Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

I think if there is a considerable amount of support for a topic, there should be a platform for at least discussing its possibilities. Yes, it could be anything. The Designer could be a microscopic pink elephant wearing a pink and purple polka-dotted dress for all we know for sure. No, because there is literally nothing supporting the inference of the deist God. It has as much philosophical and scientific backbone as the microscopic elephant.What exactly lead you you your deist beliefs? Because, if it was not design, nor by any special revelation, what then made its reality known to you? I'm not being cantankerous either, I'd really like to know. Yes, I mean that both pro and con arguments against design should be allowed to be discussed, because design does not have to be theological in nature. I mean, there are quite a few competing theories. We have terrestrial evolution, indirect panspermia that assumes extraterrestrial evolution, direct panspermia which assumes intelligent beings intentionally seeding life on earth, the multiverse theory where this universe is one of many, etc, etc. Intelligent Design does not merely encompass a theological belief. Yes. That's where chance and patterning come in, which is just a facet of the anthropic principle. Well, RAZD, I obviously don't see it as delusional, but you are welcome to that opinion. Here's a novel idea: Lets leave it open to discussion in school instead of shunning those who have a different view.There really is only two options for anyone would want to suppress ID. Either ID is so fallacious and so pernicious that it would bring the whole of science into disarray, or its such a good deduction that its a frightening prospect that could supplant the current prevailing theory.I don't see a third option.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

It's sad that you do not see all the other possible options.From the scientific perspective there are:

• the fact that so far no one has been able to identify how someone can tell if something is designed
• explained why the majority of what is observed is poorly designed
• identified the model for predicting design
• produced a model of the designer

while from the theological perspective there is the fact that what is observed proves that the designer is

• incompetent
• inept
• capricious
• ignorant
• incapable of learning from past mistakes
• sloppy
• uncaring
• cruel

There are other reasons both scientific and theological but I think they can all be summed up that the classic concept of ID is simply stupid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1. ID is certainly not a disguise of some avowed creationists, Jar, for example. Creationism, as I understand it does imply intelligent design. Our scientists do factor this in scientific hypothesis to whatever degree any given project would indicate.2. This is relative, I suppose to one's ideology. You people, of course, believe design all came via purely natural processes which would include intelligence of living things. I would not agree that the significant amount of design that is observed is possible from purely natural means. I believe when most folks refer to ID though, they are speaking of an intelligent supreme intelligence having designed observed things having design. Edited by Buzsaw, : fix error

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I would like some specifics, yes, so I know what you referencing.

quote:

---

Can you get a degree in String Theory? No, I didn't think so. What you can do is study the theory by taking advanced astrophysics courses.

---

*Ding, ding, ding*This argument started when I said that neither ID nor evolution were actually branches of science, but rather, employed branches of science to corroborate the theory. Therefore, its well within reason to challenge both theories on the merits of the thesis either presents. How is that wrong when you just conceded that evolution is not a branch of science? I didn't say it wasn't scientifically based, I said that it wasn't a branch of science. Therefore, science isn't threatened by ID, whatsoever, because it isn't challenging the branch, its challenging some of the theories within that branch of sicence. Oh, I see. And what are they doing? Playing with Play-doh? I'm going to advance an argument that is indicative of Intelligent Design. If it is not parsimonious, let me know why:Looking at creatures that employ camouflage as a defense or offense, I, personally, cannot see how anyone can miss the intent. That certainly doesn't make my view correct, but lets examine it a little.Creatures, such as the praying mantis, chameleon or the octopus each have some sort of camouflage ability. Lets start with the mantis. This critter has a body shape that looks like some twigs from a bushel, blending in with an actual plant. Looking at this creature, how can anyone possibly think that this amazing feature came by way of happenstance?You would either have to figure out a way that any creature could develop this or concede that either the mantis willed itself, genetically, or that nature has a mind. Similarly, the chameleon employs camouflage by using its chromatophores. The chameleon has these highly specialized cells that lie in two layers underneath the skin. The chromatophores contain a yellow and red pigment. Underneath this first layer are guanophores. These guanophores reflect light creating the illusion of incandescence.Octopi and some other cephalopods are similar in that they can manipulate chromatophores by contraction and expansion as the result of controlling muscle fibers. They can terminate this color shifting almost instantly with motor neurons. As a result, these color changes can come about through the dispersal or aggregation of granules within the cell under hormonal control.Now, if we were to assert that these instances are the result of a natural progression of evolution, then aren't we going to have to explain the mechanisms and reasons for this occurrence? Why did these creatures develop this distinct feature and no other, when all organisms could benefit from them as well? How did we lose the procryptic ability? I don’t know about you, but I sure would not mind blending in with my environment. It certainly seems beneficial to me. Why is it lost during our divergence?If you cannot logically answer this, then you will have to explain how the mantis, chameleon, or octopus granted itself these procryptic abilities. We know they are able to manipulate their body, but how would they be able to create this in their offspring’s genetic code?If you cannot answer that either, then you are going to have to admit that nature has a mind and that it exhibits intelligence and intent. If you cannot do that either then we aren't we inescapably driven towards an alternative answer? Out of all other options, we would have to concede that something else is the cause of this spectacular feat.Does this, in any way, shape or form verify that God created this? Certainly not, however, couldn't we greatly assume that something cognizant is the cause of these features, because as we’ve seen, there is nothing in nature that would, alone, account for these occurrences. What other choice do we have left?We can argue about who or what the Creator{s} are/is until we’re blue in the face and dripping with perspiration, but that much is inconsequential to the direct question. I know this much, however; that evolution does not answer the finer details of how this was even possible. Furthermore, it has nothing to support the belief. And the law of parsimony on animals with procryptism seems to speak the loudest of intent.“We wish that science teachers would distinguish clearly between firmly established empirical facts concerning evolution and theories about mechanisms. They forget the fact that any theory of the world has at most a provisional, pro tem value. It is only valid until it is falsified or a better model is proposed. When the current favorite theory leaves as much unexplained as Darwin does, students must learn that scientific alternatives exist. Failure to mention them is deceitful.” -Brig Klyce

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

They may as well. From what I see they go around and placing sticky notes on this process and that mechanism saying "We ain't got a clue, godunit".Unfortunately real science slowly plods along removing the sticky notes one by one.

Well, that leaves ID out... Except that some of us take the education of our kidds very seriously. My kidds science class is not the right forum for a discussion about a fringe movement pseudo-scientific religiously-inspired pet-nonsense-theory to be held. Sorry, but it`s out. I think ID is fallacious and pernicious. I don`t think it`s a serious threat to sience, for now. But I see it as a potentially serious threat to the quality of my kidds education. I don`t take that very lightly.Delusional conspiracy theory noted

Quick question, what did the Guinea Worm do before the fall?Did the Guinea Worm evolve after the fall from some higher and nobler way of life to its present very specific methods of boring holes thru human flesh, softening the tissue in front of its path with a very specially "designed" acid.Did the predators evolve sharp serrated teeth, short meat consuming intestinal system, clutching claws, strong muscular bone crunching jaw structures, etc. after the fall?Did prey evolve the various defense mechanisms such a armor, spikes, horns, speed, clubs, poison, mimicry after the fall?And the big question:Are these post-fall features Intelligently Designed?When you couple God with Intelligent Design there are some difficult consequences.

Yeah.. actually, NJ, what are they doing? There aren't any ID labs or research institutions or anything. All they seem to do is talk about ID; they don't ever seem to answer any pressing questions with it. Or produce technologies or something.

More nonsense. You say evolution isn`t a branch of sience because nobody gets a bachelors degree in evolution. How much more irrelevant than that can an argument get? Good question. What are they doing???? How come no peer reviewed scientific production is coming out of this ID movement???? Oh, but they don`t want to make the hard work of developping a real scientific theory. They just want to short circuit the whole process and jump directly from non-peer-reviewed bookstore publication and expect to be allowed into kidds science classroom. No way, Jose. That Ain`t gonna Happen. Your inability to perceive or understand is nobody else`s problem. Argument from ignorance noted. Or admit that you don`t know. More argument from ignorance Evolutionists are not obliged to know exactly how any specific instance of evolution took place in order for the overall theory to be trueHow come people speak english in England but speak italian in Italy? Random mutation + natural selectionYou could also admit that you don`t know. One more argument from ignorance has been noted Your whole post is a freshman`s level argument from Ignorance. I would Grade you a C*Pats NJ on the head*Edited by fallacycop, : spellingEdited by fallacycop, : No reason given.

quote:

---

*pats fallacycop on the head*

​

Run along now, the big people are talking.

---

Then I guess my comment about him still stands, huh... Maybe so. I am a sinner afterall.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

quote:

---

No, you've imagined this Bogeyman scenario so you can keep it out.

​

No, it isn't. Can you get a degree in String Theory? No, I didn't think so. What you can do is study the theory by taking advanced astrophysics courses.

---

Actually, Percy proved my point for me quite nicely. Neither evolution or ID are branches of science. They aren't-- they really, really aren't. Well, somebody thought that the heliocentric model was better than the geocentric model...? Some people thought that the round earth is better than the flat earth model too.

quote:

---

*pats fallacycop on the head*

​

Run along now, the big people are talking.

---

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings fallacycop. I'll make a concerted effort to include you with the big people next time, and leave myself playing with the silly putty with a stupid look on my face.To clarify my position, what that meant is you tend not to give me anything to go by. You're what I like to call, a hit-and-run poster-- a polemicist. You expect two sentences to speak profoundly to me when it doesn't. I suppose I could have responded with, "okay," to your statement, because that's really all it warranted. You just don't really ever seem to engage in the conversation with specifics. You say how much you detest ID, but don't really give indications as to why, aside from never forgetting to mention how much that its 'crap.'I guess what I'm asking for, is specific grievances. What about ID don't you like. If your only objection is that you feel that it tries to smuggle in theology, we're just going to go around in circles.Does that make sense?

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I'm not the authority on ID, neither are you, and neither is John 10:10. I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

That`s exactly right. And some of these someones that thought the heliocentric model was better were put to death (Geordano Bruno comes to mind) by the church. A church that didn`t know to keep themselves to theology and let the scientists do the science. My reasons were stated above. Geordano Bruno`s Death is my reason.

Are you saying that no one can do it in a worthy manner or that no thesis has ever been presented? If its the latter, I'd say that isn't true. Dembski, revising off the works of a few other trailblazers has written a thesis on his explanatory filter for separating design from chance. What would consider to be a poor design, especially in light of you stating that there is no design at all? This is what the explanatory filter does. I'm not sure what this means. Can you expound? This is intriguing to me because, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have posted pictures you've taken of nature with the quoted caption, "God is awesome!" So, in one instance you attribute design to God and say that His creation is masterful, but in the next, you call Him inept.If you don't believe that God has anything to do with creation, aside from setting it in motion, you cede that God lets the chips fall where they may as His grand surprise. That would imply that God isn't awesome at all, but is just a bystander as we are about nature. That would mean that your god had no power in the formation of the plants that you were photographing.That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways. Can you explain this unique position of yours?

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

quote:

---

Oh, I see. And what are they doing? Playing with Play-doh?

---

Then you must know nothing of the controversy, because, "Godunit" has never been an answer. You're only proving that you are operating under a grossly defective misinterpretation-- or dare I say, operating from the delusion of a disinformation campaign spread by the detractors of ID?

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-