Intelligent Design seems somewhat overstated...

[Deeje]

I mean to say, even if I think someone was guiding evolution, I'm going with 'Not completely random' or 'somewhat guided'.

'Intelligent Design' seems to completely fly in the face of the available evidence.

I have to ask..."whose evidence"......"who interpreted that evidence?" "Did they have an agenda in guiding that interpretation?"

Is science really deserving of its place on the pedestal where most people have put it? How much of what science puts forward as fact (in relation to macro-evolution particularly) is actually provable? As far as I can see, only a small portion of what science offers is based on observable fact. The rest must be taken on trust. Is science really that trustworthy? No doubt some of it is, but certainly not all, according to what I have read.

The world of academia is driven by forces that drive everything else in this world. Greed for financial gain, (lucrative grants) accolades from a relatively closed community, (inflated egos) power that comes with positions of authority in that world, and in influencing those outside of it, (can result in corruption and fraud)

Egos are dangerous things let loose in that environment IMO.

 

[blü 2]

'Intelligent Design' seems to completely fly in the face of the available evidence.

And the Great Unanswered Question for Intelligent Design's proponents is, how did the Intelligent Designer evolve?

Because if the biological world can't be as it is without a push here and there from the Intelligent Designer, then doesn't it follow that the Intelligent Designer can't be as he/she/it/they/other is without a push here and there from an earlier Intelligent Designer Designer?

Who can't be as he/she/it/they/other is without an earlier Intelligent Designer Designer Designer?

And so on backwards to the Big Bang?

 

[Bear Wild]

I mean to say, even if I think someone was guiding evolution, I'm going with 'Not completely random' or 'somewhat guided'.

'Intelligent Design' seems to completely fly in the face of the available evidence.

After having had discussion at length on this topic it seems to be more of two different views of the world. There is the world as it is and the world as one would like to believe. This division creates a confusion in discussion. When evaluating evolution it is expected to show evidence to support claims and build on increasing evidence but always to question if those conclusions are correct. When it comes to intelligent design it is assumed there is no evidence to show there is an intelligent designer only belief and that is sufficient. I have begun to feel that those believing in ID are using the human centric view that what humans do is what the natural world does. We design things and create ever more complex technology thus people apply this anthropomorphic view to the natural world despite it is incorrect and of limited vision of our world.
Ironically what we call intelligence is the product of the natural world and natural selection. It is difficult at first to see beyond our human centered world but when done it becomes clear how amazing the creative force of nature is and how it explains everything without the need for a imaginary designer in the image of humans. The very flaw of intelligent design is that it lies outside of evidence and requires a designer to interact with the natural world without revealing the designers interaction with the world.
Accepting the natural world as the creator of life is hard for those who want to feel they are special and humans are the ultimate goal and thus "created in image of god". Yet those who see the natural world for what it is in all of its beauty are more connected to the world without the need to feel above and separate from it.
So the argument comes down to collective evidence vs this is what I want to believe.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have to ask..."whose evidence"......"who interpreted that evidence?" "Did they have an agenda in guiding that interpretation?"

Is science really deserving of its place on the pedestal where most people have put it? How much of what science puts forward as fact (in relation to macro-evolution particularly) is actually provable? As far as I can see, only a small portion of what science offers is based on observable fact. The rest must be taken on trust. Is science really that trustworthy? No doubt some of it is, but certainly not all, according to what I have read.

The world of academia is driven by forces that drive everything else in this world. Greed for financial gain, (lucrative grants) accolades from a relatively closed community, (inflated egos) power that comes with positions of authority in that world, and in influencing those outside of it, (can result in corruption and fraud)

Egos are dangerous things let loose in that environment IMO.

Yes egos get in the way especially when the dogma of some religious believe refuses to accept the evidence of objective study and come up with ridiculous accusations about the world of academia. Yes in every profession there are those with egos but in science egos not supported with accurate evidence fall as knowledge grows.
Now if you want to talk about greed I know several religious preachers who have become rich on selling religion to those wanting to believe. I will not forget when Joel Osteen of Houston Texas would not open his church doors for the flood victim because he did know want to have his church to become dirty buy those suffering. Now his wealth is staggering and his is on of so many that sell religion.

 

[Etritonakin]

I mean to say, even if I think someone was guiding evolution, I'm going with 'Not completely random' or 'somewhat guided'.

'Intelligent Design' seems to completely fly in the face of the available evidence.

Perhaps we equate an intelligent designer with a craftsman producing a single original piece -and overlook the fact that automated processes and mass-production require even more intelligent design.

 

[Etritonakin]

How would anyone test for intelligence inherent in nature?

What would evidence look like?

No one would ever be satisfied coming from either side with the others conclusions.

I am glad scientists can branch off into their own camps and differ on the issue of intelligence in nature. Both sides are unable to see the plausibility of the other side.

There is no point marrying anybody to either side, when all they want is divorce.

Both sides are totally alien too each other on the matter.

The same way we do now -but on a more basic level.

If something does not and can not occur naturally on our level -we know that intelligence was applied to alter the otherwise-inevitable course of nature.
The development of our intelligence is a necessary intermediate stage which makes the otherwise-impossible possible.

We can not assume that the "nature" around us and already in motion is not a result of intelligence applied to a previous state.

We are dealing with the same stuff at any level -but in a different arrangement or level of complexity -so the same basic rules apply.

Some things are indicative of our intelligence, self-awareness, etc. on our level -and similar things would indicate an intelligence on a more basic -therefore more powerful and capable -level.

Some things necessarily precede creativity -and some things must be preceded by creativity.
Some things are simply OF a design -and some things must be BY design.

 

[viole]

Intelligent design created everything.

imo

Everything is every thing. Ergo, intelligent design created the intelligent designer. Assuming that the intelligent designer is some thing. Or that intelligent design without an intelligent designer does not obtain.

Cool, ironic that some theists accuse us to believe in a universe that created itself.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I have to ask..."whose evidence"......"who interpreted that evidence?" "Did they have an agenda in guiding that interpretation?"

If they had, it would not last long. Scientists like to prove their colleagues wrong. Incidentally, the 20th century basically destroyed something considered holy and untouchable, a true risk to your career if you doubt it: Newtonian Physics.

Why do yoh think that happened, in your opinion?

Is science really deserving of its place on the pedestal where most people have put it? How much of what science puts forward as fact (in relation to macro-evolution particularly) is actually provable? As far as I can see, only a small portion of what science offers is based on observable fact. The rest must be taken on trust. Is science really that trustworthy? No doubt some of it is, but certainly not all, according to what I have read.

Yes. For starters, you are able to communicate with me from the other side of the world almost instantaneously, because of the resarch in quantum mechanics, semiconductors, optical communication, etc, etc.

Not to count space exploration, progresses in medicine and a list that will probably turn this post into a huge book.

With books written by ancient goat herders you would probably not go much farther than sending your vacation pictures to your friends by using smoke signals. No matter how much you pray. And no matter how divinely inspired that book is.

But since electrons and semiconductors holes are not so visible, you would probably do not believe them, either

The world of academia is driven by forces that drive everything else in this world. Greed for financial gain, (lucrative grants) accolades from a relatively closed community, (inflated egos) power that comes with positions of authority in that world, and in influencing those outside of it, (can result in corruption and fraud)

Egos are dangerous things let loose in that environment IMO.

The example of the 20th century revolution that destroyed the whole physics paradigms before that, provides counter evidence to what you say.

Now, it is interesting that Newton fell, while Darwin has survived the storm almost unscathed and has therefore been promoted and now sleeps near Newton at Wenstmister and appears on 10 pounds notes.

Why is that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

The world of academia is driven by forces that drive everything else in this world. Greed for financial gain, (lucrative grants) accolades from a relatively closed community, (inflated egos) power that comes with positions of authority in that world, and in influencing those outside of it, (can result in corruption and fraud)

You do love your broad-brush condemnations, premised solely on your myths and 'beliefs'.

Egos are dangerous things let loose in that environment IMO.

Not as dangerous as egos released on internet discussion forums whereon people with a 5th grade knowledge of science fancy themselves capable of refuting the work of thousands of trained and educated individuals.

Pity that such an egotist doesn't realize that bacteria cannot BE immune to anything, for example.

 

[Bear Wild]

I look at intelligent design, as implying that the universe was constructed in a logical way that can be extrapolated with logic. An intelligent engineer or applied scientist builds a bridge in this way. Theoretical science may not always be this way. But practical science has to confront hard reality.

A random universe is not a very intelligent design. This approach does not require much thinking, planning or extrapolating. A random approach only requires using a statistical oracle to tell you your fortune. The black box approach of statistics means living in the dark! An intelligent design can open the black box.

The ancients used a whims of the gods approach, which was a random model, using their own version of an oracle. It was not a math oracle but served the same purpose. This approach did not require intelligence, other than faith in their oracle. Could you do statistics if you doubted or lacked faith in this oracle? Intelligent design is not as limited.

The Age of Reason, which ushered in modern science, was based on assuming there were logical explanations for all things. This superseded the whims of the god approach of oracles and randomness. For some reason much of science went backwards to the preAge of Reason, when oracles ruled.This explains why the Golden age of science is in the past. Einstein used an ID approach.

If you look at the whims of the gods, it means anything has odds, since gods have all type of power, but whims mean they lack focus and direction. Therefore there cans be no good logical explanation. The gods in charge of these whims, were half brain dead, since they could not seem to structure things in a consistent way. This type of God would have been an idiot savant, who eventually gets things done, but there is no rhyme of reason when it does occur. All we can do is consult the oracle, for when it may occur.

Maybe science can explain the physical basis for randomness to make sure, it is not a faith based religion?

Intelligent design assumes a God who has mental clarity, instead of a being an airhead. He has a plan, that he executes, that builds upon itself, in a predictable fashion. This is a sign of intelligent life. ID, to me, is a projection for humanity. It is connected to how we approach reality; rational or random?

If you look at our universe, we live in a quantum universe. A quantum universe has distinct states and gaps between these distinct states. The random assumption, of finite odds for all things, is not even realistic in a quantum universe. Not all things have odds in a quantum universe; gaps.

A quantum universe is consistent with an intelligent design; age of reason. If you build an automobile, only certain parts will work, in terms of each application. We do not use a random approach based on all possible alternators, until we find the correct one. But rather we eliminate most alternators, in advance; gaps, and allow the best one to be installed.

The atheist try to confused the nuts and bolts of each science approach, by attributing ID to a God and religion, so they can dismiss this based on philosophy instead of science. However, they never explain the basis for random; their faith in an idiot savant god. If we put aside the politics and look at each approach, ID is more advanced and consistent with a quantum universe, where odds are superseded, to sure things, based on free energy.

Since the natural selection are not just random you premise is inaccurate from the start. Random events play a role but creative natural forces are much more complex and in the progression of life on earth environmental conditions developed increasing the likelihood for life to develop. As the complexity of organization increased there developed increasing non-random selective forces. Non of this requires an intelligent designer. Applying human behavior traits created by the same natural selective processes is an error in reason. Just because humans operate in a directed design pattern it is a false assumption that the rest of the natural world operates this way.

Incorrect association of quantum mechanics with intelligent designer

The ancient Greeks might disagree with you about using the whims of the gods.

Since we do not know if god has metal clarity it is hard to say the degree of intelligence. This belongs to belief with the inability to show evidence for.

ID is connected to either a god, space alien, or some spiritual entity which cannot be demonstrated or evidence provided for.

 

[Bear Wild]

If something does not and can not occur naturally on our level -we know that intelligence was applied to alter the otherwise-inevitable course of nature.
The development of our intelligence is a necessary intermediate stage which makes the otherwise-impossible possible.

Everything does occur naturally and developed naturally. Human intelligence started with the initial sensory interaction of organisms followed by the development of hox genes creating organized pattern including the ectoderm layer the developed into neural tissue. Then through natural selection with increased sensory development we develop an organized central nervous system increasing in complexity as the advantage for that complexity increases survival. Then social behavior favors even more advanced brain structures for interaction. Two mutations in the fox 2 gene and you get significantly increased language ability - now you have a human brain. Yes this a simplified example of the development of humans but the pattern of development can all be explained through natural forces. Why make up an intelligent designer when everything is explained by natural forces and the intelligent designer cannot have evidence because it is in the belief realm outside testable study.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Entropy predicts life.

All species are different

Definitely.

 

[Deeje]

Yes egos get in the way especially when the dogma of some religious believe refuses to accept the evidence of objective study and come up with ridiculous accusations about the world of academia

Egos are everywhere that pride is. Perhaps this is why "pride goes before a fall", as the Bible says. This applies in all spheres of human endeavor. "The bigger they are...the harder they fall". So true, isn't it? But realistically, does religion impact on Mother Earth more than science does?

Yes in every profession there are those with egos but in science egos not supported with accurate evidence fall as knowledge grows.

Since the evidence has to be "interpreted" by scientists, who says it is accurate? Scientists? You don't see the problem here?

It is true that science can supersede its previous knowledge with new findings....which make you wonder if you can trust something to be true today, if tomorrow it might be declared a mistake. How is that accurate?

When knowledge grows (in the realms of evolutionary science in particular), it is always still within the confines of "the theory"....no one would dare step outside the box for fear of the ridicule and ostracism that inevitably follows.
I wonder how many there are in these fields of research who see ingenious design and wonder how all that ever happened by blind chance? They question in silence apparently.

Now if you want to talk about greed I know several religious preachers who have become rich on selling religion to those wanting to believe. I will not forget when Joel Osteen of Houston Texas would not open his church doors for the flood victim because he did know want to have his church to become dirty buy those suffering. Now his wealth is staggering and his is on of so many that sell religion.

I am in full agreement with you here, but this doesn't surprise me in the least. Jesus himself castigated the religious leaders of his day for taking care of themselves whilst neglecting the sheep who were going astray, not considered worthy of their time and attention. He said we would recognize the real Christians in among the fakes "by their fruits"....so the genuine Christians don't chase or promote material wealth, they use their time to support their family's needs (not wants) and to serve their God in every part of their lives. They take a message of hope even to unbelievers.

At this time in history, we are finding more and more people who are seeing the world politically, morally and financially disintegrating and want to know where we are heading. They see no solutions from politics, science or mainstream religions. No one seems interested in the planet or its inhabitants....just in serving themselves. Power has inevitably corrupted them all.

If I had to rely on man for my future, I may as well go and jump off a cliff.

 

[Deeje]

If they had, it would not last long. Scientists like to prove their colleagues wrong. Incidentally, the 20th century basically destroyed something considered holy and untouchable, a true risk to your career if you doubt it: Newtonian Physics.

Why do yoh think that happened, in your opinion?

Scientists like to practice "one-upmanship" but it is only ever within the framework of their precious theory. No one would dare step outside of it for the same reason as to why they want to outdo their own collegues. It's about the accolades and the fame that goes with scientific "gazumping" (if you know what I mean).

Yes. For starters, you are able to communicate with me from the other side of the world almost instantaneously, because of the resarch in quantum mechanics, semiconductors, optical communication, etc, etc.

Oh good grief!! That tired old argument? Who said anything about technology, as if you can equate that with evolution? I don't question all branches of science....mostly the guesswork attached to evolution which are based on observable things concerning adaptation, which I never question anyway.

Not to count space exploration, progresses in medicine and a list that will probably turn this post into a huge book.

Again, what has space exploration got to do with this branch of science?

And don't get me started about medicine .....another totally corrupt branch of science. If medical science is so advanced, then tell me where all the cures are....? Why are millions dying from very preventable diseases or even starvation?

With books written by ancient goat herders you would probably not go much farther than sending your vacation pictures to your friends by using smoke signals. No matter how much you pray. And no matter how divinely inspired that book is.

I am always amused by these "ancient goat herders"....who are they? Why do you assume that these ancient goat herders could even write?

History reveals some amazingly advanced civilizations in the past. Those who lived in ancient times did more with less technology than we do. How advanced are we really, when we have been 'clever' enough to orchestrate our own extinction? All hail science!

The example of the 20th century revolution that destroyed the whole physics paradigms before that, provides counter evidence to what you say.

Does it really? The paradigm from which my own views come, allows for all of that to take place as a matter of course.....all foretold in advance. It is simply man's own efforts to trump himself. (no pun intended) Basically humans are the victims of their own stupidity....and self importance. I believe that they will find out soon enough how sadly deluded they have become.

Now, it is interesting that Newton fell, while Darwin has survived the storm almost unscathed and has therefore been promoted and now sleeps near Newton at Wenstmister and appears on 10 pounds notes.

"Survived the storm"? That is amusing considering we haven't even seen the real storm yet. Wait for it.....

So, in your estimations, appearing on 10 Pound notes accounts for some claim to fame, does it? Only among men.

Look at the "celebrity" status that some humans have given to themselves and others. Seriously, I don't think it carries any weight at with the Creator though. It doesn't impress me either. An educated jerk is still a jerk IMO. A lie is still a lie, no matter how well you dress it up, and the truth is rock solid, no matter what you throw at it. So.......

Let's just wait and see...shall we?

 

[Etritonakin]

Everything does occur naturally and developed naturally. Human intelligence started with the initial sensory interaction of organisms followed by the development of hox genes creating organized pattern including the ectoderm layer the developed into neural tissue. Then through natural selection with increased sensory development we develop an organized central nervous system increasing in complexity as the advantage for that complexity increases survival. Then social behavior favors even more advanced brain structures for interaction. Two mutations in the fox 2 gene and you get significantly increased language ability - now you have a human brain. Yes this a simplified example of the development of humans but the pattern of development can all be explained through natural forces. Why make up an intelligent designer when everything is explained by natural forces and the intelligent designer cannot have evidence because it is in the belief realm outside testable study.

That is what I meant by our level. We equate "naturally" with the complex systems already in motion.

We view creative activity as (apart from reproducing things which already happen) that which could not otherwise happen.... at this point.

However, "naturally" began before the Big Bang -before the complex and interactive elements which lend themselves (perhaps even self-assembling under the right circumstances which also exist) to the formation of "physical" life forms even existed.

We may assume that the elements are not the result of creative activity -but that is an assumption.

As we compare against the present complexity of nature to determine creative activity is at work, so we could compare against the most simple state of all things (which the singularity that would specifically become our universe certainly was not) to determine creative activity was at work -and that activity would have similar characteristics on every level... and would similarly indicate complex purpose, forethought/intent, etc....

On a most basic level, "natural" could simply mean "dynamic", changing configuration and increasing in complexity -but that most basic nature would also necessarily produce creativity in order for certain things to become possible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would say it has more to do with the interaction between stability and chaos whereas intelligence has nothing to do with the overall grand scheme of things no more or less than random chaos does.

I tend to think of things in terms of a continuum enternally dynamic, multifaceted, and in flux spanning countless dimensions with no discernible beginning or end.

 

[tas8831]

How can bacteria be IMMUNE to anything, Deeje the anti-science science expert?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps we equate an intelligent designer with a craftsman producing a single original piece -and overlook the fact that automated processes and mass-production require even more intelligent design.

If the base design is flawed, whether the execution is bespoke or mass production, flaws will remain.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have to ask..."whose evidence"......"who interpreted that evidence?" "Did they have an agenda in guiding that interpretation?"

Is science really deserving of its place on the pedestal where most people have put it? How much of what science puts forward as fact (in relation to macro-evolution particularly) is actually provable? As far as I can see, only a small portion of what science offers is based on observable fact. The rest must be taken on trust. Is science really that trustworthy? No doubt some of it is, but certainly not all, according to what I have read.

The world of academia is driven by forces that drive everything else in this world. Greed for financial gain, (lucrative grants) accolades from a relatively closed community, (inflated egos) power that comes with positions of authority in that world, and in influencing those outside of it, (can result in corruption and fraud)

Egos are dangerous things let loose in that environment IMO.

Hmm...I didn't argue (in this thread) about the existence of a designer. Only whether calling the hypothetical designers work 'Intelligent Design' is overstated.

I suspect there is a marketing team involved somewhere in all this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Intelligent design created everything. Which includes everything we DO NOT know (which is vastly more than we do know).
Intelligent design created everything for a purpose, with, perhaps, a planned randomness? So not really random at all maybe?
For instance, life itself, pretty much follows the same patterns in all living things. In any particular species, there is something, designed?, that causes life to start, grow, mature, propagate more life, then die. That’s why the planet is full of living things. Some species have been around millions of years, virtually unchanged, and continue to propagate. Many species have died off through extinction. Many new species have sprung up along the way.
Many evolve and change dramatically. Many do not. We cannot say, all of this is not part of a grand design or not, so we will not argue about it.

Now let’s take humanity. What’s with this species that seems to have appeared on earth very recently? Where did the first people come from? They probably didn’t just appear out of nowhere one day. That’s not what the scientific evidence would indicate. Scientific evidence doesn’t tell us that various species just spontaneously appeared. But we don’t really know for sure, do we? Evolution seems to make perfect sense, to me anyway. But can I be 100% sure? Not really. So nothing to argue about here either.
But what do we know about this strange new species called humans? They have different attributes than any other life form on earth. They are the only species that can love, and the only species that can reason. Some other animals may appear to love and reason, but rational thought brings us to the conclusion that they are acting upon some preprogrammed instinct. Only humans can love, and at the same time, only humans can hate.
How is it that out of untold millions and millions of species, only humans are different? It can’t be random.

imo

Please note, I didn't argue in this thread about the existence of a creator. I was questioning the moniker of 'intelligent' design.