too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

I have not said that the creation of the first cell could not have come about by naturalistic evolutionary forces.

---

You wrote, in Message #73:

quote:

---

I see evolutionary forces as part of the design but I don't see them creating the first cell

---

This is another way of saying that evolutionary forces could not have created the first cell. Please do not be coy.

quote:

---

I am just saying that there is no empirical evidence one way or the other.

---

So what do think Cellular Evolutionary Biologists do all day?Twiddle their thumbs?Here's a link to a TalkOrigins page which is very well referenced with citations from the professional literature regarding current research in cellular evolution.CB010.2: Origin of the first cellsPerhaps, before making bold claims about what science can or cannot discover in the future, you should familiarize yourself with, I don't know, science?

quote:

---

Complex by human standards.

---

OK, then, what is the standard that you are using to judge if something is "too complex" to have been designed by purely naturalistic forces?

quote:

---

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.

---

Those theories, GDR, are based upon empirical research. If those theories exist, it is becasue the evidence has led scientists to them. That's how science works.But I will back off of my claim just a little, as I stated things a bit strongly when I said that these things are known to have natural origins. I should have said that there is empirical evidence that supports a biological, naturalistic basis for all of those things, to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the item.Just because we may not currently (or ever) understand the biological basis for a given phenomena does not in any way constitute a logical basis to conclude that an IDer exists.

quote:

---

Dawkins has made claims that we have "memes" but no one has ever found one.

---

That's silly."Memes" are an abstract concept, like "morality" or "love".Do you expect to "find" "morality" lying around somewhere?

quote:

---

Can you provide a scientific proof that explains why we have consciousness.

---

We have only just begun studying conciousness from a naturalistic perspective; literally, the field has only existed for a few decades at most.However, there is a lot of evidence, especially now that we have the ability to look inside people's brains and observe activity through the use of MRI scans, that consciousness is natualistically based.Read some Dennett.

quote:

---

I can't see where naturalistic theories that can't be tested empirically are any more scientific than saying God did it.

---

They can and are tested. Every day.Funny how someone who says he is unqualified to comment upon science since he is ignorant of much of it is so comfortable making proclamations about what it can or cannot do.

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I’m not convinced that it is restricted to animals with big brains

---

Why? Based upon what evidence do you base this opinion?

quote:

---

but I don’t see it as being germane anyway. As I say, I don’t disagree that animals have consciousness.

---

Look, isn't your point in listing all of those things (consciousness, love, morality, etc) and saying that purely naturalistic forces cannot account for them is to support your claim that an IDer must be invoked to account for their existence?If you list these things because you believe that there isn't any evidence (I believe that there is evidence) to say they are naturalistic, the logical conclusion is to say, "I don't know".Yet, you haven't done that. You have gone beyond logic and used the "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy.Edited by nator, : fixed quote boxes

quote:

---

However, saying that it is impossible that it has an IDer behind it is a Science of the Gaps argument.

---

I have never said it was impossible that an IDer exists.I have only said that there is no positive evidence for an IDer, and therefore there is no logical or evidence-based reason to presume one exists.

quote:

---

The difference of course is that if you are right you might eventually be proven correct whereas my opinion can never be proven.

---

Right.Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming all along.You have repeatedly claimed that neither position is testable and that both positions are merely differences of opinion.Glad to see that you have come around to my way of thinking.

quote:

---

OK, but it doesn't give a logical basis to assume one doesn't exist either.

---

Actually, yes it does.There is no positive evidence for the existence of an IDer.Therefore, I cannot logically assume that an IDer exists, just as I cannot logically assume that Krishna, or the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus, or the FSM exists.I can believe in all of those things as a matter of faith, but I cannot, if I am aware of all of the evidence, logically conclude that they exist.

quote:

---

In the end I guess it all comes down to, "why is there something instead of nothing". (Whatever nothing is. )

---

And this is where arguments with ID proponents always end up.Remember where we began?You claimed that science didn't know the answers to questions about why the human body evolved with sub-optimal design, but when I showed you that it did, you declined to discuss anatomy.Then you claimed that your argument tacking on an IDer to the ToE didn't violate Occam's Razor, but then when you were shown that it did.Remember how you ignored the fact that 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth has gone extinct?Eventually, you brought up the first cell and claimed that you "didn't see" it evolving through evolutionary forces. (IOW, you just personally don't believe that it could, regardless of your relative ignorance of Cellular Biology)You brought up a couple of other Arguments from Incredulity in there, and also tossed in a few impressivey wrong Strawman misrepresentations of Evolutionary theory.So now, you have backed all the way up to "Why is there something rather than nothing" as a reason to hold on to your bwelief in an IDer.Which is fine, of course, as a religious belief.But it has nothing to do with science, biological evolution, or logic.

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100%
with its claims."--ICDESIGN

quote:

---

To a degree I would agree, but don't we all do that regardless of the conclusion that we come to.

---

No.

quote:

---

Philosophically people much more clever than either of us have been able to discern quite a bit. Can it be tested in a lab or by a mathematical formula? No.

---

Not only can we not test their claims in a lab or by using math, we can't test their claims at all.Given this, it is not possible to say that they have "discerned" anything at all about what, or if, anything exists beyond the material universe.They have made conjectures, pondered musings, posed what-ifs, but if we can't test any of them against reality, then all they are doing is making up stories in the absence of evidence and with no way to verify those stories.The existence of an IDer is one of those stories.

quote:

---

There are a great many highly intelligent, well educated people that believe there is more to be known about our existence than what can be demonstrated scientifically.

---

Another fallacy, called the Appeal to Popularity.Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.Edited by nator, : fixed spelling

quote:

---

"if a red dragon fought a mind flayer sorcerer, who would win?"

---

If it is an ancient red dragon, my money's on her.

quote:

---

Obviously if you believe the physical is all there is

---

That's not what I believe.My position is that there is no evidence that there is anything beyond the physical.There very well might be something beyond the physical, but as there's no way to test for it, we can't know.People who say they know are, literally, making it up.Personally, I'd rather not know something than believe in something that isn't knowable just because I want or need to believe it.

quote:

---

then you will dismiss the views of all of the philosophers as their views are based on something other that what is scientific.

---

Not all of the philosophers, since not all philosophers base their philosophy exclusively on non-science. Daniel Dennett, Thomas Kuhn, and Michael Ruse are all Philosophers that I have read and not dismissed (in fact, they are all authors you should read, in my opinion).

quote:

---

I believe that there is something other than what we can learn through the scientific method. I believe that life is more than just what is contained in the physical world.

---

That's great.There's no rational or logical basis to those beliefs, but you are welcome to them.

quote:

---

This puts us at something of an impasse.

---

If by "at an impasse", you mean that you have been unable to support any of the substantive claims that you've made in this thread, then I guess we are.

quote:

---

There are lots of grey areas in the world. I agree that science and math is attractive for the reasons you give. I like the certainty that 2+2=4. You can count on it so to speak. Unfortunately life isn't always like that.

---

Excuse me, but you've got things wrong here.Math, and religion actually, are "certain". Math is, like religion, a bunch of axioms that one adheres to to participate in the activity.Science, on the other hand, is totally Gray Area Land.It is never completely certain of anything as a fundamental operational tenet.If you were truly comfortable with "gray areas" in life, you would stick with methodological naturalism to tell you what is rational, instead of hanging your certainty of faith on the idea of an Intelligent Designer.

quote:

---

Let me know though when you find scientific proof of love or hate, beauty or ugilness, joy or sorrow, pride or shame etc.

---

Strangely enough, this thread isn't about any of those things.But since you asked, I'm letting you know right now.There are, indeed, scientific explanations for why we have those emotions and appreciate aesthetics.Clearly, you are ignorant of them.Clearly, you still, after being repeatedly shown to be in error about what science does or doesn't know or can or cannot discover, you contine to make bold statements about science's capabilities.If you would like to start a thread to discuss them, I'd be happy to, but only if you are truly interested in learning.I'm not willing to do a lot of research that you should really be doing, only to have you handwave it away or ignore it and "yeahbut" me to death.Advice for you GDR:Just because you don't know if science has explanations for something, don't assume that it doesn't, particularly since you are a self-avowed science neophyte. You might avoid looking quite as foolish as you have in this thread.

quote:

---

I posted on this thread in order to suggest in a reply to ICDESIGN that evolution was not incompatible with ID or Christianity for that matter. For whatever reason you decided to interject.

---

I "interjected" because you made the following statement in message #42

quote:

---

I agree with you in that I think that by far the most logical conclusion to come to about our existence is that we are the result of an intelligent design that requires an external designer.

---

To postulate the existence of an IDer is necessary and required to explain human complexity is certainly not "by far the most logical conclusion to come to about our existence".That is not, as I and others have argued, a valid position.

quote:

---

I have not pretended anywhere in here that I am the least bit knowledgeable about biology.

---

And yet, by repeatedly insisting that an IDer is needed to explain various human traits (then quickly backing off to cells and the first life), you are making rather bold claims about biology.If you don't know anything about biology, then why do you keep insisting that an IDer is needed to explain it?

quote:

---

I have no problem with evolution. I agree that ID is not science.

---

The problem is that many of the the claims you are making are scientific claims, though the idea that an IDer is responsible for this or that is not scientific.I also think that you don't understand enough about evolution and current research. I say this because you state your assumptions, repeatedly, that there is no evolutionary explanation for a given phenomena, when there actually is an explanation and research is ongoing in that area.You assume that we don't understand these things from a scientific standpoint, or why they might have evolved, but that is not true. This is why I said that you should be doing your own research into the evolution of emotions, or the evolution of why we appreciate beauty and find things ugly. Look it up, find out what science has to say, before you claim that science doesn't have a clue.Arguing from a position of ignorance is never a good idea.

quote:

---

I said that I doubt that science will find out how the first cell was formed but allowed that it might. The same holds true for why we have consciousness and experience love etc. Even if science determines how these things happen I suggest that it can't tell us why. Of course you don't agree because you don't believe that why enters into it, or if it does then it is unknowable to us.

---

Correct. That's why it isn't logical or rational to then go further and postulate an IDer.That's a religious belief, and as such isn't based upon logic or rationality.

quote:

---

Sure I'm ignorant of them, but are you telling me that you have empirical proof of why we have emotions?

---

Yes. There are scientific explanations for why we have emotions and appreciate aesthetics. By definition, something that is "science-based" is based upon empirical evidence.A good place to start would be with Damasio, who is a behavioral neurologist and neuroscientist who has done quite a lot of ground breaking research on the neurological basis of emotion.From his Wiki page:

quote:

---

I have to doubt that you would think that your knowledge of biology, or any other form of science exceeds his. I am not suggesting that this is proof of anything except that it is possible to be well educated in biology, not be a complete imbecile, and come to the conclusion that there is a designer that created us.

---

Francis Collins, according to his wiki, rejects Itelligent Design. His position seems to be similar to that of the Catholic Church, in that God is responsible for the "spiritual" aspects of humans, but goes no further. It is also worth mentioning that he came to his religious views after dealing with dying patients. So, mentioning Collins, a scientist who rejects your position, doesn't seem to have helped your argument.Anyway, I have never claimed that smart, well-educated people can't come to religious conclusions.However, those positions are not based upon logic, nor evidence.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Even if science can demostrate how the first cell was formed, or what happened at T=0, can it tell us why those things happened at all?

---

Perhaps they happened for no particular reason.Your preference for a superstition that some supernatural actor is responsible for this or that is simply a symptom of your discomfort with ambiguity.Where is it written that the Universe owes you any explanations for why it exists, anyway?

quote:

---

It seems to me though that the Atheistic view of things is no better than the YEC crowd. Young Earth Creationism rejects science and Atheism rejects philosophy and theology.

---

Atheism doesn't reject philosophy.Remember that post where I told you about the philosophers I don't reject?But anyway, the point is that science does not accept philosophical answers to scientific questions.You have, in this thread, repeatedly tried to insert your personal philosophy as an answer to various scientific questions.That's a no-no in science.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You might feel that same sense of peace but you would assume that the feeling comes because of some neurological function.

---

Are you still seriously in doubt about the neurological basis of emotions?As I said in a previous post, I'd be happy to participate in a thread on the subject if you would like to start one.

quote:

---

Would this be correct?

​

The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies.

​

The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by random genetic mutations.

---

No.To be correct (though simplistic and incomplete) they should read:The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by random genetic mutations which are then selected for by the environment through the mechanism of natural selection.The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies over time.