Intelligent Design?

[meogi]

What true logic would exclude intelligent design?

None, but logic also states that premises must be true for any conclusions to follow. So far, ID's conclusion's premises are not true.

you easily accept that a program as complex as windows XP was intelligently designed

Comming from a CS major, I'd say that's still up for debate. Also, XP just didn't pop into existance. (relating to the bible) On the first day, Bill Gates purchased DOS. And he said it was good. Building off of it, on the 2nd day, there was DOS 6.1. And it too, was good. 3rd day, Windows 1... Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98, NT, ME, 2k, XP, ect.

and the space shuttle was made by intelligent design and just one of our cells is more complex than either of those items by a long shot.

Complexity is very much a product of natural selection. You think we just happened to 'poof' a space shuttle into being? No, we tested, adapted, made better. There were 11 apollo missions before we made it to the moon. And that's not even with a space shuttle.

if we found something as complex as we are would we only believe it was accidental?

Accidental? No, we'd want to know where it came from. I'm sure communicating with/examining it would help that process. If you're saying that life just 'forming' was accidental, then it's one mistake I'm glad happened. (I'd contend it was 'accidental' like how we discovered penicillin... wasn't intended, but is beneficial to everyone).

to exempt the possibility of intelligent design we hobble our own possible understanding of that which science cannot explain.

Quite the oposite in reality. If we just believe in ID, there is no need to try and find explanations for that which we cannot explain. And ID is not exempt from possibility, there just is no science that supports it.

a true scientist should always assume that he doesn't know all the variables and never rules out anything

A true scientist doesn't. But a true sceintist doesn't base claims off of non-existant evidence either.

if I remember my Sherlock Holmes correctly I believe it was stated that once you rule out every logical explanation then whatever is left no matter how improbable is the truth

Sherlock Holmes was no scientist. And he's a fictional character. And every other logical explanation hasn't been ruled out. So what exactly are you trying to show? Oh ya, this:

and unless you can come up with another possibility besides:
1) natural beginnings
2) intelligent design (whether by GOD or the little green creatures)

First off, natural beginnings hasn't been ruled out. Mainly because there are so many different ways we could have natural beginnings. You're never gonna be able to rule all of them out. Second, ID goes off the idea that we were just created. Which I don't see any evidence for. So logic would seem to exclude that one from the list, leaving only #1.

then if I can easily rule out natural beginnings you would only have I.D. left

You can rule it out all you want, I don't care about that. Science can't though.

I wonder why the is such opposition to I.D., is it too hard to believe that you were created?

No, it's not, at least for me. My oposition to ID is that it is not logical or scientific. This question can be turned around: Why is it so hard for you to believe you just happen to exist? Why does there have to be a creator?

it seems so strange to me to believe otherwise when you consider that every cell in your body is as complex as any city and together your body has the complexity of this whole world and the entire universe as well all wrapped up in the fragile little body that is you.

We've gone over the cell thing in another thread. Again, complexity is a result of natural selection. And I'll agree with you, the universe, and my being is a very, very complex, beautiful, and awesome thing. Why does a greater being need to have created it? Why can't something just 'be' beautiful?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Complexity in itself is no indication of whether or not something was designed by an intelligent being. In fact, if anything, complexity better supports a chaotic universe than an ordered one....the intelligent engineer makes designs things as simple and as efficient as possible, so there is less chance of something going wrong. But as I'm sure we're all well aware, things go wrong in the 'designs' of living things around us ALL the time.

The real difference between the universe and, say, a space shuttle, is that the space shuttle was clearly designed for a specific purpose--to carry human beings into space. Humans, on the other hand, were clearly not intelligently designed with a specific purpose in mind. Humans have genetic diseases, deformities, and cancers. Our teeth don't come in straight, some people have shortened limbs or lack an arch in their feet, have back problems, poor vision, low intelligence, mental illnesses, etc, etc. The concept of evolution, not intelligent design, best explains philosophically why humans (and all other living organisms) are not perfect designs, but imperfect.

As Darwin pointed out, are we really comfortable with the idea that an intelligent creator designed all the horrors of nature to be the way they are, because he/it had that specific purpose in mind--like the parasitic wasp, which eats aphids alive from the inside, very slowly?

This all goes back to the classic conflict between science and religion...science accepts the imperfect universe we live in. The orbits of the planets are not perfectly circular, the universe was not created for the sole benefit of Earth with Earth as its center and with Earth as the only place like it anywhere, and the human body is not perfectly 'designed'. This all goes back to my post "Accepting an Imperfect Universe" in the Science vs. Religion forum.

Sorry for ranting...very tired...it's late.

 

[Noaidi]

The human body is riddled with design mistakes. Examples include the deadly birth canal, the unforgiving prostate, the exploding appendix, the fragile spine (America's #1 cause of disability), the idiotic crossing of airway and esophagus (that causes history's greatest killer--pneumonia), and our useless male breasts whose only claim to fame is cancer.

Given all the mistakes in human design, how can the doctrine of “Intelligent Design” have merit?

Thought I'd post this nugget I heard last night and revive this thread. Apparently, what we perceive as flaws in design (the wiring of the vertebrate eye, potentially dangerous vestigial organs such as the appendix and so on) do not detract from the validity of ID. Bad design is still design and is the product of intelligence. That's how ID proponents get round this question of imperfection. Because they are often at pains not to identify the designer, they can claim design, albeit an imperfect one.

Neat, huh?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Look at it this way. Of the ToE or ID, which is the greater design of intelligence? One went from a single book to volumes in libraries, forming the standard of practice for 99% of the professionals working in the field; one began from a couple of books from Behe and Dumski, two authors who still cannot get their stories straight yet managed to get their hypothesis universally claimed unscientific. Remember that - evolution may be theory, but ID failed as hypothesis.

The scientific method is the only design that implied intelligence that is still intelligent; everything else is merely entertainment.

 

[painted wolf]

Thought I'd post this nugget I heard last night and revive this thread. Apparently, what we perceive as flaws in design (the wiring of the vertebrate eye, potentially dangerous vestigial organs such as the appendix and so on) do not detract from the validity of ID. Bad design is still design and is the product of intelligence. That's how ID proponents get round this question of imperfection. Because they are often at pains not to identify the designer, they can claim design, albeit an imperfect one.

Neat, huh?

So, in summery.... Intelligent Design proponents are ok with having an idiot for a God?

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

So, in summery.... Intelligent Design proponents are ok with having an idiot for a God?

wa:do

Unfortunately I think our creationist friends will use "The Fall" cop out to explain such imperfections. I can even see some of the more intelligent and daring creationists say that because we (creationists) come up with theories for observed facts, such as imperfection from The Fall, that ID/creationism is a valid scientific paradigm.

 

[painted wolf]

Unfortunately I think our creationist friends will use "The Fall" cop out to explain such imperfections. I can even see some of the more intelligent and daring creationists say that because we (creationists) come up with theories for observed facts, such as imperfection from The Fall, that ID/creationism is a valid scientific paradigm.

Well, then I would propose an experiment to see if sin causes mutations. Perhaps with some very naughty mice?

wa:do

 

[IAMDONE]

I'll inteligintlee design yu!!!

 

[ellenjanuary]

I'll inteligintlee design yu!!!

Yikes! I'm emergent design, but thanks anyway.

 

[Blackheart]

The human body is riddled with design mistakes. Examples include the deadly birth canal, the unforgiving prostate, the exploding appendix, the fragile spine (America's #1 cause of disability), the idiotic crossing of airway and esophagus (that causes history's greatest killer--pneumonia), and our useless male breasts whose only claim to fame is cancer.

Given all the mistakes in human design, how can the doctrine of “Intelligent Design” have merit?

How does this provide a contradiction to ID? The Bible can explain design faults with the explaination that man has been genetically modified by the fallen angels. Away from that you could speculate many reasons for this happening by design. Remember if we were ever designed perfectly we could live for hundreds of years or even be imortal so I think a few loop holes in the design works to benefit us in the long run by avoiding an over populated world.

 

[Christian Gnosis]

How does this provide a contradiction to ID? The Bible can explain design faults with the explaination that man has been genetically modified by the fallen angels. Away from that you could speculate many reasons for this happening by design. Remember if we were ever designed perfectly we could live for hundreds of years or even be imortal so I think a few loop holes in the design works to benefit us in the long run by avoiding an over populated world.

I must agree with the other side blackheart. The human body is far from perfect and so is this material existence, so suffice to say if there was a "creator god" of all of this, I'd side with the Gnostics and say it was a fallen, imperfect one.

Namaste

 

[Blackheart]

I must agree with the other side blackheart. The human body is far from perfect and so is this material existence, so suffice to say if there was a "creator god" of all of this, I'd side with the Gnostics and say it was a fallen, imperfect one.

Namaste

I thought I made my point in that I agree that we are imperfect but this is something that is necessary. The Gnostic version that you are referring to does not explain why we have differences (albeit minute) in our genetics from race to race.

 

[LuisDantas]

How does this provide a contradiction to ID? The Bible can explain design faults with the explaination that man has been genetically modified by the fallen angels.

Does giving fallen angels that much power work? It seems to me that such a belief would ultimately imply that God is nearly inconsequential.

Away from that you could speculate many reasons for this happening by design.

Sure, but only at the expense of the premise that sustains ID. It would take a less-than-admirable God to intentionally design such flawed beings.

Remember if we were ever designed perfectly we could live for hundreds of years or even be imortal

Not necessarily, or even particularly likely. But even assuming so, there are certainly lots of weird "design choices" in the human body, and so many of them sound suspiciously like evolution accidents as opposed to intentional features...

so I think a few loop holes in the design works to benefit us in the long run by avoiding an over populated world.

Of course, the very fact that overpopulation is so likely a result of natural developments is in and of itself yet another evidence that there was no intentional design.

 

[Christian Gnosis]

I thought I made my point in that I agree that we are imperfect but this is something that is necessary. The Gnostic version that you are referring to does not explain why we have differences (albeit minute) in our genetics from race to race.

The Gnostic version, as you put it, does not see differences in races and the like as important, because these are ultimately outward things, and have nothing to do with the inner spirit. This god that Biblicists believe in supposedly places heavy emphasis on race, going as far as to declare one people as his chosen, and forbidding intermarriage between them.

 

[ellenjanuary]

How does this provide a contradiction to ID? The Bible can explain design faults with the explaination that man has been genetically modified by the fallen angels.

WTF?

Bible can explain design faults? Sounds like you are adding to the book of prophecy, committing idolatry, bearing false witness, and using the second in service to the first is a clear violation of the first commandment... what's wrong with you people, cannot even put two sentences together without breaking every rule in the book?

 

[Valjean]

Blackheart proposes humans were originally an entirely different, "perfect" species and were magic poofed or surgically altered by angels to such a degree that we now are an entirely different species.

Apparently not satisfied with the physical damage, the angels sought to destroy our souls as well, cleverly designing defects that would be be reasonably explicable only by evolutionary biology, thus insuring many would fall to the darwinian heresy.

They then went on to place marine fossils on mountaintops to "test our faith."

 

[Christian Gnosis]

Blackheart proposes humans were originally an entirely different, "perfect" species and were magic poofed or surgically altered by angels to such a degree that we now are an entirely different species.

Apparently not satisfied with the physical damage, the angels sought to destroy our souls as well, cleverly designing only defects that would be be reasonably explicable only by evolutionary biology, thus insuring many would fall to the darwinian heresy.

They then went on to place marine fossils on mountaintops to "test our faith."

:clap

 

[Noaidi]

So, in summery.... Intelligent Design proponents are ok with having an idiot for a God?

wa:do

Who mentioned god? This is a discussion about the science of Intelligent Design.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Blackheart proposes humans were originally an entirely different, "perfect" species and were magic poofed or surgically altered by angels to such a degree that we now are an entirely different species.

Apparently not satisfied with the physical damage, the angels sought to destroy our souls as well, cleverly designing defects that would be be reasonably explicable only by evolutionary biology, thus insuring many would fall to the darwinian heresy.

They then went on to place marine fossils on mountaintops to "test our faith."

Hahaha! Oh man, I'm still laughing. Hilariously said. :clap

 

[David M]

How does this provide a contradiction to ID? The Bible can explain design faults with the explaination that man has been genetically modified by the fallen angels. Away from that you could speculate many reasons for this happening by design. Remember if we were ever designed perfectly we could live for hundreds of years or even be imortal so I think a few loop holes in the design works to benefit us in the long run by avoiding an over populated world.

The invocation of religion as an explanation proves that ID is not science.

Thanks Blackheart.