Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Defence of Intelligent Design
bran_sept88
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 208 (79923)
01-21-2004 10:17 PM


I'm Bran,
I am writing a paper in defense of Intelligent design, along with all of my six other classes I don't have time to look through 200,000 google items so if anyone can point me to any good defense of ID. Any help is greatly appreciated. I am also a creationist and a bible believing christian and any insight from creationists is appreciated as well.
BRAN

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Cthulhu, posted 01-21-2004 10:23 PM bran_sept88 has replied
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 01-22-2004 1:53 AM bran_sept88 has replied
 Message 13 by FliesOnly, posted 01-22-2004 1:12 PM bran_sept88 has replied
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-24-2004 5:43 PM bran_sept88 has not replied

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 2 of 208 (79926)
01-21-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bran_sept88
01-21-2004 10:17 PM


The best evidence for ID can be summed up as follows:
GAWD...no...wait...DESIGNERDIDIT!

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bran_sept88, posted 01-21-2004 10:17 PM bran_sept88 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bran_sept88, posted 01-21-2004 10:39 PM Cthulhu has replied

bran_sept88
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 208 (79929)
01-21-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cthulhu
01-21-2004 10:23 PM


Thx
When i said good advise i meant it!
BRAN+0

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cthulhu, posted 01-21-2004 10:23 PM Cthulhu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 10:59 PM bran_sept88 has not replied
 Message 7 by johnfolton, posted 01-22-2004 12:19 AM bran_sept88 has not replied
 Message 8 by Cthulhu, posted 01-22-2004 12:42 AM bran_sept88 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 208 (79936)
01-21-2004 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by bran_sept88
01-21-2004 10:39 PM


Re: Thx
Well, one thing you could do is peruse the ID theads here.
To summarize the so called (my bias shows) support for ID seems to be.
1) There are somethings we don't know enough about to know how they happened. (origin of life is one, some biological structures are others) Therefore some thing with intelligence must have been involved.
2) Some things "obviously" could not have happened using the current explanations. These things are called irreduciably complex. So something with intelligence must have been involved.
3) Things look, to an individuals eye, designed therefore they must have been designed.
I think that covers it (it will have to do until someone comes along that believes it).
I'll leave my rebuttal to the above for the next post. But again you should go to the threads in the ID forum for much more detail.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bran_sept88, posted 01-21-2004 10:39 PM bran_sept88 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 11:08 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 72 by Warren, posted 01-23-2004 1:24 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 208 (79937)
01-21-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
01-21-2004 10:59 PM


Nosy you are soooo dumb!
Now I'll have to show you how dumb that NosyNed guy is.
1) There are somethings we don't know enough about to know how they happened. (origin of life is one, some biological structures are others) Therefore some thing with intelligence must have been involved.
This is just another form of God-of-the-gaps theology. (gotg). That is, if we don't know something "god did it" is the answer. Historically this has proved to be a rather bad idea. As we learn more the gaps keep getting closed. Most Christian theologians don't think that this is a good idea.
2) Some things "obviously" could not have happened using the current explanations. These things are called irreduciably complex. So something with intelligence must have been involved.
This may appear to be another form of gotg and it is but has it's own twist. What it is saying isn't that we don't know, yet, how something happened but that what happened is impossible. Of course, since it happened there is something wrong with that. From this the leap is made that the solution must be something intelligent. How that leap is made is not clear. In addtion, how to determine if something is IC (irreducibly complex) isn't clear to me.
Additionally, many examples of things which are supposed to be IC have been shown to NOT be impossible after all.
3) Things look, to an individuals eye, designed therefore they must have been designed.
However, no one seems to be able to say how we tell if something is designed or not. Whenever asked to do so they refer to things which we know are designed by humans. They, implicitly or explicitly, contrast these things to natural things. But it is exactly natural things which are then claimed to be "obviously" designed.
This was an interesting arguement until Darwin (for one) showed that "design" is possible without being created by any intelligence. This has since been demonstarted in a number of ways. So the argument has weakened considerably.
Sorry Nosy ol' boy, but you haven't got it covered yet have you?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 10:59 PM NosyNed has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 208 (79944)
01-21-2004 11:17 PM


Mis-read topic title
When I first glanced at the topic title, I thought it said "Defence of Inelegant Design".
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 7 of 208 (79959)
01-22-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by bran_sept88
01-21-2004 10:39 PM


Not sure if this is what your looking for, but the different kinds of creatures have perfect design, all the different kinds of creatures came onto the fossil record fully formed (evidence of design), and have since evolved because God made all his creatures male and female, to be a sharing of genes, and by natural selection(survival of the fittest), which they call micro-evolution, no evidence of any new genes or chromosomes coming onto the scene, only copies, mutated copies, but only copies, no evidence to suggest life is able to design all the different evidences of design, no evidence that the theory of evolution answers the question of origin, the reason evolutionists are continually looking for missing links is that the theory of evolution has no evidence that the creatures didn't come onto the scene fully formed, so they are forced to pretend the theory of evolution isn't concerned about origin, or design, which of course its this design evident in the creatures themselves that make it time to replace the theory of evolution with the theory of Intelligent design. Just a few examples of design, etc...
http://www.geocities.com/godsmachineshop/index.html
Forbidden
Design of Insect Wings
http://aig.gospelcom.net/...area/Magazines/docs/18db1307.asp
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bran_sept88, posted 01-21-2004 10:39 PM bran_sept88 has not replied

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 8 of 208 (79964)
01-22-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by bran_sept88
01-21-2004 10:39 PM


Re: Thx
That is the best argument I've ever seen for ID. I'm serious.

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bran_sept88, posted 01-21-2004 10:39 PM bran_sept88 has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 9 of 208 (79973)
01-22-2004 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bran_sept88
01-21-2004 10:17 PM


bran
Could you explain to me, so that I am not hearing this second-hand,what you understand Intelligent Design to mean?

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bran_sept88, posted 01-21-2004 10:17 PM bran_sept88 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bran_sept88, posted 01-22-2004 7:01 AM sidelined has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 208 (79999)
01-22-2004 5:49 AM


Okay Bran, you may try to defend it if you wish. Once you’re done with your paper, bring it here and I’ll discuss it further. But for now, just so you know...
Whatever wrote:
different kinds of creatures have perfect design,
And plenty more do not. Many have wasteful, dangerous, pointless, inefficient and/or utterly stupid designs. So define ‘perfection’.
all the different kinds of creatures came onto the fossil record fully formed (evidence of design)
Wrong. Mammals do not appear fully formed; nor do tetrapods; nor do humans. So define ‘kinds’.
and have since evolved because God made all his creatures male and female, to be a sharing of genes,
Again, hogwash. Apart from it ignoring half a dozen other Kingdoms, there are plenty of hermaphrodite, asexual etc animals. And you see here why defining ‘kinds’ is crucial: how much evolution is allowed?
and by natural selection(survival of the fittest), which they call micro-evolution,
Yet again, what’s a ‘kind’? Is it microevolution when an ape lineage ends up as a human? When a lineage of fishes becomes an amphibian? Because we have literally masses of evidence for these transitions.
no evidence of any new genes
Wrong. Define ‘new gene’...
or chromosomes coming onto the scene,
Wrong. Define ‘new chromosome’...
only copies, mutated copies, but only copies,
Just as evolution predicts! But if a new function is acquired by copying and mutation (eg the gaining of an antifreeze glycoprotein by antarctic notothenioid fish; the ability of bacteria to digest nylon, a substance never found in nature till recently)... if a new single chromosome can be formed by a mutation that fuses two chromosomes together (as in the human lineage, where our chromosome 2 is a fusion of the equivalent 2p and 2q of chimpanzees)... if such apparently new genes and chromosomes can be produced by copying and mutation, we’ll need a definitions of ‘new gene’ and ‘new chromosome’ too, so we can see why these things aren’t ‘new’.
no evidence to suggest life is able to design all the different evidences of design,
Come again? What designed what? The mechanism is perfectly capable of producing apparent designs.
no evidence that the theory of evolution answers the question of origin
Which it never intended to. Here, look: I’m an ‘evolutionist’, and I am delighted to tell you that you may have god(s) invent the first replicators. Got that? Some god or other can start it all off, if you want. There. Feel better?
Evolution is what you get, automatically and inevitably, once you’ve got replicators. They can originate in any way you like, as far as evolution’s concerned. So I don’t know whether your point is a straw man, or just plain irrelevant.
There is, however, evidence behind the researches into abiogenesis. And though it’s still sketchy, no designer seems necessary. What’s certain is that no designer is required for all the stuff we normally marvel at. At least, if there was a designer, it is an incorrigibly stupid one.
the reason evolutionists are continually looking for missing links
Are we? Well I suppose you could put it like that. But the thing is, we have found loads of them already. The gaps keep getting smaller. We keep finding fossils of organisms that creationists would have us believe are impossible. Again, we need to know what a ‘kind’ is.
The reason we’re continually looking for missing links is that it’s nice to know more details. But what we have already amply demonstrates evolution.
is that the theory of evolution has no evidence that the creatures didn't come onto the scene fully formed,
Define ‘kind’. Did mammals or tetrapods come on the scene fully formed? NO, THEY DID NOT.
so they are forced to pretend the theory of evolution isn't concerned about origin,
Drivel. Evolution is completely concerned with origin: with the origin all living and extinct species. The origin it does not explain, was never intended to explain... which evolutionary biologists may be interested in, but which is mostly irrelevant to them... that origin is the origin of life from non-life.
If evolution is pretending it’s not concerned with origins (except as noted), how come there can be papers such as, for instance, Romer’s gap: tetrapod origins and terrestriality? (Note: Romer’s gap has been filled.)
or design,
Again, wrong. As an ‘evolutionist’, I for one am interested in biological designs. So are anatomists, physiologists, cytologists... biologists in general. My own interest is in designs such as the human coccyx, wings that cannot work on ground-dwelling beetles, genes for making teeth in birds, and so on. Far from pretend[ing] the theory of evolution isn't concerned about design, it is the best explanation I’ve seen for it. Certainly better than the alternative, a clumsy, blundering half-witted and totally unevinced supernatural designer. (Heehee, I just mistyped it as deisigner -- perhaps more appropriate! )
which of course its this design evident in the creatures themselves
Uh-huh. Designs like these? This website is frozen.
that make it time to replace the theory of evolution with the theory of Intelligent design.
You would replace it with a theory that postulates a designer who’d design baleen whales to have teeth and hind limbs as embryos, then reabsorb them? A designer that gave non-feeding insect adults (eg mayflies) useless mouthparts? That’s an improvement?!
Just a few examples of design, etc...
Yeah, see my link above for Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes...
Note, too, that most of whatever’s arguments are against evolution, not for intelligent design. Let’s hear some arguments for it, please.
TTFN, Oolon

bran_sept88
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 208 (80000)
01-22-2004 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by sidelined
01-22-2004 1:53 AM


Yes I do understand what ID means, from ireducible complexity to addaptational packages. While i do understand it i still am strugling to defend it at this time, due to a lack of good sources.
BRAN

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 01-22-2004 1:53 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-22-2004 7:35 AM bran_sept88 has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 208 (80005)
01-22-2004 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by bran_sept88
01-22-2004 7:01 AM


No, not whether you understand it, but what you understand by the term.
How can we answer you, if we don't know what you yourself mean by the term? If we were to simply go with the usual meanings, we may not be providing what you're looking for.
Cheers, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bran_sept88, posted 01-22-2004 7:01 AM bran_sept88 has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 13 of 208 (80077)
01-22-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bran_sept88
01-21-2004 10:17 PM


Welcome bran_sept88:
Let me guess, you attend the same school as Sweetstuff383 and Matt Tucker, meaning you don't really want to hear opposing (and by that I mean "scientific") viewpoints. You just want to write your pathetic paper that will cover the same old crap that has been refuted over and over, by actual practicing scientists. You know, people that know and understand the scientific method and adhere to it when conducting experiments and stating results. You know, the exact opposite of creationists.
I'll make this simple, and you can choose to believe it or ignore it, (and I'll bet that it will be the later);
Any defense of ID will be based solely on religious grounds. If you actually write a paper in support ID on scientific grounds you will be writing a paper that is lies. It's really that simple. Intellegent design is in no way supported by the scientific method. Do you understand? Take some time and learn about science and be honest with yourself. Don't just blindly follow the pathetic rants of "whatever", he has no clue how science operates. Don't just "see" what you want to see and stop there. Ask questions. Ask hard questions. Demand to see scientific support before you call it scientific.
On more general terms: over and over, people like whatever and Willowtree and TruthDetector (and so many others) out and out reject the ToE as an unscientific explanation of the diversity of life we see on this planet. Yet they claim to accept so many other scientific theories, such as gravity and chemical bond theory. How is that possible? Seriously. Can any of you creationists explain to us how you can accept the scientific merits of gravity but reject those of the ToE, despite the fact that they both follow the exact same logic (ie: the scientific method)? Put up or shut up. Tell us dumd old evolutionists how the ToE fails the scientific method while the theory of gravity does not? Be specific. We want to see valid departures by the ToE from the scientific method. Think of it this way. We have a theory about life on this planet. It's called the Theory of Evolution. We arrived at this theory by using the scientific method to ask questions, form hypotheses, conduct experiments and then state results. Based on thousands and thousands of results, we formulated the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of what we had found. Where did we go wrong. Exactly what "things" did we do that circumvented the scientific method? And for once, please attempt to answer the questions without bringing the bible into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bran_sept88, posted 01-21-2004 10:17 PM bran_sept88 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by truthlover, posted 01-22-2004 2:34 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 16 by johnfolton, posted 01-22-2004 3:25 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 31 by bran_sept88, posted 01-22-2004 5:31 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 01-23-2004 11:32 AM FliesOnly has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 14 of 208 (80088)
01-22-2004 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by FliesOnly
01-22-2004 1:12 PM


Yet they claim to accept so many other scientific theories, such as gravity and chemical bond theory.
Actually, it seems to me that the best example of all is the germ theory of disease and related medical fields. It seems obvious from the stories in the Gospels that the Bible teaches that seizures are caused by demons, yet when a Christian's child has a seizure, that Christian (except in very rare denominations, whose children are prone to dying from lack of medical attention) doesn't call his pastor, he calls his doctor, who has learned how to treat seizures from science, not the Bible.
Or how about astronomy? Since Genesis one teaches (despite attempts by Christian translators to cover this up) that the sky is a hard dome holding up water, why do they accept astronomy's teaching that the stars are really big, burning balls of gas, many of them bigger than the sun and thousands of light years away?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by FliesOnly, posted 01-22-2004 1:12 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by FliesOnly, posted 01-22-2004 2:45 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 43 by bran_sept88, posted 01-22-2004 6:55 PM truthlover has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 15 of 208 (80094)
01-22-2004 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by truthlover
01-22-2004 2:34 PM


Truthlover:
Good point(s).
I guess to carry it even further, I'd like them to explain how they can accept any scientific theory? That is, on what basis do they agree with any of them, or do they feel that it is there God given right () to pick and choose which are acceptable and which are not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by truthlover, posted 01-22-2004 2:34 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by truthlover, posted 01-23-2004 11:12 AM FliesOnly 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