The failure of Intelligent Design

[Parsimony]

2. I agree with you that evolution and it's spinoff abiogenesis avoid the question of how the universe and life arose. That does no credit to these theories, in my mind. Nor is your claim correct that there can be no first cause. The Bible clearly explains who this first Cause is, at Psalm 90:1,2. Without beginning nor end, Jehovah is the source of all life, as Psalm 36:9 affirms: "With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light. "

Why should evolution try to explain the origin of the Universe? That's completely outside of its scope. We don't ask the germ theory of disease to explain where the Universe came from, nor should we.

3. Evolutionist logic upon finding a watch: "that watch had no maker. It is the result of natural forces acting upon material over billions of years. We cannot test for an intelligent designer for that watch, so we conclude there was none."
:help:

If watches reproduced and had genetic codes that were subject to natural selection, then evolution might actually be a reasonable argument. Since watches don't do those things, you can't exactly use evolutionary logic to explain their existence.

 

[factseeker88]

Multiple malevolent creators would make more sense. Hard to imagine a benevolent intelligence designing the human throat for example - with breathing and eating through the same hole. Or the pharnygeal nerve in giraffes.

Thanks for the response.

If God created everything and makes everything happen, including the the creation of Adam and eve and the talking snake in the garden of Eden, why would he punish Adam and Eve for doing the things he made them do?

 

[Ouroboros]

If watches reproduced and had genetic codes that were subject to natural selection, then evolution might actually be a reasonable argument. Since watches don't do those things, you can't exactly use evolutionary logic to explain their existence.

Good point.

Another problem with the analogy of the watch is that it's based on a comparison between the watch (designed) and the world it's found in (not-designed) in the analogy. Otherwise, how do you recognize it as "designed" unless it's based on the comparison of being "designed vs not designed." And by using that argument then to conclude that the world (backdrop of the scene) is also designed, then the premise of "the designed watch vs the non-designed world" doesn't make sense. It's begging the question. How is the world not designed and designed at the same time in the same argument?

Design is really a matter of perception, familiarity, recognition of usefulness or function, etc. There has to be a purpose that can be recognized. We can recognize a watch. We know what it's for and how to use it. We know someone made it for that purpose. If an alien found one of our watches, would they know it was designed or not? Probably not. So even if the universe is designed by a super-powerful multi-dimensional being that we can't even begin to understand, then how can we really see that or recognize that? What is the function of the universe? It's all up to belief.

 

[outhouse]

1. I believe ID is a self-evident fact.

Well it factually is not fact.

In a court of law it has been deemed nothing more then religion.

 

[Bunyip]

1. I believe ID is a self-evident fact. The illustration of a piece of wood or stone with the name "John" carved in it, is proof positive of an intelligent agency. To claim all life arose by undirected natural events is fraudulent, IMO.

We are not talking about human artifacts, there is no equivalent in nature or a stone with a name carved on it. Furthermore it is ID that was shown to be a fraud in court (Kitzmiller Dover trial), not the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

2. I agree with you that evolution and it's spinoff abiogenesis avoid the question of how the universe and life arose. That does no credit to these theories, in my mind. Nor is your claim correct that there can be no first cause. The Bible clearly explains who this first Cause is, at Psalm 90:1,2. Without beginning nor end, Jehovah is the source of all life, as Psalm 36:9 affirms: "With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light. "

Cosmology and biology are just different fields. Abiogenesis tells us nothing about how the universe began, just as deisel mechanics teaches us nothing about knitting. It is not a weakness of the study of deisel mechanics that it does not teach you how to knit.

3. Evolutionist logic upon finding a watch: "that watch had no maker. It is the result of natural forces acting upon material over billions of years. We cannot test for an intelligent designer for that watch, so we conclude there was none."
:help:

Of course we can test for a designer of that watch, it has the manufacturers logo on it - what a silly claim. Watches are human artifacts, we are not talking about human artifacts. You will notice by the way that if you try to re-word your analogy to use any example other than something people made, you will fail to find such an example.

 

[Parsimony]

Hmm, sometimes things in nature do have words written on them:

 

[Bunyip]

Hmm, sometimes things in nature do have words written on them:

Photoshop does not occur naturally.

Also science does not dismiss ideas a-priori or out of impossibility, it just prefers to consider ideas that can be evidenced.

 

[Parsimony]

Photoshop does not occur naturally.

Also science does not dismiss ideas a-priori or out of impossibility, it just prefers to consider ideas that can be evidenced.

You sure that's photoshopped? Figured it was a natural pattern that resembled an English word coincidentally.

EDIT: Nevermind, you're right. I found the original. Moving right along...

 

[Bunyip]

You sure that's photoshopped? Figured it was a natural pattern that resembled an English word coincidentally.

LOL, yes I'm sure.:yes:

 

[kashmir]

I think that discussing flaws in life doesn't refute I.D. at all.
Ok so, Intelligence would have gave us a mouth to drink, one to eat, one to kiss, one to breathe, and one to throw up with.
I sense that would be refuted with,...
Intelligence would have gave us all those functions with one mouth.
True?

Also, evolution has not stopped happening, never will.
Perhaps if we can manage to not blow up the planet in the next billion years and figure out how to travel in seriously deep outer space, science tells us we will look like the average Alien life.
I find that very very odd, that way before we knew the affects of long periods of being in outer space, the imagination of those who claim to have seen Aliens, got it right.

So yah, discussing what ID should look like is way off target.
Its like blindly throwing a dart at a chart of imagination and hope for the best one.
Which is? :sarcastic

 

[idea]

... the influence of an intelligent agency.....

We test intelligence all the time, kids at school take tests to see what their intelligence is... intelligence exists, it comes down to the nature of life - our ability to think/create/act, and the entity that allows us to do so.

 

[Bunyip]

We test intelligence all the time, kids at school take tests to see what their intelligence is... intelligence exists, it comes down to the nature of life - our ability to think/create/act, and the entity that allows us to do so.

Sure, intelligence exists. What is your point? The evidence clearly shows organisms becoming more intelligent over time, and so intelligence appears to have emerged naturally. There is no evidence of any intelligence existing prior to the emergence of life on earth.

 

[rusra02]

Well it factually is not fact.

In a court of law it has been deemed nothing more then religion.

And we all know how unbiased and fair courts of law are, completely free from human bias and ignorance. Riiiight.

 

[rusra02]

Why should evolution try to explain the origin of the Universe? That's completely outside of its scope. We don't ask the germ theory of disease to explain where the Universe came from, nor should we.


If watches reproduced and had genetic codes that were subject to natural selection, then evolution might actually be a reasonable argument. Since watches don't do those things, you can't exactly use evolutionary logic to explain their existence.

So you claim that the logic that applies to inanimate objects that proves ID of those objects doesn't apply to living things because... They are alive? Computer viruses can reproduce, but they do not spring into existence without a designer. How much less so the cell, far more advanced than any man made object, not excluding the space shuttle, could exist without a Designer. I think the implications of that simple logic frighten many people, including many scientists. (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[Ouroboros]

So you claim that the logic that applies to inanimate objects that proves ID of those objects doesn't apply to living things because... They are alive? Computer viruses can reproduce, but they do not spring into existence without a designer. How much less so the cell, far more advanced than any man made object, not excluding the space shuttle, could exist without a Designer. I think the implications of that simple logic frighten many people, including many scientists. (Hebrews 3:4)

You're still missing a key point after probably some hundred tries on this forum. Evolution is about how life forms changes into other life forms, not how life forms begin to exist.

There are plenty of theists who believe that God created life and then used Evolution to create the diversity of "kinds".

If you read Genesis, it says that God commanded the oceans, sky, and land to produce the kinds. In other words, a literal interpretation of the verse is more compatible with evolution than the current creationism idea of hand-crafted lego-animals. God used evolution to create the plethora of animals, and the Bible supports it.

 

[Parsimony]

So you claim that the logic that applies to inanimate objects that proves ID of those objects doesn't apply to living things because... They are alive? Computer viruses can reproduce, but they do not spring into existence without a designer. How much less so the cell, far more advanced than any man made object, not excluding the space shuttle, could exist without a Designer. I think the implications of that simple logic frighten many people, including many scientists. (Hebrews 3:4)

Ouroboros addressed this already, more or less. The reason that the same reasoning doesn't apply is because watches don't have the characteristics required for them to evolve, unlike life.

And, once again, evolution can work just as well with a divinely-created first cell as it can with one created via abiogenesis.

 

[Ouroboros]

And we all know how unbiased and fair courts of law are, completely free from human bias and ignorance. Riiiight.

It was done so by a Christian judge! So, we know how unbiased and fair Christians are, completely free from human bias and ignorance. Riiiight.

 

[idav]

Computer viruses can reproduce, but they do not spring into existence without a designer. How much less so the cell, far more advanced than any man made object, not excluding the space shuttle, could exist without a Designer.

Designers don't just spring out of nowhere either. Intelligence has to bring about the first creator/designer?

I think the implications of that simple logic frighten many people, including many scientists. (Hebrews 3:4)

No not really at all frightening cause it destroys the concept of god by requiring god have a designer or a cause, just cause everything else does isn't much of an argument. If the very first thing in all of existence can come about as intelligent then anything can, certainly anything evolving from it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Designers don't just spring out of nowhere either. Intelligence has to bring about the first creator/designer?

Another thing about design is that it's not a process where someone thinks out every step and knows what to do. When I design software or graphic art, the process is quite a bit of trial and error. Many times you start with an idea, do something, and then have to experiment and change. There's no give one straight line from idea to product. So did God do the same thing or did he make a perfect blueprint for everything first? It sure doesn't look that way. There's a lot of mistakes and blunders in the "design".

 

[rusra02]

You're still missing a key point after probably some hundred tries on this forum. Evolution is about how life forms changes into other life forms, not how life forms begin to exist.

There are plenty of theists who believe that God created life and then used Evolution to create the diversity of "kinds".

If you read Genesis, it says that God commanded the oceans, sky, and land to produce the kinds. In other words, a literal interpretation of the verse is more compatible with evolution than the current creationism idea of hand-crafted lego-animals. God used evolution to create the plethora of animals, and the Bible supports it.

No, the Bible does not support the ToE:

Genesis 1:21-"And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:25-"And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 2:19-" Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens,"

Genesis 2:7-"And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person."

Evolutionists try endlessly, it appears to me, to reconcile the irreconcilable. Either life was created by an intelligent Designer, as the Bible says, or all life arose by evolution. Once you dispel the propaganda smoke and examine the evidence for yourself, the evidence for Creation is overwhelming, and the evidence for macroevolution lacking, IMO.