Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 91 of 301 (368893)
12-10-2006 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by John 10:10
12-10-2006 9:15 PM


Other ways to produce apparent design.
I made the argument that design requires a designer, both in human terms and in cosmology terms. But you fail to see the need for either. Yes, this is pathetic.
However, John, we know that there is at least two ways to arrive at apparent design. Fortunatly, we are also able to examine the resulting designs and see that they are different when produced by the different methods. Living things are a very good match for the kinds of designs that we know for a fact are produced by processes that are NOT guided by intelligence of any kind.
So from this knowledge of such processes and the type of designs produced we can indeed conclude as you note below.
quote:
But when evolutionists look at the incredible design and complexity of macro and micro space, with all its myriad forms of plants, animals, and inorganic substances, they ever spend their finite lives to somehow conclude there is no Creator cause behind our existence.
  —John
The "designs" you refer to here are exactly NOT like the designs created by humans and therefore it is certainly most reasonable to conclude that if there was a designer behind them it acts to produce designs which show all the hallmarks of designs that are produced by known evolutionary processes.
We have good reasons and evidence for the conclusions we draw. All you have is an lack of understanding of the processes involved and all but the most superficial knowledge of the details of the resulting designs.
You made no argument whatsoever. You simply drew and analogy between two different classes of things. You offer not reason at all to support that connection.
Edited by NosyNed, : silly spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John 10:10, posted 12-10-2006 9:15 PM John 10:10 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 161 of 301 (369743)
12-14-2006 1:45 PM


Science done by IDists
Intelligent design: The God Lab
This describes some biochemical work being done by IDists. A new strategy in reaction to the Dover decision is what it appears to be. They seem to think that if they can find a gap in knowledge they have a place to stuff a little god.

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by iceage, posted 12-14-2006 2:34 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2006 7:30 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 12-15-2006 8:57 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 231 of 301 (371636)
12-22-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by GDR
12-22-2006 11:30 AM


Which type of design
That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed. Either position requires faith.
There is considerable evidence that the type of "design" that we are an example of is exactly NOT the kind of designs that humans (the only intelligent designers we know of) produce.
In fact, the evidence (not "circumstantial" -- but I'm not sure what you mean with that word) shows that we are a product of evolutionary processes because we are formed in exactly the way that experimental "designs" produced by those processes are formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 11:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024