Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 257 of 302 (372712)
12-29-2006 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by jaywill
12-28-2006 10:43 PM


With many people it is dogma even of a religious kind. It requires I think a huge amount of "faith". For lack of a better word I use the word "faith".
Ooh, ooh, I can think of a better word!
"Evidence".
Some people do not have enough of this faith to believe the claims of a Dawkins or a Ken Miller.
Funny how all these people lacking "faith" all seem to be religious. It's almost as though it requires faith to reject a well-established scientific theory.
And in this technological age many people view scientists as a new class of priests with the authority to provide all knowledge to improve our lives.
But unfortunately you can't quote anyone saying this, 'cos ... 'cos they're all invisible or something.
I hope that you take note that I keep using words like "many" and "some".
Yes. At least you don't have the gall to pretend that this applies to anyone you're debating.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:43 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 260 of 302 (372718)
12-29-2006 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by jaywill
12-29-2006 8:03 AM


Point me to where I can read the testimony.
What's the magic word?
Dover trial, transcript, day 12
Why should I assume he got trounced just because you say he did?
I made no such claim. I asked, and I quote:
If you didn't understand his argument, what makes you think it's a good one? Why do you think he's "in his element" debating with scientists when the debate is "too technical" for you to know whether he is, in fact, getting his butt kicked?"
You got that? You told me that you didn't understand the debate, and that he performed well in it. I am asking, if you didn't understand it, what makes you think he did well, besides his own claim to have done so?
Yea, the details of that exhange are beyond my knowledge. But I got the jest of it. Miller exaggerated according to Behe.
Which is as nothing compared with what Miller says about Behe. Oh, you mean "gist".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:03 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:22 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 262 of 302 (372721)
12-29-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by jaywill
12-29-2006 8:17 AM


Miller called his defense of Evolution "Finding Darwin's God". That's a curious title for a book having nothing to do with faith but only with evidence.
But it's a splendid title for the book which Miller actually wrote, which is not, of course a "defense of Evolution".
"Well established scientific theory" I like that phrase. I agree with it. A "well established scientific theory" which may be replaced in this century with a better theory.
Thanks for not saying "well established scientific fact" beyond questioning and beyond challenges.
I would never pretend that a well-established scientific fact was "beyond questioning and beyond challenges", any more than I would pretend that the distinction between a fact and a theory is the degree of certainty with which they are known.
This is because I'm not a creationist propagandist; and because I like to know the meanings of words before I use them.
I don't know what you mean here. And I'm not sure you do either.
I mean that you cannot quote anyone maintaining the view which you have attributed to "many people"; that: "scientists [are] a new class of priests with the authority to provide all knowledge to improve our lives". You say that "many people" believe this: can you quote one saying so?
The evidence which I think really should be there to demonstrate macro evolution occured is lacking.
I.e?
Aside from that the idea is too preposterous for me to accept. When I look at Mount Rushmore I see something took place of which is a different nature then when I look at the Grand Canyon. If you asked me to believe that millions of years of erosion carved four human faces on the side of the mountian I would be skeptical. Adding more and more time would not help.
No-one is asking you to believe that. I also find your false analogy "too preposterous to accept". But not so the theory of evolution, which does not correspond to your analogy.
The grand canyon on the other hand I could not as easily ascribe to intelligent intervention.
The DNA code smacks of intelligent design. Actually a lot of things remind me of intelligent design.
Which you detect how?
IF you want to believe that the scheme was blindly stumbled upon through random trial and error, you go ahead and believe that.
Trial and error is hardly a random process.
Have you ever wondered how real designers design? Did you read my post about genetic algorithms? Or here's a more hands-on metohd of trial and error, from James Dyson, the inventor of the bagless vaccuum cleaner:
You have to take the Edison approach: test, and test, and test until it works best ... there were questions about the positioning and size and shape of the exit point, and every other part of the thing, and all of them had to be answered by testing.
Slow, slow, slow. These things cannot be hurried. When you develop a prototype you have to change only one thing at a time. If you are really going to improve things, then you are going to have to be patient. Very patient.
Now if only his prototypes had reproduced with slight variation ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:17 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 265 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 270 of 302 (372739)
12-29-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by jaywill
12-29-2006 9:40 AM


Quoted reviewers:
“The first half of the book is really an apologetic for evolution . ”
“It was... sort of. For the most part, this book just describes what evolution is, how it works, how we know it happens (and is happening), and why creationism, intelligent design and every other form of evolution denial is the most intellectully bankrupt, deceptive, pseudo-scientific enterprise out there. “
First, Kenneth Miller, as an educator and celluar biologist, makes an excellent summary of the case for evolution. If someone does not understand that case or has never really seen all the evidence for evolutionary theory added all together, here it is, neatly summarized and clearly explained. “
I'm not sure what the other quotes are for.
The subtitle of the book is "A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution". Don't you think "Finding Darwin's God" is a good title for a book with that subtitle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:40 AM jaywill has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 271 of 302 (372740)
12-29-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by jaywill
12-29-2006 9:53 AM


I know. Such words are usually associated with intelligent activity.
Same with words like "selection" which evolutionists use.
The phrase "natural selection" is not ever associated with intelligent activity. It's the word "natural" that's the clue.
I didn't read your comments on algorithms. But I know enough about algorithms to know that they are also usually designed and purposeful.
Genetic algoritms simulate the action of unintelligent selection on reproduction with random variation.
If you are a true Darwinist don't you propose a purposeless and blind process? There is no goal or purpose. Evolutionists usually jump all over me when I ask them what is the purpose or the goal of the process of Evolution. They insist that it has no mind, no goal, no purpose.
Of course I say that it has "no mind, no goal, no purpose". But I do not say that it is "random", because that would be a completely different statement, and false.
The activities you are speaking of now are those of intelligent intervention or design.
And prove the efficacity of trial and error.
A purposeless process is taking Edison's approach? Where did it get the "inspiration" ?
Edison said genius was 10% inspiration and 90% persperation. Are you saying that the process of Evolution was "inspired" like Edison? And then it worked hard for millions of years to realize that inspirational idea?
No, of course I am not saying that. You can tell this by the way I'm not saying it. I'm saying the things I actually say. I never in any way said or implied that "the process of Evolution was "inspired" like Edison", as you can tell by the fact that I have made absolutely no such statement.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:53 AM jaywill has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 292 of 302 (372958)
12-30-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by TheMystic
12-30-2006 8:12 AM


ok, I think we're arguing in circles. Let me see if I can make my point without any subtlety: I see a number of arguments on this thread saying that life cannot be designed because the designer didn't do a good job. I'm pointing out that in an evolved world, or more generally, a world that arose by purely natural causes, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'perfect' or so on. There is no such thing as right or wrong. You may *feel* like something is right or wrong, but only because certain electro-chemical reactions take place in your brain. Those reactions have tended to be successfully passed on throught zillions of generations and that's why you are the way you are. That's the only reason you are the way you are according to Darwin. So it is logically inconsistent to make any sort of value judgements about a non-existent designer. Hmmm, design itself is only an illusion as well, because what humans produce is only a response to certain verbal, tactile and visual stimuli, filtered through our inherited behavior patterns. No, it is only the ID'er who can logically talk about whether life is, or even would be, a good design.
Simple observation proves you wrong. Non-creationists can tell good design from bad. Given this, it seems superfluous to pick out all the fallacies, equivocations, and nonsense in your post, since it is sufficient to point out that your conclusion is known to be false.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by TheMystic, posted 12-30-2006 8:12 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by TheMystic, posted 12-30-2006 10:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 297 of 302 (373146)
12-31-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by TheMystic
12-30-2006 10:33 AM


Non-creationists can tell good design from bad.
That's precisely my point.
Good. You acknowledge that truth at least.
Now, you were going to argue for creationism or something, please go ahead.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by TheMystic, posted 12-30-2006 10:33 AM TheMystic has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 300 of 302 (373151)
12-31-2006 2:25 AM


Uh ... Forums Don't Work Like That
They really don't.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024