|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
His renderings of Jesus in the clouds, the virgin Mary on a building's side and of course Elvis on a tortilla chip are prime examples of the elegant workings of his great plan. don't forget vladimir lenin in the shower curtain!
that's truly the best such image i have ever seen. it's artistic even! (courtesy of BadAstronomy.com) the irony is that this looks far more intelligently designed than biology does. i mean it looks like something! really! ...but did god put lenin in phil plait's shower curtain? if god likes lenin... i might have to convert to atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I have to disagree, this is the best example, Rasputin in a kitten's ear.
This is from Fortean Times gallery of such simulacra. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-03-2004 04:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
roflmao.
that made my day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, I understand you now. Life is a wonder, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Can anyone please tell me what is Intelligent Design Creation(ism)? The reason I ask is because the only people who use that term, that I have seen, are the ignorant (willfully or otherwise, please remember that ignorance just means you don't know any better) or the malicious misrepresenters of reality. Reality says there is Intelligent Design and there is Creation. The two may have some similarities but then again the two have some vast differences.
MrH:The foundation of the IDC argument is the inadequacy of natural mechanisms to account for certain natural phenomena. John Paul:That is false. The foundation of ID is our current state of knowledge pertaining to information rich systems, irreducible complexity and specified complexity. As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. It is very clear for anyone willing to read about ID that it is an inference drawn via positive evidence. Why would anyone cling to naturalism when there isn't any evidence to support a purely naturalistic origin for life?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: For anyone willing to familiarize themselves with the theory of evolution they would know that interdependent components is evolvable through trial and error selection via mutation. The positive evidence needed for ID is the production of an IC system in "one fell swoop" (to use Behe's phrasology). Behe claims that his IC systems came about this way, but only because his imagination and ideology won't let him admit otherwise. Can evolution create designs in organisms? Yes. Has an intelligent designer ever been observed changing the morphology of organisms? No. Case closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
John Paul responds to me in the "What is Science?" thread:1) Designers can design each and every form of living organism which exists or has ever existed on Earth but leave no evidence of their own existence.
John Paul: The evidence of their existence is seen through the microscope, in the mathematical form the natural laws take and many more forms that are discussed in the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. MrH:And we're still wondering why this inference has to be made. John Paul:The inference is made due to the evidence. MrH:Couldn't the mathematical consistency of the natural laws be an argument against an intervening intelligence? It seems that natural law is only fine for IDC'ers when they're praising the austere beauty of physics, but then they claim natural law and material processes are insufficient to explain life on Earth. John Paul:Your choice- read the book I mentioned or remain ignorant. Although arguemnets from ignorance are not the way to go. 2) Designers can produce designs that appear to be the products of billions of years of evolution, with telltale signs that they are related by descent to every other design (even those which are extinct) but are actually special creations. John Paul:You obviously have no clue what ID is. Ignorance is one thing. Wilfull ignorance is a shame. ID does NOT go against common descent. But you would know that if you had a clue. MrH:The fact is, we have clues as to the patterns of heredity among life forms on Earth. You're the one that says we shouldn't use them as evidence of evolution, or common descent. Or are you saying evolution is not based on material processes, but guided by an intelligence? It's hard to understand what you're saying when I'm trying to dodge the shit you're constantly flinging. John Paul:Funny from where I sit it is you who flings the shit. One more time for the reading impaired- ID does not say anything about common descent- for or against it. IOW using any common descent arguments against ID just shows ignorance. 3) Designers can produce designs that are redundantly, unnecessarily complex, but these designs should still be used to testify to the intelligence of these designers.John Paul: What we now observe is the result of mutations culled by NS on the original design(s). BTW if you or any other human can design life better please do so or consider youself incompotent or stupid. MrH:What original designs? John Paul:The original life forms. The first species. MrH:Whenever we find biological designs, we always notice that there are clues to previous design work, the telltale signs of the ongoing workings of the mutation-selection machine. John Paul:But that mechanism can only work on what it has available. It cannot create anything novel. MrH:We assert that all this design work is an ongoing process, and you need to offer some evidence that intelligent agency is even a plausible explanation for the billions of years of biological tinkering we see in these designs. John Paul:Assertion is all you can do. MrH:The point is that designs that emanate from intelligent agency can be judged 'good' or 'bad,' and those that we see in Nature seem unlike anything we currently understand to be intelligently designed. John Paul:And when you observe nature design anything specified and complex from scratch please let me know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Duplicate post deleted. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 06-09-2004 02:15 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
LM:
For anyone willing to familiarize themselves with the theory of evolution they would know that interdependent components is evolvable through trial and error selection via mutation. John Paul:Is this "trial & error" recorded in the fossil record? LM:The positive evidence needed for ID is the production of an IC system in "one fell swoop" (to use Behe's phrasology). Behe claims that his IC systems came about this way, but only because his imagination and ideology won't let him admit otherwise. John Paul:The reality is that all of our current knowledge pertaining to information rich and irreducibly complex systems always points to intelligent agency. ALWAYS! If you want to refute Behe and ID just show us that purely natural processes can account for life. You can't even do that with the flagellum, vision, blood clotting, cilia etc. BTW without the evidence these alleged IC systems can evolve all you have is a theory steeped in credulity. That makes it a belief system and not good enough for a science classroom. LM:Can evolution create designs in organisms? Yes. John Paul:Nice assertion. Any evidence for that? I am not looking for a refinement of an existing design... LM:Has an intelligent designer ever been observed changing the morphology of organisms? No. John Paul:Neither ID or Creation state that happens. Go figure... Nice try at misrepresentation though. This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-07-2004 03:37 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Being that 90% of all species to ever exist are extinct, I would say yes. You can also see incremental changes in morphology, such as the mammalian middle ear and the legs of horses. We can also see the incremental increase in brain size among homo species over time.
quote: I thought that this was the argument we are debating about, that not all information is here because of an outside intelligence. First of all, IC systems can evolve through the pathways of coaption and subtraction. That is, unrelated parts can slowly be improved, step by step, until they are a cohesive unit. Or in the case of subtraction, the bridging step between non-IC and IC is due to the removal of "scaffolding". As an analogy, without scaffolding it is impossible to build certain types of buildings. If we see a tall building without any scaffolding around it, should we assume that the impossible has been accomplished? Of course not, since the scaffolding has long since been removed. Evolution has shown that design and information within biological systems can be attributed to a blind algorithm called random mutation and natural selection.
quote: Au contraire, mon frere. Flagellum: mutations within the type III secretory system. Vision: incremental improvements from photosensitive spot to lensed eye, of which all steps can be seen in extant species. Blood clotting: Duplication of serine protease genes that coapt into a clotting cascade, and the cascade is different in quite a few mammals which is what we would expect from the branching tree that is evolution. Cilia: can't say on this one right now, but if you want to discuss this one further I can study up.
quote: Yes. Lactose metabolism pathway in E. coli due to mutation and selection. Insertion of random sequences in a viral genome that interupted infection proficiency. Upon mutation and selection the infectivity was restored. Species of bacteria that need vancomycin in order to multiply. And what is this "I am not looking for a refinement of an existing design?" That is exactly what evolution does. You might was well outlaw mutation and selection as mechanisms for evolution. What is a bird's wing? A refinement of a reptillian arm. What is the flagellum? A refinement of the type III secretory pathway. What are the extra two bones within the mammalian ear? Refined jaw bones. What is the amphibian arm? Refined fish fin.
quote: If an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology, why are you using morphology as evidence for an intelligent designer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
John Paul,
Once again, you surface tossing IDC-flavored excrement at the ignorant defenders of the naturalistic paradigm. Your tune never changes. "There is no evidence for a naturalistic origin of life" is an easy thing to say, but offering evidence for an, ahem, non-naturalistic origin is something you have never done. Many have come here drunk on the highly flammable potions peddled by the IDC camp, but none have ever offered anything in the way of testable, plausible, realistic hypotheses concerning Purpose or Design in biology. Since you abandoned your "What is Science?" thread, I guess we'll never understand the basis of your attack against methodological naturalism. It seems like the usual smoke and mirrors, since we're told we're unjustly limiting our options by not allowing invisible, untestable, undetectable, magical mechanisms to be proposed to explain natural phenomena. Again, no one can say what constitutes a non-natural mechanism and how such a thing explains the phenomenon in question. Drawing an inference is another thing we ignorant naturalists obviously don't do particularly well, since we don't fall for IDC's design inference. Since we keep discovering new and marvelous mechanisms that enhance our understanding of the power of the mutation-selection machine, there's no reason to think that all naturalistic options for natural phenomena have been exhausted. Please point out the track record of non-natural mechanisms enhancing our understanding of the natural world. Please inform us of a non-natural mechanism that has ever been discovered to be responsible for a natural phenomenon. On the other hand, the inference that mutation-selection is responsible for biological diversity is drawn from a vast array of observations, research, and inquiry. The IDC'ers tell us that's just not enough, or argue that it's irrelevant, or fling whatever piece of shit is handy. Intelligent Design Creationism has no basis, no consistency and no track record in the lab or professional literature. It's easy for the IDC camp to claim that their work and methodology is being ignored by an entrenched scientific establishment hell-bent on protecting its vested interests. It's much easier to realize that IDC has presented no work and methodology in the first place, only incendiary rhetoric. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monsieur_Lynx Inactive Member |
So many people are aware of the 2 models of the solar system--the geocentric and heliocentric system. Ask anyone which is correct, and they'll say, without any hesitation the heliocentric model. Okay, so far so good, now as *why* the heliocentric model is correct and not the geocentric model and your answer is very likely to be one of 2 things
1)What are you STUPID or something? Of course the planets revolve around the sun. 2)Oh, people used to be very egocentric, they wanted to view themselves as the center of the universe. We're smarter than them. What do these explanations have in common? They're ad hominem attacks. Rather than trying to resolve the issue of the way the solar system is, they resort to portraying the other side as stupid, inferior, etc. Thank God people like Newton & Copernicus didn't resolve to this, otherwise where would be today? "My idea's right--people who disagree with me are stupid. They don't know anything about science, and are blinded by religion"So for those of you wishing to *actually* learn why we live in a heliocentric rather than a geocentric universe, keep reading. The geocentric model places the earth at the center of the universe, with the moon orbiting it, followed by Mercury & Venus, the sun, mars, Jupiter, & Saturn. The constellations too were orbiting the earth according to this model. The rational, as MrHambre pointed out, was pretty simple, you see various celestial bodies moving across the night sky--the ground didn't seem to be moving anywhere. However, there was an odd phenomena to explain. You see, the outer planets wouldn't simply travel in one direction across the night sky--they would sometimes move in the OPPOSITE direction!! Retrograde motion--this was tough to explain, what people assumed was that as the planets orbited the earth, they moved in these mini cycles, epicycles, so from time to time it would seem like they're moving backwards. It was a very complicated system, but mathematically, the geocentric model was alright,not perfect, but alright--people could predict where planets would be in the night sky. But Copernicus came up with, what was at the time, a rather bizarre theory--the sun at the center of the solar system, with the planets, and the earth orbiting it! So, this other model, the heliocentric view, solved the problem of epicycles very nicely. No longer did we require these little mini orbits. The "retrograde motion" of planets is actually the earth crossing the orbit of a planet (so, modern analogy, you're driving in a car, when you cross a car in the next lane, it **zooms** back even though it's actually moving forward!!). But which is right? People didn't know for a while whether the heliocentric or geocentric model was correct, until Newton came along. Newton's law of gravitation was simply remarkable. Everyone knew that the gravitational pull of the earth causes an object to fall. I throw an apple, it falls to the ground say a couple of feet away. I then throw the apple from higher up, the apple lands a bit further away. Now, let's think on a bigger scale: I throw this apple, it curves around, and falls toward the earth's surface. If it's far enough from the earth, it'll fall, keep "falling" toward the earth, until it ends up right back where it started (get it?). In effect, it'll be "orbiting" the earth!!! This was Newton's insight. This is what the "mysterious" force is that keeps the planets in orbit around the sun. Indeed, Newton computed the gravitational pull of the earth on the moon, and it worked out. I believe this was done on the other planets as well, but someone else can verify that. But why is the geocentric model wrong? Why can't we say the earth is the center of the universe? So what if the Sun actually orbits the earth? Well, let's see. The sun is massive (even the ancient Greeks knew this). It's gravitational pull would cause the planets to orbit it instead of the earth! And we don't have a force to keep the sun in orbit around the earth! And we have no explanation in physics for why planets would move in epicycles! Wait a minute...so objects exert a gravitational pull on each other--how come there's something screwy in Saturn's orbit? Uranus was discovered! What's wrong with Uranus's orbit? Neptune was discovered to have a gravitational pull on Uranus! By tracing Neptune's orbit, they discovered something weird--Pluto (so people who didn't know about Pluto's existence weren't stupid or blinded by religion) THAT'S why the geocentric view is wrong. THAT'S why the heliocentric view should not only be appreciated, but is the correct explanation (If people doubt that the earth rotates, foucault's pendulum can be given as conclusive proof that the earth is not stationary). If such insight can be applied in the evolution-creation debate, that would be great. If people could refrain from ad hominem attacks against creationists, that would be even better. Regards,Monsieur Lynx
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If people could refrain from ad hominem attacks against creationists, that would be even better. I think what you're failing to appreciate is that talking with creationists involves two issues: 1) Why are creationist positions wrong? 2) If the positions are wrong, why do creationists promote them? All the "ad hominem" I think you're referring to is actually the answer to the second question, not the first. When we make statements about creationists that are a little less than charitable, it's not to point out why their arguments are wrong - we've done that already with evidence. When we point out the dirty credentials of folks like Hovind or Johnson, it's to explain why creationist ridiculousness still gains purchase on susceptible minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Why not just have everyone try and refrain from ad hominem attacks?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
MrH:
Once again, you surface tossing IDC-flavored excrement at the ignorant defenders of the naturalistic paradigm. John Paul:I don't even know what IDC is, that is why I asked for someone (hopefully you) to tell me. MrH:"There is no evidence for a naturalistic origin of life" is an easy thing to say, but offering evidence for an, ahem, non-naturalistic origin is something you have never done. John Paul:Ahh, but I have done just that. You just refuse to understand my posts or you can't understand them. Here try reading this (again): As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. The above includes life. MrH:Many have come here drunk on the highly flammable potions peddled by the IDC camp, but none have ever offered anything in the way of testable, plausible, realistic hypotheses concerning Purpose or Design in biology. John Paul:There isn't any IDC let alone an IDC camp. If you want to learn about ID or Creation I suggest stop your laziness and go to ID & Creation websites. Then of course you would have to read the material posted there. MrH:Since you abandoned your "What is Science?" thread, I guess we'll never understand the basis of your attack against methodological naturalism. John Paul:LoL! I didn't abandon anything. My "attacks" are against people who say that Creation can't be science because it starts with a conclusion yet out of the other side of their mouth say all scientic explanations must be naturalistic (which of course is starting with a conclusion). MrH:It seems like the usual smoke and mirrors, since we're told we're unjustly limiting our options by not allowing invisible, untestable, undetectable, magical mechanisms to be proposed to explain natural phenomena. John Paul:That was just more horsesh!+ from the pro. Invisible- as in the same invisibility of the desigers of Stonehenge, yet we can make inferences about Stonehenge not being a naturally occuring phenom. Untestable- design is testable. We use it everyday (the processes involved to detect design). Undetectable- design is very detectable. When design is detected and intelligent agency (even if it acted stupidly) is readily inferred. Magical?- I don't know about magic seeing that we are very real. Just because you can't comprehend the process doesn't make it magical. MrH:Intelligent Design Creationism has no basis, no consistency and no track record in the lab or professional literature. John Paul:On that we can agree seeing there isn't any such thing as Intelligent Design Creationism except in the feeble minds of detractors. Until you get off of your lazy butt and actually learn what ID is I will gladly throw your trash back in your face. take care
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024