|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined:
|
If you have all the identifying features of sophisticated intelligent design, then you have something intelligently designed. There is not a human (in fact not any human) that has all the features of an intelligently designed entity. A human (in fact every human) does have all the features of an evolved entity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
A human (in fact every human) does have all the features of an evolved entity. One of the key characteristics of a product of evolution is a high degree of complexity. An intelligent designer produces a well structured product. Evolution uses whatever there is to work with to perform new functions no matter what it takes just so long as it works. As a result, evolution give us Rube Goldberg machine, perhaps the furthest thing from an "intelligent design".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There's yet another clear evidence that life was not intelligently designed or in fact designed at all.
It is so common and so visible that we as a society have written laws to prevent or minimize that fact. No even halfway good engineer, architect, programmer would not adopt and use a proven solution rather than invent yet another version. To prevent just that we have created copyright and patents and Trade Marks so the original creator retains all the rights to use the idea, process, method, mechanism, name or slogan. But the ID and Creationism folk all claim that there is only one creator, not a spectrum of creators that cannot simply copy what works. Second, in designed objects when an idea does get copied it will have slight adaptation that make it better in the single individual application. But when we look at living stuff what we find is that pieces parts keep getting keep getting reused but without the individual modification that would make it better is some specific instance. So we end up with a poorly designed human eye and no padding on shins or funny bones and left over pieces that really don't make the critter better. There are only three possible explanations. First there was not one but a whole host of creators of varying talent constrained by some Heavenly Patent, Copyright, Trade Mark system. Second, there were lots of creators and none of them were any good and they were all learning on the job. Or there was no creator and what we see is simply evolution in action.My Website: My Website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I'm a retired software engineer, so I have had some practical experience in designing.
I would describe our design process as largely evolutionary. Yes, we would approach a new project in the traditional way: analyze the problem, devise a top-down or object-oriented structure, try to organize the data structures, etc. IOW, intelligently, which includes modularity and parsimony (KISS). That worked fine for the first design of an all new project, but that was rarely the case. Instead, our assignment would be something like "Make it just like this other project only completely different in these several ways." So we would take an existing product and copy and modify it. And in many cases of a "new" project, we would still reuse components from other projects and modify them as needed. But then we would go even further and added new features to existing products by copying procedures (ie, functions or objects) and modifying them to serve their new functionality. I would routinely refer to such copy-and-modify techniques as "evolutionary programming." An example of that is in "Hunt for Red October" in which the sonar software on the USS Dallas interpreted the sound of the caterpillar drive as a "seismic anomaly" because that software was a modified version of earthquake analysis software. I would also point out that object-oriented programming (OOP) design involves defining a data-and-code structure called a class which act as a data type in its own right and which you then instantiate into objects which actually use that code and data. The only way the main program (or other objects) can use that code and data is through the class' interface. The alternative classic approach is to keep all the data and code as global and accessible from anywhere in the program, which thus would open the door to code in one part of the program diddling the data of the code in a completely unrelated part of the program, thus creating bugs that can be extremely difficult to find. Using OOP, you can compartmentalize the data and thus each object could protect its data from the rest of the program. Now that's intelligent designing. Another intelligent design aspect of OOP is the ability to replace objects with entirely new object that have the same interface -- in hardware design, that would be a pin-compatible module. Internally, the new class could work entirely differently than the old one (eg, old one had a fixed set of dummy data points used for design testing whereas the new one would actually generate live data) and the program would not know the difference since they both look and behave the same (ie, they both have the same interface which is the program's only access to them). That is how you can replace an automotive component that used electro-mechanical relays with one that used transistors and then that with one that used integrated circuits and the car wouldn't know any different. You could even replace an American car engine with a Japanese engine and the car wouldn't know any different. Now that's intelligent design. We can also go into an existing program and completely rewrite portions of it from scratch (believe me we were so tempted to do that so many times). That would also be the hallmark of intelligent design, the sudden appearance of entirely new and novel features. Unlike the modifications of preexisting features that evolution would give us. So what do we see in nature? The plug-and-play pin-compatible interchangeable modules of intelligent design? No. Novel new features suddenly appearing out of nowhere? No. The copying and modification of existing features to perform new functions as we would expect from evolution? Yes. Another aspect of evolutionary programming methods is increasing complexity. Every self-respecting programmer strives for elegant code, code which is precise and efficient and effective while still being kept to its minimal form -- a programming joke is of a game like "Name that Tune" in which competitors say "I can write that code in 8 lines!", "I can write it in 5 lines!", "Write that code!" But in the real world, code loses elegance as you have to add ever new cases to take into account and ever more testing, etc, until your code becomes a complex mass of kludges for special cases. So, the hallmark of an intelligent design would be elegance, whereas the hallmark of evolved design would be ever increasing levels of complexity. Which do we find in life? The elegance and parsimony indicating intelligent design? Or the incredible complexity indicating evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Sorry for the delay. You posted your Message 312 in the middle of my stint in the hospital. I had had a polyp removed from my stomach, but then a few days later that surgery had turned into a bleeding ulcer which landed me in the hospital. Four months later I'm still working my way through that particular medical evolution.
Also, it didn't help that you had asked MrID about what I had written. If you had questions about what I had written, then why didn't you just ask me?
As for the old-ID, I do not see a problem with it. So I was curious to see the following list, and would like to see an how this is actual, instead of the strawman it appears to be.
ID's failure to take into account naturally occurring complexity by trying to equate complexity with "design" even though naturally occurring complexity is so much more complex than designed complexity could ever hope to be. That would also include how the most common characteristic of a product of evolutionary processes is high levels of complexity, such that if you find something in nature that is highly complex then that is evidence that it had evolved. ...
-- Rest of WookieeB's copy-and-paste job deleted in this quote-box since his removal of the formatting rather reduces its readability. The full and properly formatted list that I had written is below. I included the first and last paragraph of WookieeB's copy-and-paste so that the reader can identify the text that he was referring to. Note that WookieeB copied that from my Message 290 instead of from MrID's Message 311 that he was ostensibly replying to in his Message 312, but copied in such a manner as to remove the formatting thus reducing its readability -- ... ID's worship of the God of the Gaps. This view argues that finding natural explanations for things works to disprove God, which would mean that our inability to explain something works to prove God. That would lead to an agenda which strives to preserve ignorance and to impede the growth of knowledge. Note that this worship of the God of the Gaps is also quite common among YECs. Here is what I had written in my Message 290; restoring the formatting makes it somewhat easier to read. BTW, I added bolding to the list in question to make it easier for the reader to pick out:
DWise1 writes: Maybe he can show us how his IDv2 improves over science.
I've returned to preparing my questions of that, though my approach is to learn how his "new ID" is supposed to address and correct the problems with the "old ID". Here is the opening section in my draft:
DWise1's_draft writes: AZPaul3 in his Message 152:
AZPaul3 writes: I want to know about your new ID v 2. You got any ID? Show me your ID. MrID really needs to present his "new ID", especially if it's supposed to replace the "old ID." I mean, if there was nothing wrong with the old ID, then why replace it with a "new" ID? Obviously MrID must think (if I may use that term so loosely) that there's something wrong -- or at least deficient -- about the "old" ID that it needs to be replaced.
So then just what does MrID think is wrong with the "old ID?" What does he identify as its problems? And just how is his "new" ID supposed to correct those problems? I'll follow that with a list in HTML's Definition List format of a few of the many well-known problems with ID including a <DD> discussion section. Those problems include:
So I want to know how MrID's "new ID" is supposed to address those central problems with the "old ID". What he has presented so far is that the only change in his "new ID" is that he replaced the made-up meaningless "magic words" of "old ID" with his own set of made-up meaningless "magic words", such that his "new ID" ends up being just as meaningless as the "old ID", if not more so. The second half of my Message 290 goes through a list of the natural processes that form the basis of evolution (AKA "how life does what life naturally does"), each item of which has no need for any kind of external intelligence (MrID's arguments require external intelligence acting every step of the way, as far as we're able to figure out what he's trying to say). Go back to that message (Message 290) to read more -- it's interesting, but not part of your question and hence not pertinent here.
... , instead of the strawman it appears to be. I wrote about what I know and have observed about ID, though that includes how YEC has incorporated ID ideas in order to play their new game of "Hide the Creationism". Contains no straw to my knowledge. I'll go through each of those items:
DWise1 writes: A distinguishing characteristic of ID arguments is to equate complexity with the need for an "unnamed, unidentified intelligent designer" (please note "creation science's" game of "Hide the Bible" included "postulating" "some unnamed unidentified Creator" ). This does indeed fail to take into account naturally occurring complexity which is indicative of evolution and the opposite of what we would expect of an intelligent design. BTW, I am an intelligent designer, AKA "engineer". I discussed engineering work in Message 283, Message 467 and Message 469. Actual intelligent design strives towards elegance, a clean, minimal solution to a problem which works. Evolutionary processes and approaches, like life itself, are messy and results in very complex products -- a Rube Goldberg machine, the furthest thing from an intelligent design, is what we do find in nature. Hence, when we see something in nature that is highly complex, then that is evidence of evolution, not of any "intelligent designer".
DWise1 writes: This is one of the earliest criticisms of ID that I heard. In reading the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document I saw them repeatedly rant against materialism. However, they rant against philosophical materialism, which is entirely different from methodological materialism, a very simple statement of fact concerning the limits of science. For example, I could design a system to read barcodes on products being processed. My design can only read barcodes and not the printed words on the packages. My design does not assume a philosophical position that the printed word does not exist, but rather acknowledges that the tech that my design is based on cannot deal with the printed word, but rather only with barcodes. Science can only deal with the physical universe (AKA "material universe") and cannot deal with the supernatural. Therefore, the methodology of science can only include the natural universe and cannot include the supernatural. That is not a statement about whether the supernatural exists or not (HINT: cannot be determined scientifically), but rather that science cannot deal with the supernatural and hence will not even try. Says nothing about the supernatural but rather everything about science. ID cannot seem to understand such simple concepts.
DWise1 writes: Again, that was laid out in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document which I did take the time to read. For example (text transcribed at The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education ):
quote And for the consequences of forcing science to include the supernatural, I will refer you yet again to my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY).
DWise1 writes: OK, so one ID claim/"explanation" after another always ends with a "gee, this is all so complex that we cannot figure it out, so it must have been intelligently designed." Please explain to me why that is not "goddidit!" This one is so painfully obvious, dude. How could you argue over this point?
DWise1 writes: True, you IDiots undoubtedly don't talk about the God of the Gaps, especially given that any kind self-reflection or self-examination is unknown to creationists. But I see so much false God of the Gaps theology operating constantly in ID as well as in other creationist endeavors. Basically, God of the Gaps teaches that knowledge dispells God, so God can only continue to exist within the gaps of our knowledge. God of the Gaps is closely tied to "goddidit" in that if we have no explanation for something, then "goddidit" and that is proof of the God of the Gaps.
{ABE:
Finding refuge for your religion in the God of the Gaps has negative consequences:
}
Interestingly, almost all ID and YEC arguments seem to reduce down to "We don't know, therefore God." That is God of the Gaps, pure and simple. So, how was any of that any kind of strawman? Edited by dwise1, : ABE: For last item, added consequences of resorting to GotG Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle Edited by dwise1, : slightly clearer wording in the beginning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
is the new ID a some form of GOD of THE GAPS or dirtdidit, real intelligence-did-t?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The “new ID” is the ramblings of an individual suffering from mental illness. He should get help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
WHAT? What is your basis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
My basis is documents you wrote and publicised on this thread.
Please get help. You need it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
Oh my, you need a doctor!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
... as opposed to the Darwinist version: "We don't know, therefore billions of years done it."
Interestingly, almost all ID and YEC arguments seem to reduce down to "We don't know, therefore God." That is God of the Gaps, pure and simple
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Get out of the nineteenth century.
... as opposed to the Darwinist version: Dredge writes:
The scientific version is, "We don't know, so let's find out." Science looks at reality to find answers to questions and solutions to problems. "We don't know, therefore billions of years done it.""Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Thread = ID
477 ringo writes:
Some things will be forever unknowable - such as the process that produced the profound changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record ... in which case, your "We don't know, so let's find out" motto doesn't apply. The scientific version is, "We don't know, so let's find out." Science looks at reality to find answers to questions and solutions to problems. Unfortunately, what evolutionary "science" does in that case is adopt a couple of other mottos:1. "We don't know, so let's concoct imaginative stories about what might have happened and pretend they represent legitimate science." 2. "We don't know - the mysterious magic of billions of years done it."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
But you don't know what those things are.
Some things will be forever unknowable... Dredge writes:
We already DO know a lot about that.
... such as the process that produced the profound changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record ... Dredge writes:
Of course it does. How do we know WHAT (if anything) is "unknowable" if we don't look? ... in which case, your "We don't know, so let's find out" motto doesn't apply."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
driewerf Junior Member Posts: 29 Joined: |
quote:And that argument is invalid. You fail in your argumentation for the simple reason that you fail to demonstrate that design is the only way in which a living organism can acquire all these features. The sheer fact that there is an alternative explanation - the theory of evolution - that fits all known facts better than yours invalidates your argument (or lack thereof).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024