Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 11:26 PM
339 online now:
DC85, DrJones* (2 members, 337 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,880 Year: 25,486/21,208 Month: 1,113/2,338 Week: 234/450 Day: 54/52 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products
lbm111
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


(1)
Message 1 of 72 (653789)
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


I want to raise a topic that seems to be discussed very little by either the ID camp or the Science camp - the issue of intelligent design as it applies to human activities.

While there is much debate about whether the universe or the natural world was created by intelligent design it seems to be generally accepted that human beings can design intelligently. An ipod, a scientific theory or a work of Art are routinely accepted as being evidence of mankind's intelligent capabilities.

My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

Hence if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept. We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.

thoughts?

Edited by Admin, : Fix typo.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 02-24-2012 8:10 AM lbm111 has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2012 8:16 AM lbm111 has responded
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 02-24-2012 8:17 AM lbm111 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-24-2012 9:23 AM lbm111 has responded
 Message 7 by Perdition, posted 02-24-2012 11:03 AM lbm111 has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2012 11:15 AM lbm111 has responded
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 02-24-2012 11:18 AM lbm111 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 02-24-2012 6:50 PM lbm111 has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Portillo, posted 03-03-2012 3:18 AM lbm111 has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2 of 72 (653791)
02-24-2012 6:50 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3 of 72 (653795)
02-24-2012 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


quote:

My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

Assuming you are just discussing the dichotomy of intelligent activity against unguided nature this is far from obviously true. We cannot, for instance, ignore direct evidence of human manufacture, nor can we assume evolution given objects clearly incapable of evolving.

I suspect that what you mean is that since ID writings ignore arguments which apply only to human created objects there can be no such arguments. Phrasing it like this, makes the error far more obvious.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 4 of 72 (653796)
02-24-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

Must it? If there's any doubt about who makes iPods, you can go to the Foxconn factory and see them be made:

(Happy to be off the rice farm, or grimacing at the prospect of another 16 hour day assembling our electronic detritus? You decide.) "Reductionist" or not, why should we ignore this direct evidence of "intelligent design" of iPods? Now, on the other hand, the only intelligent agents I've ever seen create life have been human beings. I've never seen a god or an alien or any other "intelligent designer" construct a bacterium. So why should I believe that it happens?

We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.

We're foolish to invoke an intelligent designer under any circumstances except where it is the best explanation for what we observe.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 5 of 72 (653797)
02-24-2012 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

But we know for a fact that an ipod was designed by humans.

It says so on the ipod.

ABE: wow, ninja'd twice

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3020
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 6 of 72 (653799)
02-24-2012 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


Your Idea is Already Done
Ibm111 writes:

My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

You are correct. This arguement should (and is) applied to human activity as well.
It's just that in the case of biological life, the conclusion is obviously that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature.
However, if the case of human actiity, the conclusion is obviously that the phenomenon can be better explained by the human activity we're observing.

Hence if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept. We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.

That's just silly. Why would you take the same conclusion for two different scenarios just because you're applying the same test?
That's like saying birds don't lay eggs because you tested some bunnies and they have live young. Therefore, if you apply the same test on birds... then the same conclusion must also apply to birds... so birds must also birth live young??? It just doesn't make any sense.

Sure, you can run the same test on as many different scenarios as you like (and you should).
But if you're just going to assume the same conclusion because it's the same test... that's just ridiculous.

Origin Test on biological life - conclusion is that it is better explained by chance and the laws of nature.
Origin Test on human created devices - conclusion is that it is better explained by human activity.

It really seems very simple. Perhaps, if it still exists, you could elaborate your confusion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:05 PM Stile has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 796 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 7 of 72 (653805)
02-24-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


Hi Ibm111. Are you trying to state a defense of determinism here:

that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

If so, you could have a point, but one I don't thnk anyone would agree with. Intelligence may be deterministic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you're not saying anything about determinism, then I can make absolutely no sense of anything you've said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 8 of 72 (653806)
02-24-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

Human beings do in fact obey the laws of nature. When we apply out inteligence, we don't do so by doing magic, we're not wizards.

Hence if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept. We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.

No, you're foolish to invoke magic in any circumstances whatsoever. We know that intelligence exists. But on the same basis we know that magic does not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 72 (653807)
02-24-2012 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


Hence if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept.

No we're not.

We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.

We are foolish to settle on the least evidenced explanation when there are other explanations with more evidence and more explanatory power.

It has nothing to do with natural and not natural. We prefer the better explanation, that's all.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5538
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 10 of 72 (653833)
02-24-2012 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


When we recognize that an iPod is intelligently designed, what are we really noticing?
  • that it is manufactured;
  • that it is an artifact;
  • or something else?

If pressed, I might agree that a bird's nest, or honey comb are in some sense intelligently designed. But, in general, if asked to distinguish between designed things and natural things, I would put the birds nest and the honey comb in with the natural things.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has not yet responded

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 11 of 72 (653834)
02-24-2012 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
02-24-2012 8:16 AM


nice picture!
this is missing the point - Im not saying that ipods aren't manufactured by foxxcon employees or that foxxcon employees aren't human.

Im asking by what measure we class this as an 'intelligent' action.

Is intelligence something that we can scientifically verify? Can we say how many units of intelligence it takes to create an ipod?

of course not.

"why should we ignore this direct evidence of "intelligent design" of iPods?"

There is no direct evidence of "intelligent design" - "intelligent design" does not exist

We have direct evidence that an ipod was made that is all. Beyond that is mere conjecture


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2012 8:16 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 02-24-2012 9:35 PM lbm111 has responded
 Message 52 by angletracks, posted 04-24-2012 7:48 PM lbm111 has not yet responded

    
lbm111
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 12 of 72 (653835)
02-24-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
02-24-2012 11:15 AM


Dr Adequate "We know that intelligence exists. But on the same basis we know that magic does not."

How do you know intelligence exists? How do you know magic does not exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2012 11:15 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Panda, posted 02-24-2012 7:09 PM lbm111 has responded
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2012 8:17 PM lbm111 has not yet responded

    
lbm111
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 13 of 72 (653836)
02-24-2012 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stile
02-24-2012 9:23 AM


Re: Your Idea is Already Done
"Origin Test on human created devices - conclusion is that it is better explained by human activity"

You're going to have to explain that a bit more.

Are you trying to suggest that human activity is somehow not governed by chance and laws of nature the same as the rest of the natural world?

Yes human activity may be a suitable pseudo-explanation but ultimately any rigorous explanation must come down to scientific fact and the laws of nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-24-2012 9:23 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 02-27-2012 9:26 AM lbm111 has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 14 of 72 (653837)
02-24-2012 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:58 PM


lbm111 writes:

How do you know intelligence exists?


Because, when we look away from your posts, we see it in abundance.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:58 PM lbm111 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:26 PM Panda has responded

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 15 of 72 (653839)
02-24-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Panda
02-24-2012 7:09 PM


quote:
Because, when we look away from your posts, we see it in abundance.

hahahaha you're too funny


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Panda, posted 02-24-2012 7:09 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Panda, posted 02-24-2012 7:47 PM lbm111 has not yet responded

    
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017