Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Evolution guided by god? Or a natural process?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution guided by god? Or a natural process?
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 26 of 44 (499349)
02-18-2009 12:07 PM 		Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
02-16-2009 7:39 PM

By analogy, if I write a computer program to perform some calculation, I don't write it so that every now and then I have to stop the program and rewrite the code in order to get it to do what I want. I'd be a pretty lame programmer if I did. Instead I write it so that I press the start button and the program does the rest.
​
I have to disagree here. You'd be an pretty extaordinary programmer if you only wrote programs which never needed any fixes or updates. And along the same lines this arguement:
​
The history of evolution is littered with failures and dead-ends. We can point to species that didn't make it ... and genera ... and families ... and orders ... and classes ... and phyla. At the lowest level, we see lots of failed mutations that will never make it: mutations that lead to death or severe handicap or sterility. Does this look like the product of a perfect, all-knowing God, or of the hit-and-miss processes described by the theory of evolution?
​
fails in that it assumes god is either perfect and all-knowing or non-existant. If we assume that a god exists, I think the evidance is pretty ample for imperfection.
​
That being said, I'd say the only arguement possible for guided evolution is "I have faith it is so, and you can't disprove faith"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2009 7:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 12:54 PM JaysonD has replied
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:31 PM JaysonD has replied
  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 31 of 44 (499409)
02-18-2009 2:36 PM 		Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2009 12:54 PM

Ok, I think my language was a little inexact, maybe I should have said:
The only successful argument for evolution guided by an intelligent creator is ...
​
Also (as indicated up-thread) you've only presented a possible format for an argument and not an actual argument.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 2:43 PM JaysonD has replied
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 3:00 PM JaysonD has replied
  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 34 of 44 (499435)
02-18-2009 4:33 PM 		Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2009 3:00 PM

I think you are just wrong
​
wouldn't be the first time.
​
Also (as indicated up-thread) you've only presented a possible format for an argument and not an actual argument.
​
So what?
​
So you didn't make your point. And I still contend you can't.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 4:53 PM JaysonD has replied
  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 35 of 44 (499437)
02-18-2009 4:40 PM 		Reply to: Message 32 by bluegenes
02-18-2009 2:43 PM

I think you're being rather generous in describing the "faith" argument as successful. It can be used for anything, and means nothing.
​
Your probably right. I just tacked it on in an attempt to make sure my other statements weren't taken as support for Intelligent design. But I do think it would at least be successful as a defense for [what I perceive as] an otherwise unsupportable position.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 2:43 PM bluegenes has not replied
  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 37 of 44 (499452)
02-18-2009 5:33 PM 		Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2009 4:53 PM

How about this. Ignoring my previous statements. Will you present a valid argument for intelligent design?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 10:30 AM JaysonD has replied
  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 41 of 44 (499657)
02-19-2009 4:37 PM 		Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2009 1:31 PM

I thought that perfection and omniscience were part of the definition. In any case, I'm fairly sure that Inge is not a Gnostic arguing for the existence of a demiurge.
​
Your probably right about that. But to stretch your analogy further than I should. I just really like the idea of god sitting at a work station somewhere cussing all the idiot users "What the hell are they doing? That monkey code was never supposed to be run on an city platform. Am I going to have to patch the intelligence again?"
​
Edited by JaysonD, : Minor rewording
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 42 of 44 (499658)
02-19-2009 4:49 PM 		Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2009 10:30 AM

I'm guessing you were trying to say that that is the only argument that has not been invalidated? That's because you can't falsify the premises. But still, I'm not so sure the argument is sound so, really, I still don't get what you were getting at there.
​
I think your taking my initial statement a little too seriously. That or your being intentionally obtuse for the sake of an argument. I'll grant that my initial statement was poorly worded. But at least by now my intention should be clear. Specifically Intelligent Design is a concept based on faith or belief (if there's a distinction). Accordingly forming a logical argument in support of it is going to be an uphill battle at best. Consequently proponents of ID tend to be left with emotional or spiritual appeals in place of arguments grounded in logic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 10:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 9:11 AM JaysonD has replied
  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 44 of 44 (499809)
02-20-2009 3:40 PM 		Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2009 9:11 AM

And as a concept, I don't think [ID] is based on faith and belief. I think it ends up falling on faith and belief, when the arguments are shown to be invalid,
​
This is interesting. Care to expand on it? What do you say are the actual premises of ID?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 9:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024