Intelligent Design is a Fact- Evolution is a Theory!

[McBell]

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

*yawns*

this quote mine again...?
This nonsense has already been beaten to death on this forum.

 

[David1967]

Thanks!

I do have a general hypothesis and I am building up to that with these discussions. First I have to get people over their phobia of Intelligent Design so they can see things objectively.

You'll find that I am a pretty open minded individual. I'm interested in your hypothesis. Agree or disagree. I welcome your views and look forward to discussion.

 

[George-ananda]

Primarily in that by stepping outside of your actual data set you are making assumptions that are based on, or in accordance with, reason or logic.

What is my 'actual data set'? I consider all of the human experience (not just those things that fit current scientific models).

It requires a leap (without looking) of faith.

I do not believe in making leaps of faith. I do believe in following the most reasonable theory that explains the full body of evidence (i.e. in the case of western materialism versus eastern wisdom traditions.)

 

[Sapiens]

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Here is what DW posted back two days ago:

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Here's it is in context:

DAWIKINS Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

The bolded section that was not quoted shows that Dawkins, while acknowledging the rather remote possibility found the suggestion rather unlikely.

The sin of quote mining was carefully explained to DW and he was shown how it was a pernicious form lying ... yet here it is, two days later, and he is, unrepentant, committing exactly the same offence again.

 

[Dante Writer]

Here is what DW posted back two days ago:

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Here's it is in context:

DAWIKINS Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

The bolded section that was not quoted shows that Dawkins, while acknowledging the rather remote possibility found the suggestion rather unlikely.

The sin of quote mining was carefully explained to DW and he was shown how it was a pernicious form lying ... yet here it is, two days later, and he is, unrepentant, committing exactly the same offence again.

Here we see an example of how Sapiens takes a quote and tries to manipulate it to his own agenda by claiming if you added more of the statement Dawkin's reversed himself which obviously he did not.

Pay attention Sapiens:

Dawkin's said "Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility."

No stutter in that statement. He clearly said it was a possibility.

Dawkin's said ". But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."

No where does he contradict or walk back that he said Intelligent design was a possibility only that he still believed that intelligent design still used some mechanism of evolution or some unknown mechanism that was not spontaneous existence.

Now we see the lie that Sapiens tells:

Sapiens said "found the suggestion rather unlikely."

Nowhere did Dawkin's say it was unlikely and just added that it was not spontaneous.

Which get's us to the question in my other discussion about life from spontaneous inorganic materials.

What have we learned here: Sapiens tried to put word's in Dawkin's mouth he never said for his own ignorant agenda!


Shame on you Sapiens- shame!

 

[Acim]

We have been designing organism for a long time through cross breeding and inbreeding species like dogs, horses, cats and any domesticated animals. It is is intelligent design not natural selection and is intended to produce an organism with specific traits.

We can now clone animals with no natural selection involved in the process to create a living organism.

I see it as both since humans are nature/natural. Our selection process in cross breeding practices would be nature at work, that by our own (inflated) connotations about science/scientific method are (plausibly) guided by intelligence. I'm pretty sure this is not though what people mean by the concept of "natural selection." Though I think it does relate.

We create genetically modified animals and plants in labs all the time and that food you eat today is probably a result of intelligent design that happened in a lab.

Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design does not require a God or even a genius and has nothing to do with magic or super natural powers.

Intelligent design is the application of science to create living organism or modify genes and DNA to produce changes in organisms.

Intelligent Design is a Fact!

Now that we have established that ID is a fact we can start looking at how that may be the mechanism that started life on this planet.

Personally, I have no faith in spontaneous generation or abiogenesis that says life can form from inorganic materials and without that faith the Theories of Evolution fall apart.

Who is the "we" that has established ID as fact, in the way you are using the term? Can't we just establish ID (in the way you are using it) as an idea that also allows us to explore how it may be the mechanism that started life on the planet? I ask, because I'm writing this post in a sub-forum called Evolution and Creationism that by title alone has arguably nothing to do with ID. I think it does. You think it does. I reckon a majority of 'us' do not.

 

[Dante Writer]

*yawns*

this quote mine again...?
This nonsense has already been beaten to death on this forum.

You and Sapiens should join a club. Call it the we hate Dawkin's club. For all the people that can't accept reality.

 

[Dante Writer]

I see it as both since humans are nature/natural. Our selection process in cross breeding practices would be nature at work, that by our own (inflated) connotations about science/scientific method are (plausibly) guided by intelligence. I'm pretty sure this is not though what people mean by the concept of "natural selection." Though I think it does relate.



Who is the "we" that has established ID as fact, in the way you are using the term? Can't we just establish ID (in the way you are using it) as an idea that also allows us to explore how it may be the mechanism that started life on the planet? I ask, because I'm writing this post in a sub-forum called Evolution and Creationism that by title alone has arguably nothing to do with ID. I think it does. You think it does. I reckon a majority of 'us' do not.

in·tel·li·gent de·sign

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

cre·a·tion·ism

1. e belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

 

[Acim]

in·tel·li·gent de·sign

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

cre·a·tion·ism

1. e belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Yep, my dictionary has says (almost) the same thing.

 

[Quetzal]

It is no real cheese, rather is is a petroleum product.

Delicious!

 

[sayak83]

Thought that might get your attention so before you rush to post your arguments read:

We have been designing organism for a long time through cross breeding and inbreeding species like dogs, horses, cats and any domesticated animals. It is is intelligent design not natural selection and is intended to produce an organism with specific traits.

We can now clone animals with no natural selection involved in the process to create a living organism.

We create genetically modified animals and plants in labs all the time and that food you eat today is probably a result of intelligent design that happened in a lab.

Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design does not require a God or even a genius and has nothing to do with magic or super natural powers.

Intelligent design is the application of science to create living organism or modify genes and DNA to produce changes in organisms.

Intelligent Design is a Fact!

Now that we have established that ID is a fact we can start looking at how that may be the mechanism that started life on this planet.

Personally, I have no faith in spontaneous generation or abiogenesis that says life can form from inorganic materials and without that faith the Theories of Evolution fall apart.

ADDED: we have a few trolls that do not want us to discuss Intelligent Design so they tried to hijack the discussion. Just ignore them please.

Could you explain why evolution depends on abiogenesis being true? An intelligent entity (alien, being from another dimension) could have introduced a simple cellular life form in the oceans of this ancient earth which then evolved and diversified to form the life forms we see today. There is no evidence of this, and I consider abiogenesis far more likely, but I do not see how evolutionary theory stands or falls based on abiogenesis. That is like saying that the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, that explains galaxy and star formation through gravitational clumping, stands or falls depending on whether the universe was created or emerged from a multiverse.

 

[Sapiens]

Yup ... sounds to me like Dawkins was modifying his initial comment with the view that while it was "possible" the fact it "would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point." Invokes the recursivity issue and yes, that makes, "the suggestion rather unlikely."

If you don't mind waiting a few weeks, I'd be glad to inquire as to which of our interpretations matches his intended opinion and which is a base canard.

 

[metis]

I started another discussion for that question:

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...om-and-why-do-they-exist-at-all.186219/unread

I know as I've already posted there, but thanks for the heads-up anyway.

 

[metis]

When pushed into a corner, Dawkins does and has admitted that a creator-god(s) is possible-- but highly unlikely, iho.

 

[Dante Writer]

When pushed into a corner, Dawkins does and has admitted that a creator-god(s) is possible-- but highly unlikely, iho.

I don't think he was admitting a God or Deity at all.

Again- Intelligent Design is not creationism.

See those sheep in my avatar? All genetically engineered by man.

It is a fact and the reason scientists like Dawkin's don't like being pushed into a corner to defend that fact is because creationists will claim he is prpmoting their belief and the Universities that rely on grant funding for science would lose that funding if they are linked to a religious belief.

So they call it something else like genetic engineering but it is still the same thing and ID is science using existing science mechanisms.

 

[Dante Writer]

Yep, my dictionary has says (almost) the same thing.

No mention of a bible, Deity or God and the designer could be alien or human just like us or some unknown entity.

 

[Dante Writer]

Could you explain why evolution depends on abiogenesis being true? An intelligent entity (alien, being from another dimension) could have introduced a simple cellular life form in the oceans of this ancient earth which then evolved and diversified to form the life forms we see today. There is no evidence of this, and I consider abiogenesis far more likely, but I do not see how evolutionary theory stands or falls based on abiogenesis. That is like saying that the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, that explains galaxy and star formation through gravitational clumping, stands or falls depending on whether the universe was created or emerged from a multiverse.

If the first life was intelligently designed it could be front loaded to evolve only in certain ways which explains why we don't find many links in the fossil records.

It could mean evolution is not random mutations but a designed process and that throws all evolution theories except front loaded on their ***.

 

[Dante Writer]

Yup ... sounds to me like Dawkins was modifying his initial comment with the view that while it was "possible" the fact it "would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point." Invokes the recursivity issue and yes, that makes, "the suggestion rather unlikely."

If you don't mind waiting a few weeks, I'd be glad to inquire as to which of our interpretations matches his intended opinion and which is a base canard.

Another example of how Sapiens can not accept reality and must find some way to justify his agenda.

Dawkin's statement is right there for all to read and clearly says Intelligent Design is a possibility and those sheep in my avatar are all proof we do it all the time through genetic engineering.

If you can't accept that it is your problem not mine!

 

[metis]

I don't think he was admitting a God or Deity at all.

Again- Intelligent Design is not creationism.

See those sheep in my avatar? All genetically engineered by man.

It is a fact and the reason scientists like Dawkin's don't like being pushed into a corner to defend that fact is because creationists will claim he is prpmoting their belief and the Universities that rely on grant funding for science would lose that funding if they are linked to a religious belief.

So they call it something else like genetic engineering but it is still the same thing and ID is science using existing science mechanisms.

Sorry but Dawkins has admitted there could be a deity, and he not only mentions it in one of his books that I have read but he also said as such on Bill Maher's "Real Time" program. Dawkins is far smarter than you seem to realize, and he hedges his bets-- albeit reluctantly.

You're spouting nonsense as facts, so you have undercut any credibility that you may claim to have. You might check this, which took me just one minute to find: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...awkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

 

[Sapiens]

I don't think he was admitting a God or Deity at all.

Again- Intelligent Design is not creationism.

See those sheep in my avatar? All genetically engineered by man.

It is a fact and the reason scientists like Dawkin's don't like being pushed into a corner to defend that fact is because creationists will claim he is prpmoting their belief and the Universities that rely on grant funding for science would lose that funding if they are linked to a religious belief.

So they call it something else like genetic engineering but it is still the same thing and ID is science using existing science mechanisms.

Engineered, hardly. Manipulated ... sure. Engineered has the implication of the entire organism being. Sheep have been cloned and made to glow in the dark by splicing in a jellyfish gene, but that's it. It's sort of like changing the tires on you car and announcing that you "engineered" it.