The flaws in Intelligent design

[Jollybear]

What objective evidence does it have?

Lots and lots of evidence. humongous amount.

 

[dianaiad]

You have a lot of work to do before you can even begin to call it science. First you must properly define your terms. What is "design"? How do you tell what is designed and what is not? Creationists cannot even accomplish this first step. To call something science the claim must be in the form of a testable hypothesis. If not all you have are self contradicting ad hoc explanations and hand waving.

But at least you admit to the dishonesty of those advocating ID.

I am beginning to get annoyed. You are referring to science as if it is a religion. It's not. It is a method of examining things, depending upon objective observations and evidence. it has no business dealing with the idea of God, or an 'Intelligent designer."

What it CAN be used for is to examine the 'design.' to see how it works. Whether ultimately the universe was 'designed' by a crestor, or it just some how flashed into being all by itself, the process of examining it remains the same; the scientific method.

There is no difference in the 'design', whether it had a creator God or not, and no difference in the way we find out about it. Whether it was created or not is a matter that CANNOT be examined by the scientific method, and doesn't need to be. That is a matter for subjective stuff...'faith,' if you will, and doesn't make tiddley winks worth of difference to the scientists who examine the universe.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):"

(1) " Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information):"

This concept is an anthropomorphic statement that assumes there is an "end goal" so what is the end goal - to create a species that can destroy the world for all other life and cause its own extinction. What kind of "end goal" is that?

 

[Cooky]

That is a misguided statement that assumes you know "the truth" above others.

Not at all. My point is that some young atheists take so much pride in their atheism, that they lose respect for the religious just on grounds of them being religious.

That's a poisonous mentality. I reject that notion to the fullest.

 

[Jollybear]

Near death experiences, ESP, alien visitations, UFO's, ghosts, Bigfoot and a plethora of other well established, characterized and verified phenomena. LOL!

I pressed winner because i agree, but i know you said it sarcastically.

As a christian, do you believe in a afterlife?

 

[Jose Fly]

I think we are witnessing the redefinition of atheism to include theists that understand science and reject the intelligent design movement on scientific grounds as well. I suppose the Christian judge in Kitzmiller v Dover case is also now an atheist under that redefinition, as well.

Creationists tend to be fundamentalists, and one of the psychological traits fundamentalists tend to exhibit is black/white thinking. So in their world, you are either one of them (a true Christian (TM)) or an atheist.

The funny thing is, I've seen how many fundamentalist creationists perceive Christians who have no problem with evolution as a much, much bigger threat than atheists. I think it's that they see atheists as at least having a clear and transparent purpose in the discussion, whereas Christian "evolutionists" are seen as unwittingly destroying scripture from within the faith.

 

[Bear Wild]

Lots and lots of evidence. humongous amount.

Humongous repetitive inaccurate evidence often misusing statistics to sway opinion rather than provide evidence. Give us the best evidence that could only be explained by intelligent design.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think the questioning leads to a better understanding of my position. Sometimes it reveals that what I thought was correct turns out not be the case. Also a good thing. Finally, I see different perspectives and learn from them.

If my views were intractable, I do not know how I would justify participation in a discussion where those views are involved. Obviously, some of the core views or beliefs would need a lot of thought and information for me to warrant changing them, but many of those are held in place in ways unrelated to the questions raised in the discussion of a subject like evolution or intelligent design.

Definitely. I learned long ago that many people are rather lacking in introspection....some through fear, others through pride, and still others from something much deeper.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Those who were/are not atheists have been reluctant to publish materials disputing evolution because that has been very harmful to their careers.

Most of those views are not science and there is not justification for publishing them in scientific journals. It makes sense that if you start making claims that are unscientific and trying to push them in the scientific literature, you are going to have problems.

There are some good books on the problems of the evolution theory, which you most likely have not read.

I do not know of any. Would you care to post the citations?

Well, at least one of the most persistent lines of misinformation.

So you are claiming a conspiracy theory involving the whole of science. That would be amazing.

Many of them are apparently under Satan.

Yes. Of course. Satan. I do not know his scientific credentials. Is it physics, biology or just general science? I find it telling when a person turns to Satan for help in winning an argument.

 

[Jose Fly]

Whether it was created or not is a matter that CANNOT be examined by the scientific method, and doesn't need to be. That is a matter for subjective stuff...'faith,' if you will, and doesn't make tiddley winks worth of difference to the scientists who examine the universe.

Could you pass that on to @Jollybear please?

 

[Jollybear]

It would be okay, if a few weren't such aggressive proselytizers. I feel the same way about the religious ones.

...I just don't like that.

Yes, when it comes to defending what they preach, logic fails them and it fails with a bang.

 

[Cooky]

I am beginning to get annoyed. You are referring to science as if it is a religion. It's not. It is a method of examining things, depending upon objective observations and evidence. it has no business dealing with the idea of God, or an 'Intelligent designer."

What it CAN be used for is to examine the 'design.' to see how it works. Whether ultimately the universe was 'designed' by a crestor, or it just some how flashed into being all by itself, the process of examining it remains the same; the scientific method.

There is no difference in the 'design', whether it had a creator God or not, and no difference in the way we find out about it. Whether it was created or not is a matter that CANNOT be examined by the scientific method, and doesn't need to be. That is a matter for subjective stuff...'faith,' if you will, and doesn't make tiddley winks worth of difference to the scientists who examine the universe.

Agreed. I personally do believe in evolution, but I also believe in God -that God sparked evolution and the whole universe and that science just measures and shows the details.

Why I am treated like a second class citizen for this is a clear display of bigotry.

 

[Bear Wild]

Not at all. My point is that some young atheists take so much pride in their atheism, that they lose respect for the religious just on grounds of them being religious.

That's a poisonous mentality. I reject that notion to the fullest.

And the same can be said for the religions people that impose their belief with not respect for other beliefs. That is a poisonous mentality. Religious people can take so much pride in their religion and impose their beliefs on others. There is a long long history of this.

 

[dianaiad]

Calling the supernatural an 'intelligent designer' does not change the fact that claims about 'the designer' and questions about 'the designer' are not scientific. Science cannot show God or deny God. Science cannot show an 'intelligent designer' nor deny one.

You can apply the scientific method to anything, but the application does not constitute evidence for the existence to that which it is applied.




Of course they are. An intelligent designer of the universe would be God...by definition.

I appreciate your honesty about who the intelligent designer is supposed to be. Of course that puts you back to my first response and shatters the illusion that intelligent design is science.[/QUOTE]

Well, I never claimed that the idea of an Intelligent Designer is 'science." it's faith. But whether the universe was created or just...appeared, it's the same universe, and the method of examining it remains the same.

I guess my problem is that I see both camps conflating the ideas. Don't do that. God cannot be proven through empirical evidence. I wouldn't use subjective feelings to classify a rock. Why you guys...from both sides of this...insist that one or the other method must be used to 'measure' or examine things appropriate for the other one, or be thrown out all together, is beyond me.

It's as if someone brought a thermometer to measure wind speed, and then got all unhappy because one uses an anemometer to do that. This guy then declares that if he can't use a thermometer to measure wind speed, then it's not science and anemometers must be thrown away; if it can't measure temperature, it's garbage.

We cannot prove God's existence with science. We can't disprove Him with science. We CAN, however, examine His creation with it, exactly the way we would if we didn't think it WAS a creation. One uses an entirely different method to decide whether God is. ....and one really shouldn't use that method to, er, measure wind speed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):"

(1) " Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information):"

This concept is an anthropomorphic statement that assumes there is an "end goal" so what is the end goal - to create a species that can destroy the world for all other life and cause its own extinction. What kind of "end goal" is that?

I always liked (in a humorous sense) the notion of "multiple designers", where the intent of one design (e.g., speed in gazelles) is to defeat a different design (e.g., hunting ability of lions).

Otherwise, one has to ask....why is the "designer" constantly counteracting its own designs?

 

[Bear Wild]

Agreed. I personally do believe in evolution, but I also believe in God -that God sparked evolution and the whole universe and that science just measures and shows the details.

Why I am treated like a second class citizen for this is a clear display of bigotry.

You can believe in god all you want the issue with intelligent design is that it is saying that evolution did not occur. An intelligent designer had to actually create each of the genetic sequences that code for complex proteins.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Lots and lots of evidence. humongous amount.

Give some examples.

 

[Cooky]

And the same can be said for the religions people that impose their belief with not respect for other beliefs. That is a poisonous mentality. Religious people can take so much pride in their religion and impose their beliefs on others. There is a long long history of this.

Yes, I know. I oppose them all. They're all radicals, and radicals should be called out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Definitely. I learned long ago that many people are rather lacking in introspection....some through fear, others through pride, and still others from something much deeper.

It is a fine line to believe in your position so strongly to hold it and support it against attack, but at the same time be capable of objectively reviewing it or placing it at risk of a rational review by others.

There are many paradigms, but this one seems to work well for me.

I hear a lot of information and opinion from others, but I am under no obligation to accept it without question, just as others are under no obligation to do the same for what I say, but even in that, there is the possibility of learning something and exchanging ideas.

Creationists want learning without question and they get pretty prickly when the questions come out.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Near death experiences, ESP, alien visitations, UFO's, ghosts, Bigfoot and a plethora of other well established, characterized and verified phenomena. LOL!

NDE'S are subjective.
ESP is subjective.
Aliens and UFO'S possible.
Ghost are subjective.
Bigfoot is possible.