|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,468 Year: 3,725/9,624 Month: 596/974 Week: 209/276 Day: 49/34 Hour: 0/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
nj in response to fallacycop writes: The rest of post is incoherent. *pats fallacycop on the head* Run along now, the big people are talking. Actually NJ, big people refrain from condescending behavior and arrogance. It must be your fallen nature you are putting on display.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
John 10:10 if you subscribe to nature be designed by a intelligent designer then one has to wonder on the nature of the designer.
When proponents think of the Intelligent Designer they often think of the sunsets, kittens and puppies. However nature is chock full of diabolic parasitic organism that are creatively "designed" to the task of taking advantage of some other organism. Consider trichinella. The trichina worm pass into the small intestine of a mammal and, in 1-2 days, become mature. After mating, the adult female worm lay eggs. These Eggs develop into immature worms which travel through the arteries and are transported to muscle. Within the muscles, the worms curl into a ball and encyst. Once in this state the worm direct the surrounding cells. The cell is now called a nurse cell and this cell begins to redirect a net of blood vessels in order to provide added nutrition to the larva inside. Wonderfully complex and intricate? Does the provide the same degree of awe and wonder as a beautiful sunset?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
john writes: By the same token, when I think of the Intelligent Designer, I reflect on the Intelligent Designer's amazing creativeness to create such incredible cosmologies that mankind can use for good or for evil. Yes but you are only looking at the rainbow and sunset side. The example I gave had nothing to do with mankind's use for good or evil.
John writes: The basic principle of design works this way: Purpose/Plan Preceeds Product. John lets look at purpose, plan and product of just one of many examples. The Guinea Worm is a wonderfully designed parasite with a multi-step that involves humans and other mammals. The larvae of this marvelous creature infects tiny water fleas. When people drink the water with fleas and the guinea worm larvae the flea dies and releases the worm. The guinea worms matures in the intestines and eventually copulates. The male is absorbed by the female as she continues on her sinister purpose. The adult female is now full of thousands of tiny larvae. Starting from the small intestine she works her way thru the body. In the final stage, this yard long thin worms erupts from legs, feet and even eye sockets. As she forces her way out she exudes acid under the skin causing severe and searing pain. This pain drives the infected victim to seek relieve in the nearest pool of water, whereupon the worm discharges her load of larvae to start the cycle over again.
Sometimes the worm dies in the victim as they attempt remove the worm. This can cause a painful death as the worm rots away. Check these links: Error - seattlepi.comguinea worm - Google Search The creature described is wonderfully, incredibly and creatively “designed” to their purpose of propagation. This creature, and many others, are very specific to the task and did not just take up this way of life after some fall. The question, which you have avoided: If there is an Intelligent Designer what does this example convey about the designer? When you accept the Intelligent Design philosophy as a refuge from rational thought, you have accept the full consequence. Edited by iceage, : speling Edited by iceage, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Reduce image size.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
percy writes: Intelligent design isn't science.
nj writes:
Oh, I see. And what are they doing? Playing with Play-doh? They may as well. From what I see they go around and placing sticky notes on this process and that mechanism saying "We ain't got a clue, godunit". Unfortunately real science slowly plods along removing the sticky notes one by one.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Quick question, what did the Guinea Worm do before the fall?
Did the Guinea Worm evolve after the fall from some higher and nobler way of life to its present very specific methods of boring holes thru human flesh, softening the tissue in front of its path with a very specially "designed" acid. Did the predators evolve sharp serrated teeth, short meat consuming intestinal system, clutching claws, strong muscular bone crunching jaw structures, etc. after the fall? Did prey evolve the various defense mechanisms such a armor, spikes, horns, speed, clubs, poison, mimicry after the fall? And the big question: Are these post-fall features Intelligently Designed? When you couple God with Intelligent Design there are some difficult consequences.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
john writes: ... prime example of living in a "fallen world" that is "not" how the Intelligent Designer designed the world to function in the beginning. John, The Guinea Worm is highly specialized as are most parasites. Their reproductive cycle and sequence of events are multi-step, very complex and adapted to a specific set of circumstances. So I see the ID'st has a limited set of options here:
Other examples, of course, would include creatures like the T-Rex would suddenly have to "evolve" teeth, claws, intestines, Jaws, etc to transition from eating fruit/vegies to meat. In addition, prey would have to evolve all the defense mechanisms such as horns, long legs for speed, amour, etc. This all would have to occur in a very short period of time and would be evolution with a capital E. Sounds like a really bad sci-fi. Are these new biological apparatuses Intelligently Designed or not.
If so, who was in charge of this creation God or the devil?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
GDR writes: I don't agree that it is clear that any given species is not an intended product.... Do you start pounding nails into wood without having any idea why. I just don't believe that a designer with the intelligence to create all that we see would either. GDR If you believe the intelligent designer intentionally designed all that we see what is your thoughts on the Guinea Worm parasite discussed here Message 98?
GDR writes: If evolution is a true theory then we have to accept that the process isn't finished as it must be still ongoing so we can be sure that we haven't seen the finished product. I have no problem accepting that. In fact, it is somewhat exciting to think we maybe the founding species of self-aware self-directed life that will extend beyond this warm little womb that is earth.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Good read thanks.
I was particularly interested in the attempts to somehow disprove the interesting emerging evidence that self-replicating artificial organism can mutate unpredictably or evolve as hinted at in the Nature Paper by Pennock. This is damning to the ID point-of-view that information can be created by purely random processes.
New Scientist writes: "That one really got to them," says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond who studies the anti-evolution movement. It would not be surprising if Biologic wanted to challenge the impact of Pennock's work by finding a counter-example in which a computer simulation fails to produce complexity by random mutation alone. Such a counter-example, once published, would be available for citation by proponents of ID. Even if the citations do not appear in peer-reviewed literature, says Forrest, they could still have an influence on politicians and school board officials, who might not be sensitive to this distinction. I do not see how Dixon of the Discovery Institute ...err Biologic Institute ... is going to discredit this by some negative case or counter example - all you need to do is show that it can happen in certain situations - not necessarily every case. My guess is they are going to try to show the improbability in biological systems as compared to artificial systems via statistics. This is a fools errand as statistics greatly depend on assumptions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
john writes: Maybe you would like to try answering some of the questions the Lord posed to Job in Chapters 38-41. job writes: Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set,or who laid its cornerstone The earth foundations? measuring line? cornerstone?.. This is man impersonating God. Sorry you believe that. Make no mistake I am humbled by the creation but I think the OT does a lousy job (excuse the pun) describing the creator.
john writes: Yes, there was a fall, and life that exists after the fall is not what the Lord intended it to be. Please answer, and not with poetry, is the Guinea Worm designed by the intelligent designer? If not, then how do we determine what is intelligent designed and what is not.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
George Weber writes: We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design. Think of it. The Intelligent Design club is now justing starting to do some "lab science" but they want the principles taught in schools prior to doing any "lab science". And they think the conventional scientific establishment is arrogant.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thanks for the transcript Anglagard.
Their implied conclusion that improbability == intelligently design is fundamentally flawed. First the coefficients in the Drake equation have a lot of variability and there is considerable disagreement on the values. For example finding life on Mars or some other planet/moon would significantly effect this equation. In addition, extrapolating of what we know about life on Earth is probably wrong. As Jar pointed out life fills a variety of niches on earth and many are not what we would call hospitable. One of my favorite movie quotes is Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park when he says "Life will find a way". Life is a property of matter. Finally the vastness of the universe overwhelms the low probability of life evolving. As far as probabilities go what do you think the probability of you being born given a starting position of 10000 years ago. There are a very large number of very minor events that would have effected the event of you being born. You are astronomically improbable but there are you are - amazing isn't.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Sure I need help, don't we all.
Now DB can you be more substantive and less evasive. To the point why does improbability require an intelligent designer as your reference implies? I question the low probability. However, given low probability why does that require an intelligent designer? I can think of a large number of low probability events that occur, but do not require an outside designer as an explanation. Additionally Modulus did not misunderstand at all. The immensity of the universe (ie the number of opportunities) counter the low probability. Yes the "probabilities are ... multiplied together" resulting in a low combined probability. However, you also multiple the probability by the number of opportunities to get an expected value. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
db writes: You are truly a pompous jerk!! No he is not.
db writes: These are scientific facts that cannot be disputed any more than the facts you feed everyone The probabilities in the Drake equation are not scientific fact but best case guesses given the currently available information and there are a range of guesses.
You are a disgrace to the scientific community And you are a credit to what community?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Memetics: the theoretical and empirical science that studies the replication, spread and evolution of memes
Memetics - WikipediaJom Emit Memetics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Earlier you said there is no empirical evidence for memes. I pointed out there is empirical evidence.
For example, the speed at which a meme spreads has been analyzed so that one can predict how fast a meme will spread through a population (within the minds of humans at least). There are papers that empirically derive "transmission coefficients" based on empirical data.
GDR writes: Further on in that wiki link it states "Memetics can be simply understood as a method for scientific analysis of cultural evolution". Memetics is a method of analyising cultural changes which is not the same thing at all as believing that memes actually exist. OK From a practical point of view, if a method of analyzing cultural changes works and finds value in predicting outcomes and explaining phenomenon that is better than a alternating method that does not.
GDR writes: Cultural changes happen. Dawkins can say that they occur because of memes whereas a Theist can say that they change because of the way that we are designed. Neither is scientific nor can they be tested by empirical means. Can you elaborate. I am fuzzy on how Theism predicts or explains cultural change. I am not even sure how the concept of a meme is apposed to intelligent design?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024