The flaws in Intelligent design

[dianaiad]

That is the underlying argument I have. You can believe in God and accept and understand nature through science. What I cannot do is claim a divine cause for something, because I do not have the divine evidence for that something. I cannot tell others to believe and then follow it up with the offer of evidence that is either never given or proves not to be evidence for my claims at all.

All I can say with confidence is that I believe. I have reasons for believing, but they are personal experiences that I cannot validate to others. I do not have the arrogance to demand that others believe just because I do. I accept that others do not believe and I understand their reasoning. It is often very logical and based on evidence. Faith is not a logic or evidence-based expression. Not in the same sense as scientific understanding is based on logic and evidence.

I absolutely, 100%, agree with you on this.

Though I'm also quite willing to go out and try to convert people....I won't try to claim that I have objective, empirical evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, DNA is my objective evidence for God.

Weird - DNA is my objective evidence for evolution.

 

[tas8831]

Here's a good one you might want to start with: https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483 A New York Times best seller with tons of great reviews. Buy it. It will answer many of your questions

If Meyer's book answers your questions, you are not asking the right questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Learn to read. I have very clearly stated that one cannot prove or disprove the idea of God (the "Intelligent Designer" ) through scientific, empiric means. One can examine the DESIGN that way, though, whether it was 'designed' deliberately or not.

It is clear that I understand that. You are the one not following along.

The problem is that you are not approaching this scientifically. You can't examine what is not there and if you can't even define "design" properly you will never know if something is designed or not.

 

[tas8831]

Since order cannot arise out of chaos by unguided matter and energies according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then anything as complex and perfect even as a single cell of your body cannot exist and function but as a result of intelligent design.

A mere slogan. Are you familiar with emergent properties?

So how could anything as complex and perfect as the universe and life on earth not require an intelligent designer?

Are you familiar with the fallacy of begging the question?

This statement assumes that the tiny human mind can comprehend or test the infinite intellect and will of the omniscient God and that human behavior can impose anything on the natural world comparable to designing, creating, and sustaining it.

But didn't you already do that?

Complex proteins and their activity are specific to the creatures they were designed for.

Yes, and the puddle of water knows that the hole that it fills made just for it.

Yes, actively involved, but has no need to rearrange genetic material to create anything new. He created the entire universe out of nothing, and created new species the same way as and when He wanted to.

More begging the question.

And today, Darwin's whole theory is on artificial life support. Maybe he's thinking about that right now in his current spirit form. There is no question whatever that God has been a constant presence and influence in our world since He created it. That's a very good thing -- not hard to accept at all.

Cool slogans, mantras, and logical fallacies. Nothing of real value, though.

 

[tas8831]

Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon.... they all attributed the origin of the physical universe to God. Yet their beliefs did not inhibit their searches and their discoveries. Are you saying their work wasn't science?

Which of them used Scripture in their research? Which of them rejected their findings for not conforming to Scripture? Which of them did Origin of the Universe research?

 

[tas8831]

(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):"

(2) "Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems:"

(3) "Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes):"

(4) " Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, not realizing its true function):"

I think, ignoring for now their generally bogus "scientific" claims, that their underlying philosophical justification for rejecting evolution/positing a 'designer' (wink wink) is bogus on at least these two fronts:


1. I note that their entire thesis boils down to an argument via analogy to human activity.

Yes, HUMANS think with an "end goal" in mind, HUMANS can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems, HUMANS re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes), etc. So logically, they are really arguing that their 'designer' is just ahuman with magical powers.
Analogies are not evidence.


2. Despite imbuing their mythical 'designer' with magical (and notably/coincidentally human-like) abilities, they want to limit it to doing what a human might do - "re-use functional components", for instance.

Why would a being with the power to create THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE be constrained to re-using genes in separately created organisms? Is their 'designer' so limited in imagination and ability that it has to recycle genes? Why re-use even defunct genes in separately created organisms? Why use the same proteins over and over?

ID arguments are even worse that creationist arguments, in my opinion.

 

[tas8831]

Any biological system that is inefficient or prone to failure, they point to and say "See? Evidence of 'the Fall!'".

I just love their "the Fall" arguments, for it seems to undercut the whole "loving God" deal.

I especially like it when they claim mutations are the result of The Fall, that it is our eternal punishment because the original humans screwed up (how just and loving!), that we will die out due to "mutational meltdown".

But what's this? We have multiple mutation correction enzymes? How did THEY get there? Did Jehovah create them, too?

So, God cursed us with mutations that will cause our extinction, but then created mutation-correction mechanisms so we won't.... ???

Such logic.

 

[tas8831]

If you ever decide to seek God with a sincere heart and a receptive mind, then you will come to know Him as a reality. You will recognize his responses to you. You might even have a miraculous conversion experience. This sort of first-hand knowledge is definitive proof for any individual who receives it, but it cannot then be proven to others.

So... no evidence, then.

Isn't just so amazingly coincidental that one can only know the evidence for God if you pre-accept that he is real.

So cool.

 

[dfnj]

So... no evidence, then.

Isn't just so amazingly coincidental that one can only know the evidence for God if you pre-accept that he is real.

So cool.

How is your subjective judgment better than any theist making one. Most people who are theist say all of existence is the evidence. But you are making the judgment it is not evidence at all. Why is your subjective judgment the rational one or better one?

 

[Audie]

If Meyer's book answers your questions, you are not asking the right questions.

We've yet to encounter a creationist who knows much of
anything other than how to google a creationist site.

There is a saying that you need to know most of the
answer before you can ask a good question. I dont know
if there is an English language equivalent.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Suffering can be all explained by the natural world and no rant on sin will give a better explanation. Unless of course if the intelligent designer enjoys suffering.

Enjoyment does not have to be the purpose
There can be purposes in suffering longing for something better as death and suffering swallowed up in redemption some day when God wipes every tear from their eyes

 

[whirlingmerc]

We've yet to encounter a creationist who knows much of
anything other than how to google a creationist site.

There is a saying that you need to know most of the
answer before you can ask a good question. I dont know
if there is an English language equivalent.

my my my

"We've yet to encounter a creationist who knows much of
anything other than how to google a creationist site."

You sent us all to the Googlelog Archepelago

 

[Audie]

So... no evidence, then.

Isn't just so amazingly coincidental that one can only know the evidence for God if you pre-accept that he is real.

So cool.

Equally not-so-actually-amazing, that it is
actually impossible to be an informed, and
intellectually honest, creationist.

I suppose it may be that when one accepts
intellectual dishonesty in one field of thought,
that they may apply it with a broader brush.

On the pre-accept, I doubt any of our most
ardent religionists would like it if the jury
were instructed to work that way, if they
were on trial.

 

[tas8831]

This property enables adaptation, and survival, so it's obviously part of the design and already within the genetic code as written for each species.

Intriguing - you write that as if this is known, that there is evidence for it, that this part of the "genetic code" has been identified.

I have taught Genetics at the college level for many years. I teach an upper-level Evolutionary Biology class. Please explain to me or show me the evidence for this, for I have not read about or heard of any such thing in my 2+ decades of involvement in these matters.

Thanks.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

If that is true, then "designers" are actively at work when plants grow, when a seed becomes a tree, when wind becomes a hurricane,...

The entire process is ordered from the beginning by design. You should be able to observe that.

Then how could you, or anyone else, possibly know anything about this supposed god?

He revealed Himself and proved that He is God. Told the entire world as much as it needs to know for now about reality.

Even your pope disagrees with you.
Catholicism's official stance is that evolution happened.

Pope Francis expressed a goofy personal opinion about evolution that millions of people disagree with. And that personal opinion is not the opinion of the Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church. If you want to know "Catholicism's official stance" read the Catechism.

 

[Audie]

Enjoyment does not have to be the purpose
There can be purposes in suffering longing for something better as death and suffering swallowed up in redemption some day when God wipes every tear from their eyes

Right. "God" has some good reason for every awful
thing that happens What a guy!

 

[whirlingmerc]

Equally not-so-actually-amazing, that it is
actually impossible to be an informed, and
intellectually honest, creationist.

I suppose it may be that when one accepts
intellectual dishonesty in one field of thought,
that they may apply it with a broader brush.

On the pre-accept, I doubt any of our most
ardent religionists would like it if the jury
were instructed to work that way, if they
were on trial.

" it is
actually impossible to be an informed, and
intellectually honest, creationist."

Well I have 4 degrees in engineering
and 25 patents and
would like to think I know a thing or two

 

[tas8831]

One of the growing disadvantages to evolutionists ever since the theory was published has been all the scientific progress that disputes it.

Please provide a single legitimate example of the some of all the scientific progress that "disputes it."

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Cool slogans, mantras, and logical fallacies. Nothing of real value, though.

Just like your post.