Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")

PaulK:Of course it's no secret... duh!But you boys are the one that insist we use a particular kind of language to prove the case. We have! It's called the design inference.Perhaps you can show (emperically) an example of design that does not have a designer?Nosey himself said that algorithms resemble life. Where do algorithms come from? Can you have algorithms without an intelligently built system of law and order?What you cannot show is an algorithm that builds a system of law and order. The algorithm cannot exist without the system first.I say that in case you think of giving a snowflake as your example. It is created by simple laws and chemistry. But where did the laws come from? Why are the phisical laws just so? And what happens when we change them?You could read John Polkinghorne's book 'One World' for some insight. He says, 'Did you know, that the ratio between the expansion and contraction of the universe had to be so precise, that it would litterally be like taking aim at a one inch square object on the other side of the universe, and hitting it bulls eye.... There's no free lunch, somebody has to pay'. (paraphrased)But you won't read it... it doesn't fit your agenda.So... as NJ and I agree, there is no method we can use to speak on this matter. You have your mind made up. It's called bias. Or more affectionately, as 'methodological naturalism'.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Sorry, molbiogirl, I find the whole thing dumb.What do people mean 'it may not be God designing'? Of course it's God, because 'God' just so happens to be what the English speaking world calls The Intelligent Designer.All this talk of aliens and angels and superheroes is just more possible wardrobe for the Designer Plays, aka, religions. Chances are there is no long white beard in the trunk.

great so who provided the design for "God"?

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

No way to know unless we find out what God is.

DrJones (not a real doctor):Do you want simple or complex?Your question is invalid because you assume God to be the same sort of entity as we encounter within our universe. But He is not so by definition.As is often said, you might as well ask, 'to whom is the bachelor married'?The question is flawed.Unless we want to believe that something can come from nothing, we know that something existed eternally, isn't that right DrJones (not an actual doctor)?So... eternality of some kind is a given assumption for us all.God doesn't need a designer, because... being the ultimate and supreme reality; omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, is all that can be. You cannot get bigger than infinite.What qualities would you give the eternal and infinite nature of causation?You seem to suppose that everything needs a cause. That is not true...Only that which has a beginning needs a cause. Reality (God) by definition is real without respect to time. Therefore God does not need a cause by definition.

ana promotion alert here...did you visit my thread?Not everyone believes in an eternality, but many are comfortable with the 'uncaused' as a scientific concept. I remember in my thread, there was some defense about whether 'uncaused' = 'eternal'. I ran out of steam on that, but you might get it going again.

"I AM" -Exodus 3:14

If you want to retreat into Deism, I don't think anyone's going to stop you. And you made it so far through your post without posting blatant nonsense --- and then you choked.

This is one of them weird EvC nights where things are becoming 'coherent'. Rob is now a pantheist AND a deist.

The discussions so far have been about the evolution of living things. How did we back all the way up to the initiation of physical laws? Since there isn't a good answer for that I guess you have a pretty good gap to put your god into. Is that your intention?

Nosey:My intention is to get to the point. And the physical laws do just that...How do you explain them? Because they infer design also. It is no secret. Particularly in light of your illustration in the other thread.Are you retracting it?You see, there is an answer... and it is a scientific one; the design inference. It is the same answer we find with the explanation for the arrival of any other system (like the computer in your illustration); intelligence!Where are you coming from? You act as though it is some great mystery.Kiss algorithms goodbye! Not because of them, but because of the 'bigger picture'; the system inwhich they sit.The implications are clear, you just don't like it... We have emperical evidence for design so we can infer it elsewhere. You have none for the alternate view. Yours is pure 'theo'.I am sorry for being so adament about it... but that is the way you want it (according to Percy). You don't care for the message of grace.I am only trying to accomodate you.Do you like?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Anastasia:Really?The only other option is that (all of this) something, came from nothing.Not a viable option for the scientific (reasonable) mind.So I suppose that they are excused...Perhpas the rest of us have something to discuss.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

How does that answer my question? What point?

read the edited version above...

I mention my conversation with Straggler.IIRC, he believes in 'all came from nothing'.Throwing in an eternal 'something' is not really doing justice to that concept.Is God a 'something', or a 'nothing'? It gets tricky.If God is something, He came from 'Something' prior. If He is nothing, he is natural, and we are pantheistic. Somehow, the two ideas have to be combined. God must be 'everything' and yet have the capability to 'melt' into parts...panentheism perhaps in theology, but inexplicable in terms of science.