Perfect symmetry by chance???

[leibowde84]

I don't see how any of the sciences and mathematics prove that there is no Intelligent Designer.

They don't. But, not proving that negative (that an intelligent designer doesn't exist) in no way shows that an intelligent designer does exist. It merely means that it may or may not be possible that an intelligent designer exists. Doesn't really get us anywhere. Mathematics and science do seem to keep moving toward the realization that an intelligent designer is in no way necessary.

 

[LuisDantas]

If these were some paintings on a wall and if someone argues that these paintings doesn't have a designer and that the perfect symmetry in those pictures came out by chance by throwing random paints on wall for millions of years, would you believe it????

Paintings? I don't know. Under slightly different circunstances, probably.

Symmetry, however, is something that does arise and even grows naturally in various circunstances.

You can probably feel like presuming a conscious designer behind that rather frequent trend of nature. It is certainly within your right. It just isn't necessarily convincing for anyone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see how any of the sciences and mathematics prove that there is no Intelligent Designer.

Quite right: science can't prove that an intelligent designer didn't exist; it can only show that an intelligent designer was unnecessary, and that the world we see around us is indistinguishable in every measurable way from a world that had no intelligent designer at all.

This position definitely leaves room for an intelligent designer: a useless, irrelevant intelligent designer.

Is the intelligent designer you believe in useless and irrelevant?

 

[Prestor John]

They don't. But, not proving that negative (that an intelligent designer doesn't exist) in no way shows that an intelligent designer does exist. It merely means that it may or may not be possible that an intelligent designer exists. Doesn't really get us anywhere. Mathematics and science do seem to keep moving toward the realization that an intelligent designer is in no way necessary.

I was nodding my head up until the last sentence.

How do mathematics and science showcase that an Intelligent designer is not necessary?

 

[Prestor John]

Quite right: science can't prove that an intelligent designer didn't exist; it can only show that an intelligent designer was unnecessary, and that the world we see around us is indistinguishable in every measurable way from a world that had no intelligent designer at all.

This position definitely leaves room for an intelligent designer: a useless, irrelevant intelligent designer.

Is the intelligent designer you believe in useless and irrelevant?

I don't see how any of that proves that He is useless or irrelevant.

 

[leibowde84]

I was nodding my head up until the last sentence.

How do mathematics and science showcase that an Intelligent designer is not necessary?

The more we understand about the universe and natural processes such as evolution, entropy, the birth of stars and galaxies, chemistry, and how imperfect/flawed lifeforms are scientific discovery seems to lean toward an intelligent designer being unnecessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see how any of that proves that He is useless or irrelevant.

If the outcome with a god is indistinguishable from the outcome without a god, then the god was irrelevant to the outcome.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't see how any of the sciences and mathematics prove that there is no Intelligent Designer.

There is significant evidence against the idea of intelligent design in dysteleological arguments, otherwise known as argument from poor design or incompetent design. In that there are many, many examples of system flaws in biology, even fundamental parts of organ systems, genetics et all, (i.e. respiratory and digestive link at the pharynx which makes for easier choking and means breathing and swallowing can't occur at the same time. Or having our optic nerve and blood vessel placement gives us a weakened eye structure and a blind spot which most invertebrates don't have. Or we can't synthesize vitamin C because of a missing enzyme most other animals have) which make sense in light of naturalistic evolution but would indicate a designer was either bad at their job, ambivalent or cruel.

 

[Prestor John]

The more we understand about the universe and natural processes such as evolution, entropy, the birth of stars and galaxies, chemistry, and how imperfect/flawed lifeforms are scientific discovery seems to lean toward an intelligent designer being unnecessary.

I feel the exact opposite.

 

[Prestor John]

If the outcome with a god is indistinguishable from the outcome without a god, then the god was irrelevant to the outcome.

What outcome?

 

[Prestor John]

There is significant evidence against the idea of intelligent design in dysteleological arguments, otherwise known as argument from poor design or incompetent design. In that there are many, many examples of system flaws in biology, even fundamental parts of organ systems, genetics et all, (i.e. respiratory and digestive link at the pharynx which makes for easier choking and means breathing and swallowing can't occur at the same time. Or having our optic nerve and blood vessel placement gives us a weakened eye structure and a blind spot which most invertebrates don't have. Or we can't synthesize vitamin C because of a missing enzyme most other animals have) which make sense in light of naturalistic evolution but would indicate a designer was either bad at their job, ambivalent or cruel.

And why do men have nipples? Useless.

This argument is based on the assumption that an Intelligent Designer should not make imperfect things.

Why do you assume that?

 

[Acim]

I see mathematics and science itself as evidence of intelligent design. Being that both endeavors are natural.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What outcome?

Life on Earth in all its diversity.

 

[Prestor John]

Life on Earth in all its diversity.

Do you believe that Man will one day know everything about the Universe?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And why do men have nipples? Useless.

This argument is based on the assumption that an Intelligent Designer should not make imperfect things.

Why do you assume that?

I assume it because Intelligent Design was always primarily about getting religion - i.e. Christianity - into public schools, especially in the US.

It started with explicitly Christian creationism; that got ruled unconstitutional. So they stripped it down and called it "creation science"; that got ruled unconstitutional, too. So they stripped creation science down and called it "Intelligent Design"; this got ruled unconstitutional, too.

The whole thing has always been about getting something that's as Christian as possible into public school science curricula, but not so overtly religious that it's declared a church-state violation.

The "intelligent designer" was always the Christian God; that was the whole point. It's also why the ID crowd never talks about "intelligent designers", plural. If they were being honest, they would recognize that there's nothing in the public face of ID that would necessarily require all "intelligent design" to be by the same designer... but they don't, because the ID movement is nothing more than an effort to insert Christianity into public schools and hypothesizing multiple intelligent designers would run counter to this purpose.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see mathematics and science itself as evidence of intelligent design. Being that both endeavors are natural.

The brilliance of enablement that brings about such fascinating fields.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe that Man will one day know everything about the Universe?

Man? Like just one?

Why?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And why do men have nipples? Useless.

This argument is based on the assumption that an Intelligent Designer should not make imperfect things.

Why do you assume that?

Men have nipples because of the timing of embryonic sex determination, the development of nipples starts before the testosterone levels change. But because it doesn't have a disadvantage it was never selected against. Again, makes sense in light of evolution but no sense for creation.

Imperfect isn't the issue, there's unnecessary flaws which are fatal or serious enough to not call it 'intelligent' but 'inept.' Hence the earlier examples and why it's called 'argument of poor design.'

I look at evolution and the progression of biology and see no reason to assume there was ever an intelligent force at work, and lots of better reasons to conclude there wasn't.

 

[Valjean]

How do mathematics and science showcase that an Intelligent designer is not necessary?

They show how the world works without resorting to the supernatural. The phenomena previously pointed to as proofs of God's hand keep being explained by ordinary, unguided physics and chemistry; no magic necessary.

I don't see how any of that proves that He is useless or irrelevant.

What are you attributing to Him that ordinary, natural causes can't account for?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stephen-hawking-science-makes-god-unnecessary/story?id=11571150

I feel the exact opposite.

Well there's the rub. You're basing your opinion on emotion rather than thought.
Your feelings are irrelevant -- at best an argument from incredulity or ignorance. Tell us what you think. What conclusion does a critical analysis of observed facts lead you to?

I see mathematics and science itself as evidence of intelligent design. Being that both endeavors are natural.

Intelligent design is an argument for the supernatural. How are you construing it as natural?

 

[Acim]

Intelligent design is an argument for the supernatural. How are you construing it as natural?

I don't necessarily see intelligent design as supernatural. I realize for some, it is. I see the fact that we, as part of nature, discover (via consciousness) the universe (or aspects of) to have both design and intelligence (via us) as the evidence. I think of this as plainly obvious. I think each time science and mathematics does it's thing, it provides further evidence of universe engaging in intelligent design, not to mention a whole lot of other (human) endeavors that are also natural, and are processes that are manifestly intelligent / design oriented.