Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A few questions for Intelligent Design
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 1 of 21 (7262)
03-18-2002 7:28 PM


Could a few posters well versed in Intelligent Design Theory please respond to a few questions I have?
1. I assume that you consider your theory falsifiable. What evidence would you say could possibly be discovered that would support an non designed Universe?
2. I assume also that you consider your Designer omnipotent. Since that means there is nothing He could not design, why do you consider the above (if you even think evidence agaist Intelligent Design could ever be found) to be evidence against Intelligent Design?
3. Your hypothesis states that we live in a Universe where everything is designed. How can you differentiate between a designed and not-designed Universe if a designed universe model can literally look like anything, assuming an omnipotent Designer?
4. How would a person living in a Universe of either type (designed/not-designed) tell what the other would be like?
If local posters cannot or are unable to answer, please direct me to a board supporting Intelligent Design so I can post the questions there.
Thank you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Gerhard, posted 05-08-2002 4:26 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 4 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-04-2002 1:50 AM Legend has not replied

  
Gerhard
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 21 (9386)
05-08-2002 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Legend
03-18-2002 7:28 PM


I am not the authority on the question but the idea behind Intelligent design as I see it (and as it is described by Phillip E. Johnson) is more of an ideological foundation for a methodology, than it is theory. Its followers come to questions proposed about the observable universe with different philosophical presuppositions than those of an evolutionary theorist. So I think it is firstly the ideological foundation required by any method of research. Any theories coming from the new, and frankly refreshing, approach towards answering questions are obviously open to being proved incorrect. Good science would not hold doggedly to a theory, hypothesis or whatever that answers the questions in a contradictory, irrational manner. The term Intelligent Design is used in the sense that, in contrast to the ideas that surround evolution that say the occurence of everything, ranging from the universe to the paramecium was not mapped out and put in motion by the plan of some sort of intelligent first cause. In evolution, it seems that the cause, which is nature, is the supreme fact, and one need not go beyond nature to answer questions that arise within it. Which implies there is some sort of natural cause, unguided and undirected by some originally intelligent source, behind all sorts of things like me constructing these sentences and you understanding them rationally, rather than viewing what i write as garbled nonsense, and perhaps responding rationally to them. Intelligent Design holds that there is something transcendental, and yes omnipotent, and that its intelligence, its omniscience, is the primary cause. And also, that this Designer will leave evidences of how he thoughtfully constructed and planned the nature he created. Here is where the methodology comes in. Here Intelligent Design seeks for evidence that will prove that some phenomenon or another is an impossibiliy without some kind of omniscient originator, just as the Lord Of The Rings is an impossibiliy without Tolkien's designing it. I should dearly love to see the day when statistical chance should create a masterpiece of any kind. The very fact that it is extremely difficult to concieve an undesigned universe, I think, says alot about whether our universe is designed or not. For it is also difficult, perhaps impossible, for us to percieve infinity or eternity because we are such finite beings. Actually, this also shows that a designed universe cannot look like just anything. Whatever it does happen to look like, even if it is something we ourselves have never seen, a designed universe must in some way portray order, logic, and sense of planning. We do not assume that a tornado designed the wreakage left laying everywhere of houses and whatnot because there is obviously no rhyme nor reason to how it is done. We could probably attempt to map out where different types of debris lay but I doubt the map would be completed successfully. As far as the rest of your questions about being able to perceive what a nondesigned universe is like I have no idea how anyone could comprehend that. That's really like asking a general relativist what life feels like when you can sense all five dimensions. He has no idea. No one does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Legend, posted 03-18-2002 7:28 PM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 05-16-2002 9:21 AM Gerhard has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 21 (9785)
05-16-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Gerhard
05-08-2002 4:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

Intelligent Design holds that there is something transcendental, and yes omnipotent, and that its intelligence, its omniscience, is the primary cause. And also, that this Designer will leave evidences of how he thoughtfully constructed and planned the nature he created.

What traces would you expect to find of the 'hand' of the designer ?
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

Here is where the methodology comes in.
Here Intelligent Design seeks for evidence that will prove that some phenomenon or another is an impossibiliy without some kind of omniscient originator.

I do not believe it is possible to provide evidence of the above,
could you provide an example of the type of thing you mean ?
A for instance/if type example rather than an actual evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

The very fact that it is extremely difficult to concieve an undesigned universe, I think, says alot about whether our universe is designed or not.

It actually says nothing about the nature of the universe, only
of your ability to understand it (see below).
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

For it is also difficult, perhaps impossible, for us to percieve infinity or eternity because we are such finite beings.

You say it yourself ... humans have a finite capacity for
understanding. So saying 'I cannot concieve of an undesigned
universe.' is largely pointless.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

Actually, this also shows that a designed universe cannot look like just anything.

Why when the deigner is omnipotent ?
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

Whatever it does happen to look like, even if it is something we ourselves have never seen, a designed universe must in some way portray order, logic, and sense of planning.

Again, why ? If an omnipotent designer remains in contact with
his creation he could, should he choose to do so, change the
rules mid-stream.
If such an omnipotent exists we should expect chaos rather than
order ... or at least see chaotic elements.
Besides, the Bible prooves that God is NOT omnipotent, if he
were he could have snapped mankind out of existence without the
need for a Great Flood.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

We do not assume that a tornado designed the wreakage left laying everywhere of houses and whatnot because there is obviously no rhyme nor reason to how it is done. We could probably attempt to map out where different types of debris lay but I doubt the map would be completed successfully.

True ... but given sufficient knowledge of the operation of tornadoes
(which we don't have yet) and of the structures and forces invovled
we could model the devastation accurately ... because it is a natural
process subject to physical constraints.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

As far as the rest of your questions about being able to perceive what a nondesigned universe is like I have no idea how anyone could comprehend that. That's really like asking a general relativist what life feels like when you can sense all five dimensions.
He has no idea.
No one does.

Soif you cannot imagine what a non-designed univers would be like,
how do you know you are not in one ?
[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Gerhard, posted 05-08-2002 4:26 PM Gerhard has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 4 of 21 (12724)
07-04-2002 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Legend
03-18-2002 7:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Legend:
Could a few posters well versed in Intelligent Design Theory please respond to a few questions I have?
1. I assume that you consider your theory falsifiable. What evidence would you say could possibly be discovered that would support an non designed Universe?
2. I assume also that you consider your Designer omnipotent. Since that means there is nothing He could not design, why do you consider the above (if you even think evidence agaist Intelligent Design could ever be found) to be evidence against Intelligent Design?
3. Your hypothesis states that we live in a Universe where everything is designed. How can you differentiate between a designed and not-designed Universe if a designed universe model can literally look like anything, assuming an omnipotent Designer?
4. How would a person living in a Universe of either type (designed/not-designed) tell what the other would be like?

I am not very well versed in the Intelligent Design theory, but I would like to make a few comments regarding your posts.
It seems to me that the four questions which you presented in your first post are all derivatives of the same question. Is intelligent design falsifiable? In response to which let me say that falsifiability is not synonymous with provability. Having said this, let me answer the above question with a no. To the best of my knowledge the theory of intelligent design cannot be falsified.
In your second post you stated:
quote:
Besides, the Bible prooves that God is NOT omnipotent, if he
were he could have snapped mankind out of existence without the
need for a Great Flood.

The Bible does not in any way prove that God is not omnipotent. Let us take your own choice of examples. The mere statement that God used a flood to inflict punishment does not in any way prove that He had to use that flood because of a lack of omnipotence. It simply states that, though omnipotent and entirely capable of accomplishing His purpose in any manner, God chose to use a Great Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Legend, posted 03-18-2002 7:28 PM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:40 AM w_fortenberry has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 5 of 21 (12747)
07-04-2002 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by w_fortenberry
07-04-2002 1:50 AM


But in the Bible God only operates within the governing
rules of his creation ... there is nowhere in the Bible
(with the possible exception of the creation itself) that
this is not the case.
This suggests that either ::
God is not omnipotent.
OR
The Bible was written by men, and those men were incapable
of thinking outside of the natural realm that they knew.
OR
The events in the bible were based upon some handed down
recolection of natural events, which had divine intervention
superimposed upon them for narrative/religous/political effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-04-2002 1:50 AM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2002 2:03 PM Peter has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 6 of 21 (12907)
07-06-2002 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Peter
07-04-2002 10:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
But in the Bible God only operates within the governing
rules of his creation ... there is nowhere in the Bible
(with the possible exception of the creation itself) that
this is not the case.

Please allow me to mention just a few.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19
The increase of Jacobs flock in Genesis 30-31
The burning bush in Exodus 3
The signs of Aaaron and Moses and the Plagues of Egypt in Exodus 4-12
The crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus 14
Water from the rock in Exodus 17 and 20
The brazen serpent in Numbers 21
Aaron's rod that budded in Numbers 17
The Jordan divided in Joshua 3
The walls of Jericho in Joshua 6
The sun stands still in Joshua 10
The withered hand of Jeroboam in I Kings 13
The meal and oil multiplied in I Kings 17
The resurrection of the widows son in I Kings 17
The sacrifice consumed by fire in I Kings 18
Armies destroyed by fire in II Kings 1
The Jordan divided in II Kings 2
Water supplied in II Kings 3
("And this is but a light thing in the sight of the LORD")
Widows oil multiplied in II Kings 4
Loaves multiplied in II Kings 4
The resurrection of the Shunammite's son in II Kings 4
The healing of Naaman in II Kings 5
The floating axe head in II Kings 6
The Syrians defeated in II Kings 6
The reversal of the Sun's motion in II Kings 20 and Isaiah 38
The water changed to wine in John 2
The nobleman's son healed in John 4
The cleansing of the leper in Matthew 8
The man with the palsy healed in Matthew 9
The impotent man healed in John 5
The withered hand made whole in Luke 6
The centurion's servant healed in Luke 7
The resurrection of the widows son in Luke 7
The stilling of the storm in Mark 4
The resurrection of Jairus' daughter in Luke 8
The healing of the blind in Matthew 9
Feeding the five thousand in Matthew 14
Walking on the water in Matthew 14
Feeding the four thousand in Matthew 15
The cleansing of the lepers in Luke 17
The ressurection of Lazarus in John 11
The healing of Malchus in Luke 22
The resurrection of Christ in Luke 24
The Lame man healed in Acts 3
The healing of Aeneas in Acts 9
The resurrection of Tabitha in Acts 9
The resurrection of Eutychus in Acts 20
And many more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:40 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 07-06-2002 2:27 PM w_fortenberry has replied
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 4:42 AM w_fortenberry has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 21 (12909)
07-06-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by w_fortenberry
07-06-2002 2:03 PM


This reply completely sidesteps the point made by Peter.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2002 2:03 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2002 8:51 PM John has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 8 of 21 (12930)
07-06-2002 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John
07-06-2002 2:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
This reply completely sidesteps the point made by Peter.

Please explai

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John, posted 07-06-2002 2:27 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 07-06-2002 11:16 PM w_fortenberry has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 21 (12932)
07-06-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by w_fortenberry
07-06-2002 8:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Please explain
It doesn't seem to avoid Peter's option #3. All of what you mentioned is well within misinterpretted phenomena, especially after a few generation have passed.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2002 8:51 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2002 12:00 AM John has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 10 of 21 (12937)
07-07-2002 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
07-06-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

It doesn't seem to avoid Peter's option #3. All of what you mentioned is well within misinterpretted phenomena, especially after a few generation have passed.

Please review Peter's post. His main premise was that "in the Bible God only operates within the governing rules of his creation." My reply was a refutation of this premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 07-06-2002 11:16 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John, posted 07-07-2002 9:52 AM w_fortenberry has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 21 (12951)
07-07-2002 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by w_fortenberry
07-07-2002 12:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Please review Peter's post. His main premise was that "in the Bible God only operates within the governing rules of his creation." My reply was a refutation of this premise.
I see your point.
I'm not sure how strict Peter intended 'within the laws of his creation' to be, so I should just phrase what I am thinking. Everything mentioned in your refutation is within a very narrow range of human experience. Its easy to add a detail and call it supernatural. Such is the hallmark of mytholgy worldwide. I just don't see the significance I guess.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2002 12:00 AM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2002 10:22 AM John has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 12 of 21 (12953)
07-07-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by John
07-07-2002 9:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

I see your point.
I'm not sure how strict Peter intended 'within the laws of his creation' to be, so I should just phrase what I am thinking. Everything mentioned in your refutation is within a very narrow range of human experience. Its easy to add a detail and call it supernatural. Such is the hallmark of mytholgy worldwide. I just don't see the significance I guess.

Could you please explain what you mean by "a very narrow range of human experience?"
Perhaps you could also provide a few examples of how the events mentioned could have had details added to them to make them seem supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John, posted 07-07-2002 9:52 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 07-07-2002 11:04 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 21 (12954)
07-07-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by w_fortenberry
07-07-2002 10:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Could you please explain what you mean by "a very narrow range of human experience?"
Perhaps you could also provide a few examples of how the events mentioned could have had details added to them to make them seem supernatural.

Well....
... the burning bush. This is an easily observed event. Add 'but was not consumed' and you've got a supernatural event.
... the plagues of Egypt. Scaled up natural disasters. All you have to do is increase the scale.
... the dead rising. Not all that uncommon really, in that until recently death was not as easily diagnosed as one might think.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2002 10:22 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 07-07-2002 1:55 PM John has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 14 of 21 (12958)
07-07-2002 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
07-07-2002 11:04 AM


Sometimes discussions make important diversions into related areas, but it isn't clear that that is the case in this thread. If one of participants in this thread could touch on the connection of the recent discussion to the original topic that would likely prove very helpful to those trying to follow along.
If the discussion has changed topics then could one of the participants please open a new thread? Thank you!
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 07-07-2002 11:04 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 4:48 AM Admin has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 21 (13027)
07-08-2002 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by w_fortenberry
07-06-2002 2:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Please allow me to mention just a few.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19

God sends angels to rain fire and brimstone, when he could
just as easily have blinked the cities out of existence had
he chosen.
Within the rules of his own creation == he utilised known
destructive capability (albeit at an unprecedented level).
Not to go all chariots of the Gods here, but the description
is just as consistent with a modern military air-strike, from
the point of view of someone who has never seen one and doesn't
have the language to adequately express it.
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The increase of Jacobs flock in Genesis 30-31

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The burning bush in Exodus 3

Exaggeration by Moses to impress the masses ?
Bush soaked in a combustible material, like oil ?
Natural resins in the wood burining ?
Chariot of God's style electric light!!
More mundane electric light, since simple batteries have
been found in ancient cultures (not everyone believes that's
what they are mind).
Describe a really bright light on a stand without using any
modern terminology ...
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The signs of Aaaron and Moses and the Plagues of Egypt in Exodus 4-12

Lot's of suggestions exist for the plagues in more mundane terms,
and who wrote it down ? Oh, yeah, Moses wasn't it ? He didn't
have anything to provve to his people, I mean it's not like
he had to try to stamp out the idolatry or anything.
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus 14

There have been suggestions about odd tides etc. Not necessairly
Cecil B.'s version of the parting.
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Water from the rock in Exodus 17 and 20

Natural springs ? Water from nowhere would be against the
rules of His creation.
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The brazen serpent in Numbers 21

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Aaron's rod that budded in Numbers 17

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The Jordan divided in Joshua 3

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The walls of Jericho in Joshua 6

What was the Arc of the Covenant ... and why did it have to be
carried around the walls ... that's the Chariots of the Gods
way
Maybe all that noise and curfuffle was a distraction from the
miners ... and omitted from the text for religous/political
purposes.
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The sun stands still in Joshua 10

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The withered hand of Jeroboam in I Kings 13

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The meal and oil multiplied in I Kings 17

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The sacrifice consumed by fire in I Kings 18

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Armies destroyed by fire in II Kings 1

Fire is a natural/within laws thing ... God could have blinked
them out of existence ... would have had a greater impact
too.
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The Jordan divided in II Kings 2

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Water supplied in II Kings 3
("And this is but a light thing in the sight of the LORD")

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Widows oil multiplied in II Kings 4

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Loaves multiplied in II Kings 4

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The floating axe head in II Kings 6

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The Syrians defeated in II Kings 6

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The reversal of the Sun's motion in II Kings 20 and Isaiah 38

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The water changed to wine in John 2

Maybe Jesus simply suggested watering it down as was common
in Rome, based upon his, perhaps, wider appreciation of
other cultures.
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The withered hand made whole in Luke 6

quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The stilling of the storm in Mark 4

So a storm stopped suddenly ... that's clearly divine and
not within the rules of His creation!!
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Feeding the five thousand in Matthew 14
Feeding the four thousand in Matthew 15

Drops into the exaggerated category. Maybe Jesus invented
sandwiches
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Walking on the water in Matthew 14

What's the ancient Hebrew word for 'swimming' ? Just a
thought
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The cleansing of the lepers in Luke 17
The ressurection of Lazarus in John 11
The healing of Malchus in Luke 22
The resurrection of Christ in Luke 24
The Lame man healed in Acts 3
The healing of Aeneas in Acts 9
The resurrection of Tabitha in Acts 9
The resurrection of Eutychus in Acts 20

Any healing/ressurection issues can be equally interpreted as
misunderstood/exaggerated. Much modern medicine would be
construed as miraculous in primitive cultures, and we
know next to nothing about Jesus's upbringing or education.
I was going through the whole lot ... but it seems pointless.
God does nothing that cannot be explained by natural means, albeit
at a level unprecedented in the supposed time of the Bible.
He doesn't make the walls of Jericho dissappear, nor Sodom
and Gomorrah.
That's what I was getting at ... I hope some of my flippancy
hasn't offended anyone ... I'll try to restrain myself in
future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2002 2:03 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-09-2002 2:28 AM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024