Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,280 Year: 5,537/9,624 Month: 562/323 Week: 59/143 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 1273 (511448)
06-09-2009 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Fallen
06-09-2009 6:06 PM


Intelligent Design is the idea that there are detectable signs of intelligence in the natural world.
Then another thread giving those detectable signs one at a time would be very interesting. I've not seen any that make any sense at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Fallen, posted 06-09-2009 6:06 PM Fallen has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 72 of 1273 (530653)
10-14-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by traderdrew
10-14-2009 11:58 AM


Motivations
I stated it before and I state it again here. Creationism attempts to shoehorn the evidence into a Biblical framework. Intelligent Design derives its ideas from the evidence.
First parts right.
Unfortunately, the second part hasn't been shown to be true.
ID has so far been a combination of God of the gaps and attempts to poke holes in evolutionary theory with no replacement.
If it is actually derived from the evidence then that has managed to escape me so far even after quite a bit of reading. Perhaps it is time to supply the evidence and logic?
And things like the following don't cut it:
1. Things are so wonderful/complex they obviously have to be designed.
2. I can not imagine any way that could have worked so it must have been designed.
3. Any argument from irreducible complexity which has been shown to be too flawed to be of use.
4. Any argument from probabilities which have, so far, always been shown to be masturbating with numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 11:58 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 12:41 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
(1)
Message 82 of 1273 (530691)
10-14-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by traderdrew
10-14-2009 12:41 PM


Flaws of ID
3. Any argument from irreducible complexity which has been shown to be too flawed to be of use.
Flawed in what way?
IC was constructed by deliberately disallowing evolutionary pathways that allow an "IC" construct to evolve. In addition, IC systems have been shown to evolve. It's done with.
4. Any argument from probabilities which have, so far, always been shown to be masturbating with numbers.
Don't Darwinian evolutionists play with numbers? I think they orgasm over natural explanations and are automatically turned off by any thought of design.
3. Any argument from irreducible complexity which has been shown to be too flawed to be of use.
Flawed in what way?
4. Any argument from probabilities which have, so far, always been shown to be masturbating with numbers.
Don't Darwinian evolutionists play with numbers? I think they orgasm over natural explanations and are automatically turned off by any thought of design.
You second sentence is false and shows a misconception and bias you have. There are many biologists who are just as much believers as you are.
The deal with numbers is you actually have to show your math. In all the cases I've seen of ID math it is bogus. The problem is that math looks very impressive to those not familiar with it a bit. The bad news for IDers is that math is very much clearer than baffle gab can be and therefore has been shown to be crap. If you have some that is not then a thread on that would be great and very interesting.
Classic example; the chosen of one result out of very many (often an unknown size of many) and calculating a probability of that one occurring. Using exactly this math proves that no one can win the lottery in 1,000,000 years.
This is the kind of crap put forward by the leading lights in the ID movement like Dembski.
1. Things are so wonderful/complex they obviously have to be designed.
I agree this doesn't cut it. On the other hand, you must explain how certain things came to be by random processes.
Since this thread is about ID we both agree that the "it's obvious" argument does't cut it. Calling evolution random is just another one of the infinitely repeated (and by now deliberate lie) errors of the ID movement but that is for another thread.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 12:41 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by traderdrew, posted 10-16-2009 11:23 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 88 by traderdrew, posted 10-18-2009 3:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024