|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ICDESIGN writes: Its not even a true simulation when it took place on a man-made computer. ....look you guys wear me out with all these questions. I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100%with its claims. No matter what you tell me -I will never believe something came from nothing without the help of God. It appears that the vast majority of world scientists accept that evolutionary theory is essentially correct. A large number of these scientists are also Christian. 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. Evolution is like all science agnostic. It is just an explanation for what is occurring. Science does not explain why things occur. When evangelical Atheists like Dawkins start trying to explain why evolution occurs then he has stepped outside of science just as much as has the person who says that God did it. I suggest you google Francis Collins and better still read his book "The Language of God". Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: Why would an "intelligent" designer put a sharp ridge of bone on the inside of our skulls so that it rips into the brain easily? Why would an intelligent designer give us crossover air and food pipes which makes us so prone to choking and aspirating food and water into our lungs? Why would an "intelligent" designer make giving birth so difficult and dangerous? Why does a non-directed evolution that is based on survival of the fittest produce any of those things you mentioned. The answer to either of our questions is that there is no answer. We don't know. I would however point out that in spite of those things life flourishes on this planet. So, as much as you like to find perceived flaws in the design it would appear to me that the overall result is more than just a little impressive. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
NosyNed writes: I don't know about the first one but I do know that we understand the other two. I suspect that someone more knowledgable about anatomy would be able to answer the first one as well. I think Nator's point is that she perceives flaws in the overall design. Rather than getting into an argument with her about the specifics of her points, (which I'm not qualified to do anyway), and getting right off the subject I was just suggesting that the overall result of the design is outstandingly successful. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
There is no point getting into a debate about anatomy with you as I am singularly unqualified to do so. Call it a cop-out if you want but it ain't my field.
nator writes: The point is, you have not shown that "intelligence" is responsible for the design of anything in the natural world. I have never claimed that I have shown that "intelligence" is responsible for anything. You haven't shown that it isn't. You've expressed an opinion just as I have. All we can do is come to our own conclusions, based on our knowledge and perceptions, about why we or anything exists. It isn't science. It is philosophy and theology. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: In the first, you base your argument on the claim that "we" don't know the answer. In the second you admit that you are "singularly unqualified" to know the answer and that knowing the answer "ain't your field". My point is that I am not prepared to debate anatomy. Nator's point is that there are flaws in the design, hence no intelligent designer. I merely pointed out that it seems to me that if we have non-directed evolution occurring that is largely based on "survival of the fittest" then the flaws should have been bred out of us by now. Edited by GDR, : sp Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: If you don't want to get into a debate about the specifics of the design of human anatomy, then I suggest making fewer claims about what answers Evolutionary Biology is or isn't able to provide. I'm not questioning the answers that evolutionary biology provide except when the answers are in reality philosophical or theological and not scientific.
nator writes: I agree that you haven't shown that an IDer is responsible for anything. I agree that scientifically I have not shown anything. I did say that I have come to the conclusion that an intelligent designer is a more logical conclusion than is a universe that just happened without any an intelligent designer. I have never suggested that it is scientific so I cannot show or prove it to be true.
nator writes: So, given that there is no evidence whasoever for an IDer, and plenty of evidence showing that evolutionary forces can and do design life, upon what basis do you claim that "logic" has anything to do with your conclusion? Because there is something rather than nothing.Because of the complexity of all life. Because of the complexity of our world and the universe. Because I have consciousness. Because I have self awareness. Because we have a moral code. Because love exists. Etc. You see the same things and come to a different conclusion. I see evolutionary forces as part of the design but I don't see them creating the first cell, and although you may come up with a theory of how the first cell was formed I would suggest that there is no empirical method of proving it, just as there is no empirical method of proving my conclusion. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: So, what you seem to be saying is: "If a design is perfect, that is evidence for an Intelligent Designer." and "If a design is flawed, that is evidence against Evolution." Not at all. You clamed because of flaws that you perceive in the design that any designer is not very intelligent. I just make the point that these same perceived flaws can't be used to make a case for either. The theory of evolution, (which of course is still evolving ), appears to have a solid scientific basis. If there are flaws in the design at our current point in the evolutionary process they could just as easily happened whether the process was set in place by an Intelligent Designer or if it just happened by random chance. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Here is a quote from The Panda's Thumb article by Gould.
Darwin's metaphor for organic form reflects his sense of wonder that evolution could fashion such a world of diversity and adequate design with such limited raw material: You read this statement and see random chance producing the design that Gould speaks of whereas I continue to maintain that an Intelligent Designer is the more logical conclusion. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: I see evolutionary forces as part of the design but I don't see them creating the first cell,nator writes: Why couldn't they have? Be specific. I have never claimed that they couldn't. It can't be proven one way or the other.
nator writes:
(I do hope your background in Cellular Biology is more extensive than your background in Anatomy and Physiology) No such luck. I don't get into discussions about science except to ask questions. I am prepared to accept science, such as the TofE, that has empirical evidence behind. This discussion is about the fact that ideas that aren’t empirically based are no more scientific than is saying that God did it.
nator writes: That's because there is empirical evidence for evolution, and there's no reason to suggest that the formation of cells didn't happen through evolution. There is ongoing research into cell evolution, and progress is being made, even though it is a difficult field. What empirical evidence is there that precludes a creator? This is the "Science of the Gaps" argument which is no more scientific than the "God of the Gaps" argument.
nator writes: Why have we moved from your claims about the intelligend design of the human body to the evolution if the very first cell? I see them as being connected. As a Theist who accepts the TofE I see the first cell as being the starting point for the design of the human body. I don't see that I have moved the goal posts at all. Even if science can explain how the first cell was formed it still couldn’t explain why it was formed.
nator writes: If an IDer exists, why has extinction been the most common fate of, literally, 99% of all life that has ever existed on the planet? Frankly nator I'll give you that one. I don't know. The only answer I can give is that we live in a world that in my view runs like a clock. Mostly it ticks along on its own but it still needed to be designed and it needs someone to wind it up and adjust the time periodically. In a world that has natural occurrence, such as comets and earthquakes etc, stuff happens. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: They CAN be used to make a case for evolution, and The Panda's Peculiar Thumb very effectively illustrates this. The entire thrust of that essay is to show that flaws indicate evolution. Perhaps you need to read it again without your Creoblinders on. We all come to these things with are own blinkers on. I maintain that the incredible complexity of the design, with or without flaws, indicate ID. Neither of us can prove ourselves right. We have just come to different conclusions. Incidentally it seems to me that if we had evolved totally naturalistically that it would be unlikely that we would be having this discussion as I would think that it would be unlikely that we would evolve in such a way that we would have such widely differing opinions on something as basic as why we exist.
nator writes: There is no practical scientific difference between: "Evolution is God's (or the IDer's) method of designing life" and "Evolution is a wholly naturalistic process." I must be missing something here, but this is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along only to have you come back and try to make the latter scientific. I agree with this quote completely.
nator writes:
If it makes you feel good to think that an IDer directs evolution, then that's cool, but there's nothing logical, nor evidence based, about it. It's just your religious belief. The patronizing bit about "it making me feel good" doesn't add to the discussion. I don't believe it because it makes me feel good, I believe it because I'm convinced that it is the truth. I believe that a designer makes more sense than completely naturalistic happenings. I completely agree though that there is no scientific evidence to support my position, but there is no scientific evidence that support the naturalistic position either. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes:
Why don't you see evolutionary forces creating the first cell? What specific justification do you have for this position? But you can't just pull this out in isolation. It is the whole package. You asked earlier why I believe that an IDer exists. I'll repeat what I said earlier. Because there is something rather than nothing.Because of the complexity of all life. Because of the complexity of our world and the universe. Because I have consciousness. Because I have self awareness. Because we have a moral code. Because love exists. Etc. It is all things combined that in my view leads me to the view that an IDer exists. Once I come to this conclusion then it seems likely that the IDer had something to do with the first cell.
nator writes: What I actually see is you making rather bold claims about what science understands and what science is capable of, and then quickly backing down and retreating to "it's all just opinion" when you are asked to support those bold claims. I don't accept that. I have not suggested that I know what science is capable of, and I am prepared to accept science as readily as anyone else. I am not prepared to accept as science however that which does not have a scientific basis. For example we can go back to the Dawkins/Collins debate. As near as I can tell they are in complete agreement on the scientific aspects of evolution but they disagree completely on the non-scientific aspects such as why evolution occurred at all. It is a matter of opinion whether we agree with Collins or Dawkins.
nator writes: What you don't seem to do, however, is learn a whole lot about evolutionary theory. Sorry, that's how I see it. I accept that as true but I don't see it as being germane to the discussion. I am not disputing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains how we evolved which is fine by me. What we are discussing is why evolution happened at all, which is not a scientific discussion.
nator writes: The point, though, is that there is no reason other than your wish to hold a religious belief in God, to conclude that life, the Universe, or anything was or is intelligently designed. It isn't my wish, (once again your patronization doesn't add to the discussion), to hold a religious belief. I hold my beliefs because I'm convinced that my beliefs are essentially correct. Can I prove it is a lab? No. Can I prove it mathematically? No. The same holds true for the Atheist. As for why I disagree with your contention that there is no reason to believe in an IDer; I have already stated them in this post and earlier as well. They are reasons to believe as I do whether you accept them as being reasonable or not. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Sheesh. You write one little post on this forum it becomes a full time occupation.
nator writes: Don't try to equate the scientific, critical approach to claims and data with the the religious, cherry-picking approach that you use. We either believe in an IDer or we don't. When we consider why life exists at all, or where the first cell came from we naturally approach it from our previous beliefs. I also don't accept that I'm cherry picking anything and I haven't argued any particular religious position. I am only arguing the Theistic position which could be anything from Deism to Islam.
nator writes: There is no evidence-based, rational reason to maintain this. It is a faith-based position. I agree that it's a faith based position. We all have views on things that can’t be proven scientifically.Frankly I believe that when we observe the natural world, and examine our own nature that it isn't rational to believe that this all happened by chance when we can't even begin to explain why anything even exists at all. nator writes: Occam's Razor is violated when an IDer is invoked. wiki writes: This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. You are suggesting that by saying that evolution theory is a directed process I am making evolution less simple than if it is non-directed. I don't agree. Evolutionary theory exists in exactly the same manner whether it is directed or not. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it.
nator writes: Uh, the "naturalistic position" is solely and completely derived from the scientific evidence, GDR. What scientific evidence is there that proves that there is no IDer who either set in motion or is directing the evolutionary process?
nator writes: Going beyond the science and invoking a designer is not rational and violates Occam's Razor. I don't agree that it violates Occam's Razor and it is my belief that a designer is a more rational conclusion than the lack of one, for the reason that I've already given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: Now look at those two statements. In the first one, you say you won't debate anatomy; in the second, you say that if Darwinian evolution was true, certain anatomical features would have been bred out. This is taken out of context. Nator claimed that if an IDer exists then the flaws that she sees shouldn't exist. I just suggested that with the millions of years of evolution that we have had that the best design would now be in place. Frankly I don't believe that it makes a good argument from either position. By the way I support creationism but I believe that the creator used the evolutionary process to do it. I have no problem with Darwin. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
