think you can be serious in suggesting that the purpose of meteors was to rid the planet of dinosaurs so that mammals could run the show for a while. Once again, infinitely easier not to create them in the first place!

Among other things- like

"Thanks to regular and heavy comet and meteorite bombardment of Earth’s surface during its formative years 4 billion years ago, the large craters left behind not only contained water and the basic chemical building blocks for life, but also became the perfect crucible to concentrate and cook these chemicals to create the first simple organisms. - See more at: Scientist Suggests Comet and Meteorite Impacts Made Life on Earth Possible - Astrobiology Magazine"

infinitely easier without dinosaurs? Hey do you want this job done quick or done right!?

Remember that before being surgically removed by a meteor, just right to leave everything else in place, dinosaurs dominated Earth for 100s of millions of years, during which time millions of years of energy was absorbed from the sun and CO2 and stored in vast reservoirs of extroardinarily convenient fuel.

Without which we would also not be having this conversation, an advanced technological civilization, or be exploring and learning about the rest of the universe.


Yet one more bizarre lucky coincidence? Not impossible of course, but when a die keeps rolling a 6, you eventually suspect that it's loaded.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's one speculation

Um, no it's not speculation, it's observed reality.

but we cannot observe, measure, repeat an experiment where a single cell morphs into a human

No we can't. But since that's a ridiculous straw man of evolutionary theory, it's irrelevant.

We can observe, measure, repeat practically identical fingerprints of design being left by intelligent design though.

Empty assertion. Cite a paper where scientists have developed and utilized a method for identifying "design".

Belief in Darwinism is about 19% in the US according to Gallup, so apparently, for most of us, he didn't!

Well now you're negating your own argument. You claimed "Intelligent design leaves a practically identical record" as evolution, but now you're saying the record doesn't show evolution, which means given your assertion, it doesn't show "design" either (since, according to you, their record would be identical).

Didn't think that through, did you?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Um, no it's not speculation, it's observed reality.


No we can't. [observe a single cell morphing into a human by evolutionary mechanisms]

so which is it going to be Jose?

Empty assertion. Cite a paper where scientists have developed and utilized a method for identifying "design".

well we dig down through history, we find stratified layers, consisting of various 'designs' sharing certain traits, some appear to branch off into their own classifications, with some apparent gaps in the record, a few dead ends, some regressions, but a general progression towards more complexity and often larger size.

Well now you're negating your own argument. You claimed "Intelligent design leaves a practically identical record" as evolution, but now you're saying the record doesn't show evolution, which means given your assertion, it doesn't show "design" either (since, according to you, their record would be identical).

Didn't think that through, did you?

right, they both leave the same record, which most people don't believe to show Darwinian evolution, in either case. But rather ID... in both cases...
y'see?

'Let him without aim cast the first stone!'

 

[Jose Fly]

so which is it going to be Jose?

What are you talking about?

well we dig down through history, we find stratified layers, consisting of various 'designs' sharing certain traits, some appear to branch off into their own classifications, with some apparent gaps in the record, a few dead ends, some regressions, but a general progression towards more complexity and often larger size.

Is that it? Your method of determining that something is "designed" is to dig it up and declare it to be "designed"?

right, they both leave the same record, which most people don't believe to show Darwinian evolution, in either case. But rather ID... in both cases...
y'see?

'Let him without aim cast the first stone!'

No, you're not making the slightest bit of sense. All you've done is refute your own argument.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What are you talking about?

Simple question

Is a single cell, becoming a human through Darwinian evolution, observed reality or speculation?

Is that it? Your method of determining that something is "designed" is to dig it up and declare it to be "designed"?

we dig down through history, we find stratified layers, consisting of various 'designs' sharing certain traits, some appear to branch off into their own classifications, with some apparent gaps in the record, a few dead ends, some regressions, but a general progression towards more complexity and often larger size.

Well you tell me Jose, what does this all suggest to you?

 

[Jose Fly]

Is a single cell, becoming a human through Darwinian evolution, observed reality or speculation?

It's what I said before....a straw man of evolutionary theory.

Well you tell me Jose, what does this all suggest to you?

It says you just take what is observed and, without empirical justification, impose your belief in "design" onto it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's what I said before....a straw man of evolutionary theory.

Observed reality or speculation? no dodging remember!

It says you just take what is observed and, without empirical justification, impose your belief in "design" onto it.

You think I am mistaken to do so? Then what is your interpretation of those observations? it's okay to disagree, that's what we're here for!

 

[Jose Fly]

Observed reality or speculation? no dodging remember!

You may limit yourself to a false dilemma, but I am under no such restriction. It's a straw man. Evolutionary theory does not posit that a single cell became a human. If you're going to argue otherwise, then cite a scientific source that describes the theory that way.

You think I am mistaken to do so?

I think that you've offered no evidence to support it, so I am justified in dismissing it. That, plus what I know about ID creationism, its history, advocates, and arguments only makes me more confident.

Then what is your interpretation of those observations?

That those patterns in the data are the result of the exact same biological processes we see operating today...processes that we have studied and evaluated for centuries.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You may limit yourself to a false dilemma, but I am under no such restriction. It's a straw man. Evolutionary theory does not posit that a single cell became a human. If you're going to argue otherwise, then cite a scientific source that describes the theory that way.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

that took about 5 secs..

I think that you've offered no evidence to support it, so I am justified in dismissing it. That, plus what I know about ID creationism, its history, advocates, and arguments only makes me more confident.



That those patterns in the data are the result of the exact same biological processes we see operating today...processes that we have studied and evaluated for centuries.

That's interesting, because I was talking about an old auto junkyard

"we dig down through history, we find stratified layers, consisting of various 'designs' sharing certain traits, some appear to branch off into their own classifications, with some apparent gaps in the record, a few dead ends, some regressions, but a general progression towards more complexity and often larger size."


So other than these patterns which you thought somehow suggested unguided natural mechanisms, was there anything else you found super convincing about the ToE?

 

[Jose Fly]

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

that took about 5 secs..

Right. That's a description of universal common ancestry, where that single celled organism gave rise to other populations of single celled organisms, which gave rise to other populations of single celled organisms......

That's not "a single cell becoming a human", as you depicted it.

That's interesting, because I was talking about an old auto junkyard

"we dig down through history, we find stratified layers, consisting of various 'designs' sharing certain traits, some appear to branch off into their own classifications, with some apparent gaps in the record, a few dead ends, some regressions, but a general progression towards more complexity and often larger size."

Good for you. I would certainly agree that when you dig up old cars, it's reasonable to conclude that the same processes and mechanisms that produce cars today likely produced the ones you dug up.

So other than these patterns which you thought somehow suggested unguided natural mechanisms, was there anything else you found super convincing about the ToE?

Wait....are you saying you actually thought you could take processes and mechanisms that produce old cars in a junkyard, and conclude that those same processes produced biological organisms?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Right. That's a description of universal common ancestry, where that single celled organism gave rise to other populations of single celled organisms, which gave rise to other populations of single celled organisms......

That's not "a single cell becoming a human", as you depicted it.

that's what I was referring to. According to ToE, the design for the cell has to become the design for a human, by relying on lucky accidents, random mutations, millions of them to achieve countless significant design improvements.

Good for you. I would certainly agree that when you dig up old cars, it's reasonable to conclude that the same processes and mechanisms that produce cars today likely produced the ones you dug up.

Wait....are you saying you actually thought you could take processes and mechanisms that produce old cars in a junkyard, and conclude that those same processes produced biological organisms?

I'm saying that those patterns in the record, fit both cars and the fossil record equally well, I think we agree?

We know for sure, that in the case of the automobiles, the patterns were the result of ID. right? I don't think you will find anyone to disagree with us because it is self evident, unambiguous, observed reality you might say. No 'scientific studies' required

For life, we are not so sure, my Granddad didn't have the picture of him riding his first model T-Rex in his wallet. Exactly how the design changes came about is a more interesting question


So if anything, the patterns point to design changes driven by creative intelligence rather than chance. But to be generous I think it's a wash, they don't really tell us anything in and of themselves.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

well yes I am drifting off topic here!

& I agree with you, evolution is the easiest, most direct way to explain the observation, it's an entirely intuitive, elegant, comprehensive theory which has the blessing of Mr Occam.

Therein lies the problem, the exact same could, and was, said for classical physics. Which was far more directly observable, testable than evolution, but was simply too simple to account for reality beyond superficial observation.

It took a great deal more fiddling to try to reconcile physical reality with underlying guiding instructions specifying pre-determined outcomes once considered undirected

I'm not sure that you would find many physicists who would agree with your characterization of "guiding instructions."

On the subject evolution overall, however, I'd like to say this: what disturbs me the most in this sort of thread is the number of people who argue that the brightest minds in a century and a half of hard work in the sciences must all have it wrong because the evolution deniers, while having no real science training of their own, are presumably much smarter and wiser. It would be intemperate of me to say how that actually makes them look to the thoughtful reader.

But then, we know that the human being is capable of a very great deal of self-delusion, especially when motivated, and there's little more motivating that strong religious belief, except possibly fear.