The flaws in Intelligent design

[dianaiad]

Can the experience be reproduce? If not then it is subjective, coming from the mind.

Uhmn....what do you mean 'reproduced?" I know a man who had a meteorite crash in his back yard. Went through a tree branch and put a hole in his grass. He testified to it; the sound of the 'bang' when it hit, the hole....

A one time event that I don't think any of US can reproduce.

We have only his word for it, especially three years later when there is no evidence of the hole the thing made in his lawn...no evidence remains of the event.

Do we automatically assume, then, that the whole thing was 'in his head?"


Do we automatically deny all eyewitness accounts for all events? We would have to throw out most of history, if so.

Not that I am claiming that we believe everything someone reports, but that we throw it all out as having no value at all? That's going a bit far, I think.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well now, I would expect that alien abduction would have some sort of objective proof. Aliens are not, after all, supposed to be creator deities, are they?

However, if, say, fifty or sixty people witnessed an alien abduction, and they all told the same story, and they weren't all members of the 'Heaven's Gate" group, I might think about taking it a little seriously.

My claim here isn't that "Intelligent Design" (i.e., God) is provable by empirical means. It's not. My problem is that for some reason those who insist that there can't BE a God, even though you can't prove that there can't be one for the same reasons you can't prove that there is one,..and therefore anybody who believes that there is, or might be, shouldn't be allowed to practice science and examine the universe through scientific means: that somehow one of the qualifications for scientists is that they take the same untenable position on the other side of this issue that you insist cannot be taken on the 'yeah, there is one' issue.

I am not arguing that one can simply say "God did it" and call it good. Science is about examining the processes of the universe, whether God did it or not. The only thing that ID folks can say is 'yeah, God did it...now let's find out how," and their results and examinations will be precisely the same as those scientists who leave God out of it.

Those who attempt to prove God aren't going to be able to do it.

And those who insist that because there IS no God that nobody who believes in one should be allowed anywhere near scientific examinations of anything are projecting. They are committing the same fallacy that they accuse the ID believers of committing.

And they will end up pulling a Fred Hoyle; so afraid that some discovery might just support the idea of ID that they refuse to accept facts; real, empirical, objective, facts.

The Big Bang MIGHT support a Creator...but then, it might not, too. Now me, I figure that if there is a Creator God, the Big Bang would be a pretty efficient way to start everything up.

Or not. Doesn't matter. Science is about investigating what happened and how things work, not 'who did it."

ID believers will ALWAYS be able to 'kick the can down the road." that is, if we end up finding a cause for the Big Bang that does not necessarily involve God, well then, what (or who) caused THAT cause?

Those who are so convinced that God does not exist will view every new discovery with a 'Fred Hoyle" eye...anything that they think theists MIGHT be able to use to say "God did that..." must be incorrect. Not because the science behind it is wrong, but because since God does NOT exist, then nothing that even seems to support that idea can possibly be true.

Fred Hoyle.

I suggest that you are being just as irrational in your insistence that there is no God, and because there cannot be one, nobody who believes in one should examine any part of the universe through science. I could say the same about those who insist that there cannot be a God; they are, in fact, more likely to screw up their data and the science than believers. Believers may leave God out of the science (as they should) but they are ALSO not likely to pull a Fred Hoyle. That level of atheist (the ones who are 'strong' atheists, claiming that there cannot be a God) is a lot more likely to get tunnel vision and to not accept data that messes with their world view.

I will say this...or rather, repeat this, since you seem to keep missing it in all my posts; Intelligent Design is a religious position. It belongs in church.

So does the idea that there cannot be a God. Neither idea belongs in astrophysics or geology or whatever field of science is under discussion, because one cannot prove either position empirically.

Has anyone actually said this?

 

[Polymath257]

"I don't believe in them" is a very subjective statement. I 'don't believe' in unicorns either. I think I'm glad about that. There is just something about the idea of unicorn poop ice cream that makes my nose itch.

OK, let me put it this way. I think that it is irrational to believe in unicorns without solid evidence that unicorns exist.

that said, since when is it a requirement for one field of study that the investigator claim that s/he 'doesn't believe' in the subject of another? that's what at least one poster in here is claiming; that it is a requirement for scientists to deny the existence of deity in order to BE scientists. One shouldn't mix science and religion--but one need not deny the value of one in order to study the other.

Nobody claimed that scientists have to be atheist. In fact, most scientists are theists. But *as scientists*, they cannot use the untestable hypothesis of a deity for their explanations. science is supposed to be objective. And, as you have pointed out, the belief in deities is subjective. That makes it unscientific.

Now, even scientists are unscientific in most aspects of their lives.

Ah...well, your opinion is yours. I use the capital T for "Truth" to apply to all philosophical and religious views because it is historically done that way. The capital T indicates a 'loftier,' more poetic view of grand ideas...very Romantic (in the poetic and literary sense...Emmerson and such). Truth with the lower case t, however, is more practical and alludes to facts that can be proven, not just eligized. I use the two conventions because, well...most people understand the convention.

Well, the use of 'Truth' for 'Opinion' is, I think, a great philosophical mistake. Truth, by its very nature, isn't dependent on the observer: it is objective. That notion goes all the way back to Plato, if not before.

Well, (using my own convention here) Truth is considerably more grand than individual opinion. One can spread stars around with Truth, but opinions are considerably less, er, lofty. IMO, of course.

I disagree. Your 'Truth' is simply shared opinions. The notion of truth is much different than shared opinions.

 

[tas8831]

What's arbitrary about related species vs unrelated species?

You demarcation between the two.

 

[tas8831]

Do you think this stuff is conclusive enough to validate the theory?

It is apparently conclusive enough that you feel compelled to ignore it repeatedly in order to maintain the facade.

It demonstrates the accuracy and reliability of a particular set of methodologies used to infer ancestor-descendant relationships, i.e., to test hypotheses of descent.

Which is why you are dutifully looking for an out.

And yes - I do think these methodologies have validated the theory, along with many other lines of evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'd guess you have no real interest in communicating with God at all. But if you do, you couldn't go wrong with "Father." That's what Jesus calls him. That's what he gave us in the prayer. "Our Father who art in heaven..."

I already have a father.

I can't communicate with someone or something that won't communicate back.

Weird how some view God as a male of some kind ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, stop. That's so....

No, it shows the flaws in what you call evidence.

What the heck do you think my claims ARE, SZ? How you figure that my 'point' goes against my claims is utterly beyond me.

Hard to say. Perhaps I could learn more if you did not constantly misrepresent the views of others. And you broke up my post to soon. The explanation was in the next sentence.

Actually, given the number of planets out there (you have been keeping up with the count, yes?) the odds that there is life on at least one other of them reaches darned near 100%. Whether or not intelligent beings who can travel faster than light (or can handle the time it takes to travel at speeds lower than that) is less likely, but hey. Who knows? Whether you are correct that the threshold for evidence for them is lower than that for deity may be questionable....after all, proof is proof...it's also true that people are more likely to consider the evidence of fifty eye witnesses to aliens more than you are likely to consider eye witness testimony to God. We do have that, after all. You just don't believe any of 'em.

See, you read the answer. We agree, that life on other planets, even intelligent life, is highly likely. We do not even know if a god is possible. Therefore God claims have a higher threshold to cross before they are to be taken seriously. Theists tend to apply that properly to other religions, but never to their own religion.

again, what claims do you think I have been making, SZ? I have never claimed that a god was necessary for life to evolve. I think that One was required to start it up in the first place, perhaps, but that One is required to micromanage evolution? I've never claimed that. Nor, even if God did start life, is science about proving that He did. Science is about examining HOW He did; the process. One does not need to know who baked a cake in order to reverse engineer the recipe.

Then why do you support ID? You may not understand what ID is and why it is not science. If You support a scientific study of life to see whether or not a deity was involved then you would need to come up with a different term. ID is already taken.

YOU are. It's the whole point of your argument.

Never. This has been explained to you multiple times. You keep misinterpreting the explanation at best.

Again, you are. Certainly that's the argument you are making with me, along with assuming all sorts of claims I have not made.

Not once. Perhaps your inability to understand an error that you have made multiple times is the cause of this. I tried to explain rational belief to you and it appears some serious cognitive dissonance kicks in And you have to twist the argument to support your beliefs.

OK.



Of course they do. Well, the ones I know do. There are, of course, folks who let their assumptions form their conclusions and ignore the middle, but then that's what you are doing here, it seems. I see no difference between the folks who assume that God did everything and that they can stop there.........and the folks who assume that no God exists, so anything that MIGHT seem to support the idea must be false. Both groups are missing the whole point of science. They are allowing their subjective beliefs regarding God to mess with their examination of data.

No seriously they don't. If they did one could find their work in well respected professional peer reviewed journals. This tells us that you do not understand the scientific method. Tell me,and this is a very serious question. What reasonable test or observation could show those people to be wrong? If they can't come up with one then the are NOT using the scientific method. And once again you go back to your strawman. Scientists are not assuming that there is no God in their work. Why do you keep making that obviously false claim? Is it because you realize that your position is weak so you have to accuse others of "you tooism" .

I have news for you, SZ. I have written before that believers in ID (and I know quite a few of those, living where I do) can always 'kick the can down the road." No matter where science leads them, God can always be the 'next' step, or the next one. Evolution? Fine. That's why we have such a variety of life on the planet. I can't think of a single thing that science could come up with that would DISPROVE God, and we don't have to mess with the facts in order to keep it that way. Belief in God is SUBJECTIVE. Always possible. Never IMpossible.

The by your own admission such a belief has no part in science. I am getting that you misinterpret that.

Are there proponents of ID who don't get that? Sure. I'm not talking about them. They have abandoned science and are dealing in religion. I'm considerably more worried about folks like you, who also abandon science for basically the same reason, but excuse it because, being atheists, y'all aren't a religion.

Then you do not understand what ID is. You need a different term. That one is already taken.

Except that you are. I mean, really....isn't your whole mindset that because there is no God, nobody who believes in one has any business in your 'church?" To you, it's a binary set; one can be a scientist OR believe in God, but not both.

Not once. You keep misinterpreting arguments, at best. Perhaps you should learn what atheism is. There is a very important difference between believing that something does not exist and not believing that something exists. By not having a belief one keeps oneself open to changing one's mind if evidence for that belief is presented. A jury is supposed to have a lack of belief in the guilt of a person charged with a crime until proper evidence is supplied to find him guilty. This is very important as well, a vote of not guilty is not a vote of innocent.

Now if you were to separate the groups...there are ID proponents who are thinly disguised creationists.

And then there are the ones like my father, who firmly believe in God, but who also believe that God wants us to figure out how He did it; to suss out the 'laws,' to figure out the processes, and NEVER accept 'God did it" as the final answer. He would never have thrown something out because it seemed to support 'no God,' and he certainly wouldn't have figured that he could prove that God existed through his own investigations.

Then you need a different term for what your father does. Once again the term ID was created by and belongs to those thinly disguised creationists. There are scientists doing real science that believe in God. Your father appears to be one of these. I am very certain he does not try to put God into his work. @Dan From Smithville is a scientist and Christian that would agree about keeping God out of science. ID involves actively inserting him into the process.

Either God designed the universe or He didn't. If He did, He certainly doesn't need us to protect that idea, and He doesn't need anybody to tweak the evidence His way. Things are what they are. Let's just look at those things and not worry about whether God did it.

And that includes you.

And it is now extremely clear that though you do believe in God you do not believe in ID. You need to look at the history of the term. The term was invented by the Discovery Institute. They are the thinly veiled creationists that you talked about. The term has a different meaning than you seem to think that it does.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, it's useful for the 'primal cause,' but not so much for examining what happened AFTER that. As I wrote earlier, Theists can always kick THAT can down the road.



Wait. I know that a bunch of theists believe in the 'Godidit' instead of evolution, but most of the ID folks I know figure that evolution works just fine in view of an Intelligent Designer. Are you thinking about "Creationists?" they aren't quite the same thing as "Intelligent Design" believers.



Well, like I said, most of the "Intelligent Design" believers I know don't have any problems with evolution. Or the age of the earth. Or even how life may have begun on the planet. I think you have the groups mixed up.

The proponents of "Intelligent Design" are the creationists who lost the arguments of proving genesis so state the separate ID from creationists at least temporarily. The premise of ID is that evolution is incorrect and cannot explain how life developed on earth.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Uhmn....what do you mean 'reproduced?" I know a man who had a meteorite crash in his back yard. Went through a tree branch and put a hole in his grass. He testified to it; the sound of the 'bang' when it hit, the hole....

A one time event that I don't think any of US can reproduce.

We have only his word for it, especially three years later when there is no evidence of the hole the thing made in his lawn...no evidence remains of the event.

Do we automatically assume, then, that the whole thing was 'in his head?"


Do we automatically deny all eyewitness accounts for all events? We would have to throw out most of history, if so.

Not that I am claiming that we believe everything someone reports, but that we throw it all out as having no value at all? That's going a bit far, I think.

Does the man have the meteorite? If he has the meteorite, he has objective evidence it exist.
If an experience can be reproduce in front of a camera then there would be objective evidence for it.

 

[metis]

The one thing we can say with the certainty of being correct regarding intelligent design is that there's nothing we can say about intelligent design that can be established with the certainty of being correct.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so I'll just start with the most basic question....whether there are fossil specimens that evidence the reptile-mammal transition. We can start with Yanoconodon, a specimen that was found in China in the early 2000's.

Here is the paper in the journal Nature: A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals

And here is a more layperson friendly blog post about the specimen and its importance in the reptile-mammal transition: Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil | ScienceBlogs

There are many, many other specimens that evidence this transition, but this is a good place to start for now.

Okay, these articles have to do with Meckel’s cartilage; its development from the cartilages supporting the branchial arches in early fish to the mandibles in vertebrates. The primary focus here is on its development from reptiles to the Eutriconodonta order of early mammals.

The articles were well chosen. The information in them fits very nicely into evolution theory.

On the other hand, it does not negate intelligent design because it can fit into that also.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, these articles have to do with Meckel’s cartilage; its development from the cartilages supporting the branchial arches in early fish to the mandibles in vertebrates. The primary focus here is on its development from reptiles to the Eutriconodonta order of early mammals.

The articles were well chosen. The information in them fits very nicely into evolution theory.

On the other hand, it does not negate intelligent design because it can fit into that also.

How? There is no evidence of a designer or the actions of a designer.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

How? There is no evidence of a designer or the actions of a designer.

No evidence is not a negation.

There have always been innumerable physiological features common throughout the animal kingdom in different, more or less developed forms appropriate for different species in their respective time and place. That can indicate intelligent design with at least as much plausibility as evolution, which also comes up short on evidence.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

No evidence is not a negation.

There have always been innumerable physiological features common throughout the animal kingdom in different, more or less developed forms appropriate for different species in their respective time and place. That can indicate intelligent design with at least as much plausibility as evolution, which also comes up short on evidence.

What objective evidence do you have for a designer/god?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No evidence is not a negation.

There have always been innumerable physiological features common throughout the animal kingdom in different, more or less developed forms appropriate for different species in their respective time and place. That can indicate intelligent design with at least as much plausibility as evolution, which also comes up short on evidence.

No evidence means there is no reason to consider it as an answer.

No. Not at all. Evolution is supported by the evidence. There is no evidence that supports intelligent design.

You keep getting more and more of just a minute fraction of the evidence and yet you insist that there is little or no evidence for evolution. That is the only theory with evidence supporting it. The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory when talking about intelligent design.

I can understand a Christian being interested in something that sounds like it can provide evidence for a designer in nature, but a Christian should be the first one questioning these sorts of claims, both from an ethical and experiential position. It is understandable that most Christians are not biologists and this presents a barrier to ease of understanding the science, but that is difficulty, not impossibility and with all the information available from reputable sources these days, it has become less difficult to learn.

 

[Bear Wild]

No evidence is not a negation.

There have always been innumerable physiological features common throughout the animal kingdom in different, more or less developed forms appropriate for different species in their respective time and place. That can indicate intelligent design with at least as much plausibility as evolution, which also comes up short on evidence.

That is absolutely incorrect. All of our understanding of comparative anatomy/physiology and all of the advances in our understanding of genetics with its amazing ability to create variations (without a shred of evidence of an intelligent designer constantly directing all lives genetic material all of the time) and all of the continuing finds in fossil record that continuously reaffirms the theory of evolution makes only one correct conclusion - the theory of evolution is sound science backed by real evidence.
Intelligent design - opinions, opinions and more opinions without evidence. The intelligent designer as much evidence as any mythical being be it Thor or Zeus or any deity male or female. You cannot give any evidence but then reject all of the evidence which would take years to read through.
Evolution - evidence based science Intelligent designer - imagination and opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No evidence is not a negation.

There have always been innumerable physiological features common throughout the animal kingdom in different, more or less developed forms appropriate for different species in their respective time and place. That can indicate intelligent design with at least as much plausibility as evolution, which also comes up short on evidence.

Think of it this way. If you do not have evidence that people are putting on arena rock concerts in your back yard, do you think it makes sense to say that they are?

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay, these articles have to do with Meckel’s cartilage; its development from the cartilages supporting the branchial arches in early fish to the mandibles in vertebrates. The primary focus here is on its development from reptiles to the Eutriconodonta order of early mammals.

The articles were well chosen. The information in them fits very nicely into evolution theory.

Again, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to read through the material and consider it. That's rare in these discussions.

On the other hand, it does not negate intelligent design because it can fit into that also.

That's true, but since "intelligent design" is a euphemism for "God made it", nothing can negate it. After all, by definition God can do absolutely anything and everything, including making things seem as if they came about via evolution when they really didn't.

 

[Jose Fly]

There have always been innumerable physiological features common throughout the animal kingdom in different, more or less developed forms appropriate for different species in their respective time and place. That can indicate intelligent design with at least as much plausibility as evolution, which also comes up short on evidence.

That's simply not true. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've ever seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the same is true of the past.

Conversely with "design" (aka creation by God), we've never once seen a god or gods create any of those things.

So if you're going to assert that in the past, new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species arose via means that we've never observed, and that they only started arising via evolution after we started looking, then you're going to have to provide some very substantial evidence to support it.

 

[dianaiad]

Has anyone actually said this?

Yes.

At least one poster in here claims that because believers cannot prove that there is a God to 'intelligently design' anything, that this is irrational and science is not for the irrational.