|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: Good. It is indeed irrational to believe that the natural world "all happened by chance". This is why no-one believes this. OK. How should I phrase it. If there is no IDer then what was the first cause that got things going?
GDR writes: What scientific evidence is there that proves that there is no IDer who either set in motion or is directing the evolutionary process? Dr AdequateExactly the same amount of evidence that proves that there is no weather god who set in motion or is directing the lightning. Once again you are taking things out of context. I was asked what evidence is there for an IDer. I was just trying to make the point that there is the same amount of scientific evidence for there being no IDer, because neither is sceintific. Science is about the natural world. If a supernatural world exists it isn't scientific. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Welcome to EvC. We're glad that you joined us, but doing long cut & pastes from your blog is not really debating. If you want to make a comment and then provide a link over to your blog, even quote a piece of it, that's fine, but we don't really debate websites here, rather other individuals.
In addition, except for the words Intelligent and Design being included in your rhapsody, nothing in your tome is really related to the topic in this thread. The topic in this thread revolves around living things. If you look at living things, those things we can actually observe, do they appear to be a product of Intelligent Design? Any scientific model must explain the evidence available. If someone wants to support Intelligent Design, then their model must explain certain things like: Why most of the products of the designer are rejected as defective? Reproduction is extremely inefficient. Most reproduction attempts fail. The mother turtle lays hundreds of eggs, yet only a small fraction of those eggs which do hatch survive long enough to reproduce. Many Fish and Coral spawn by releasing clouds of eggs and sperm that simply float to the surface with the random chance that somehow an egg and sperm might drift together and merge. Plants broadcast seeds in the wind with no control over the conditions of the soil where they might land. In each of those examples, for the most part, reproduction is NOT directed and in most cases, reproduction fails. Even in the case of what some folk call the most advanced critter ever, humans, the norm is for reproduction to fail. It has only been very recently, in my lifetime as a matter of fact, that in a few developed countries things have changed to a situation where the norm is for a pregnancy to carry to full term, for the baby to be born without killing the mother in the process and for the baby to then live long enough to reproduce. In addition, those things only happened because the one example of an Intelligent Designer we know of, other humans, totally changed the "Natural and Normal" environment by inserting Intelligently Designed medical equipment, living conditions, instruments, pharmaceuticals and procedures. Why are examples of good designs not incorporated into other similar products? I discussed this in more detail in Message 8, but basically, why doesn't the designer use good ideas. If there is some Intelligent Designer, why doesn't he scarf the code for a great module and reuse that code wherever applicable? As a systems designer, a programmer, a website designer and as an ex-engineer, I know for a fact that I freely incorporate those features which I see, even if created by some other intelligent designer in what I produce. I try very hard not to continue producing sub-optimal products when I know there is a better solution available. That is NOT what we see when we look at living things. Human eyes are still built backwards even though we know there are better designs available. The human brain and intellect is not duplicated in other mammals. Shins still have no padding even though we are aware of the problem and as intelligent designers we can manufacture shin guards, elbow pads and shoulder pads. We still have a sharp cutting edge inside our skulls that is great for slicing up our brains on impact even though as intelligent designers we know to round sharp edges and add padding and restraints to protect things like brains. When we look at living things, what we see is not Intelligent Design, rather it is absolutely minimal design. The whole sum of design in living things is to mass produce vast quantities of a product so that even given the inefficiency of the design, a sufficient number of the products will pass the minimal QC barrier of natural selection long enough to reproduce more sub-par products. Edited by AdminQuetzal, : Off topic notification Edited by AdminQuetzal, : Re-opening post for response Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
sidelined writes: If the Ider exists what accounts for the level of complexity that the Ider exhibits by way of the design this Ider is capable of generating?Since complexity is the reason you give for the belief in an Ider, how then do we explain the complexity of the Ider? Is there another Ider to account for this one and so on ad infinitum? Time is a fascinating thing. It is a feature of our universe that allows us to understand change. We have no way of understanding other dimensions yet various scientific theories postulate various other dimensions including other time dimensions. A molecule of light doesn't experience the passage of time. I agree that you pose an interesting question but there will never be an answer to it in this life time. If I am correct in my beliefs we should find out the answers in the next life. I know I'll be going to all the lectures. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That is not what Evolutionary theory claims. Evolution only posits "good enough" design for a given environment. Of course, we humans have rapidly learned to alter and control their environment rather than allowing most evolutionary forces to affect us. However, evolution still happens, largely through sexual selection. You may not have a "problem with Darwin" but you sure don't understand the basics of Evolutionary Theory. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: Occams razor is violated when you tack an IDer on to evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory doesn't require an IDer. I agree that it doesn't require an IDer, but it does require a first cause. Evolution is what happened after the whole process was set in motion, whether it was by natural or supernatural means. It is the same one way or the other. By the way, I don't think that science should ever get to the point that it should stop and say this is as far as we can go because this is the end of the natural and everything prior is supernatural. I'm out of time right now, so I don't have time to answer your other post Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That's true, but that is not at all what you were claiming before. What rational justification do you have for claiming that the first cell [b]could not[/i] have come about through naturalistic means? All you have provided so far is your personal incredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4521 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
quote[ I just suggested that with the millions of years of evolution that we have had that the best design would now be in place. ]
what you seem to forget it the enviroment is not static , what was a good design can fast become a bad design when changes in temperture , rain fall, etc occur. in fact very good designs are hazardous if the creature becomes to specific to its current enviroment , and then the enviroment changes . also where there has been little change we do see very suited creatures over the long time span .. sharks are a good example ...been around ages , hard to beat in design terms fror catchuing a fish , and have had a fairly constant enviroment to live in , and yet they lack some of the more "today" features we have . ie large brains able to build trawler to catch fish by the thousands so are we better dsigned sharks ? ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
No problem. Go to forum Proposed New Topics (click). Push the button marked "New Topic", then copy/paste your post in the thread provided. Try and come up with a descriptive title that shows what you want to talk about. I'll take a look and promote it as soon as possible.
Edited by AdminQuetzal, : Wrong account
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gimelnus Junior Member (Idle past 6246 days) Posts: 4 From: Little Rock Joined: |
While I welcome your not-so-subtle-rebuke, I shall leave it to the admins to punish me further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Please consider this quote from jar's post that you replied to official.
Welcome to EvC. We're glad that you joined us, but doing long cut & pastes from your blog is not really debating. If you want to make a comment and then provide a link over to your blog, even quote a piece of it, that's fine, but we don't really debate websites here, rather other individuals. In addition, except for the words Intelligent and Design being included in your rhapsody, nothing in your tome is really related to the topic in this thread. The topic in this thread revolves around living things. If you look at living things, those things we can actually observe, do they appear to be a product of Intelligent Design? Please take any issues with this post to the appropriate thread listed in my signature box. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: You accept that purely naturalistic evolutionary forces work on nature at least part of the time, but when it comes to the creation of the first cell, you say that they couldn't have been responsible. I'd like to know your justification for this position. I have not said that the creation of the first cell could not have come about by naturalistic evolutionary forces. I am just saying that there is no empirical evidence one way or the other.
GDR writes: Because there is something rather than nothing.nator writes: Philosophical question, not a scientific one. Absolutely.
nator writes:
Complex by human standards. Just read cavediver's posts.
"Complex" relative to what other life and what other world and Universe? The adjective "complex" only makes sense as a comparison. What other Universe, world, and life have you compared ours to? nator writes: All of these congnitive features are known to have natural, biological origins. Read some Cognitive and or Social Psychology sometime if you are interested in learning about current research. You claim that they are known. I have read some naturalistic theories about how we came to have consciousness, self awareness and altruism but I have never seen any empirical proof. Dawkins has made claims that we have "memes" but no one has ever found one. Can you provide a scientific proof that explains why we have consciousness. I can't see where naturalistic theories that can't be tested empirically are any more scientific than saying God did it.
nator writes: Dolphins, Elephants and Bonobo Chimps, for example, also have self-awareness. Capuchin monkeys have something close to self awareness but their's seems to be intermediate betwwen true and nonexistent self-awareness. Since those species are known to have very high intelligence and complex social structures, just like humans do, it is reasonable to conclude that self-awareness is an emergent property of the brain. Other animals, like Bonobo's and other social monkeys, also have moral codes. They recognize fairness and reciprocity, for example. So what? I agree that animals have consciousness.
nator writes: Love is easily understood from a social psychology and biochemical standpoint without any supernatural source needed. It may be easily understood but why love exists at all can have either physical or metaphysical explanations but once again it isn't scientific.
nator writes: What does this mean to your claim of an IDer? It certainly appears as though it's nothing more than a big brain that is the source of those specific attributes you listed, considering that several non-human species, which also have big brains, have them. I’m not convinced that it is restricted to animals with big brains but I don’t see it as being germane anyway. As I say, I don’t disagree that animals have consciousness.
nator writes: Please remember, that even if we never understand how the first cell came about, that does not constitute positive evidence for an IDer. I agree. Once again it is a philosophical or theological point not a scientific one. We can either accept that there is an Intelligent Designer or that we are the product of nothing but naturalistic forces. (There is also the option of saying that it is unknowable but that is something of a cop-out.) I happen to find the argument for an IDer more compelling and you find the naturalist argument more compelling. Neither of our positions are scientific as they can't be tested empirically. I believe that we live in a created universe and that we have been given questioning minds. I see scientific research as the way we learn about that creation. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ikabod writes: what you seem to forget it the enviroment is not static , what was a good design can fast become a bad design when changes in temperture , rain fall, etc occur. I agree with your point. I don't agree that because there are perceived flaws we should reject evolution. I was only trying to point out that nator's argument that we should reject the concept of an intelligent designer because of perceived flaws is not a good argument either. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I was only trying to point out that nator's argument that we should reject the concept of an intelligent designer because of perceived flaws is not a good argument either. It's a great argument, actually, unless you lower your expectations for what an omnipotent eternal figure should be capable of. You have, apparently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: It's a great argument, actually, unless you lower your expectations for what an omnipotent eternal figure should be capable of. You have, apparently. I would agree that it would be an argument if I held the position that I believed that we were instantly created, but as I don't we are still subject to evolutionary forces. Also, we have no idea if we are a final product of evolutionary design or not. I still contend it is a weak argument against Theistic Evolution. I believe that we are more than just physical beings. I see us as spiritual beings in a physical body. (This is philosophical and 100% non-scientific.) If I'm correct in believing that our spiritual component survives physical death then I guess the design that I'm most concerned about is the design of whatever body, (be it physical or whatever), that I inhabit in the next life. I have to admit though that I'm enjoying the current one and hope to stick around for some time yet. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: The moment that an ID supporter points to a poor design feature as proof that we were intelligently designed, I'll eat my hat Well, technically even Biblical creationists acknowledge flawed humanity. It is not a given that the body is seen as perfect, just maybe more common. My only point was that using our own concept of God and His perfection is not proof of no design. Obviously there is no evidence of Designer, and that is not a problem. Logically however, flaw = no Designer is not correct. Someone mentioned pouches for human reproduction, like marsupials. I don't believe the rest of our body would support a pouch idea. I am still asking if anyone here would view the body we have as the best possible, or if they could think of intelligent improvements that would actually work. If evolution is not finished, we will see improvements eventually. Or at least adaptations. It is somewhat interesting that a non-intelligent process could produce results that intelligence can not foresee or control. In a certain perspective, what we do have is 'perfect' to the extent that we are the best possible set of trade-offs possible within our limitations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024