Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 105 of 301 (369129)
12-11-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by John 10:10
12-11-2006 5:43 PM


The Designer is a fool and buffoon
The purpose of ID is simply to allow school children to consider an alternate reason behind why we exist, rather than "only" allowing evolution without ID to be taught as fact, when in fact evolution is far far from a proven fact.
Nonsense. The purpose of the ID movement is to insert some picayune cartoon goddlet into science classes.
What is so sad is not only is the ID movement not science, it is horrid theology. Anyone who supports ID where it considers individual critters to be the product of design must acknowledge that it makes the designer a buffoon and fool.
Intelligent Design is not simply a "Philosophy of Ignorance" as mentioned in the topic title, it is a philosophy that diminishes GOD and relegates God to the status of a bumbling Gasoline Alley knucklebuster.
The purpose of not allowing the possibility of ID to be taught as an alternate reason behind why we exist is so that the religion of evolutionists can be taught, to the exclusion of any other considerations.
That of course is also nonsense, the mutterings of someone who either has never considered the implications of the ID movement or who is unable to critically analyze such a statement.
Evolution is NOT a religion. For one thing, unlike religions it is a conclusion based on evidence. Second, it is based on a lie, a BIG Lie. The lie is that it deals with the question of why we exist. Science doe not deal with issues such a purpose or why we exist. It does explain how we got to the current state. To imply that Evolution addresses why is just plain lying, there is no other possible explanation.
ID, as commonly expressed is just plain stupid. Consider the following.
There are many examples of well designed organs.
  • there exists a brain that has a large computational capacity.
  • there are examples of sight that extend from the infra red into the near ultraviolet.
  • there are examples of hearing that extend from very low frequencies to very very high frequencies.
  • there are examples of creatures that can control metabolism to the point that it is near death yet revert to an extremely high functional level on demand.
  • there are creatures that can communicate in a real broadband fashion using light, for example some squid.
  • there are examples of exceptional strength, speed and agility.
  • there are examples of complete control over the individuals shape and pigmentation as seen in many octopuses.
  • there are examples of critters that can mutate rapidly for higher survivability.
The list can go on and on, it is near endless.
BUT...
the designer was too stupid to either take all the great designs and build one critter that incorporated many of them, or even create ONE single critter that was not just a collection of barely good enough to survive traits.
When we look at the universe, we don't see any examples of Intelligent Design. Perhaps we see Inept Design, Incompetent Design, Ineffective Design, Ill-favored Design, Ignorant Design, Inapt Design, Inadequate Design, Incapable Design (after all almost every design so far has failed), Irrelevant Design, Incapacitated Design or Insufficient Design.
If we honestly look at the product we can say much about the designer.
The designer is:
  • Inept
  • Incompetent
  • Ineffective
  • Ill-favored
  • Ignorant
  • Inapt
  • Inadequate
  • Incapable
  • Irrelevant
  • Incapacitated
  • Insufficient

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John 10:10, posted 12-11-2006 5:43 PM John 10:10 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 107 of 301 (369169)
12-11-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
12-11-2006 9:22 PM


Other options.
There really is only two options for anyone would want to suppress ID. Either ID is so fallacious and so pernicious that it would bring the whole of science into disarray, or its such a good deduction that its a frightening prospect that could supplant the current prevailing theory.
I don't see a third option.
It's sad that you do not see all the other possible options.
From the scientific perspective there are:
  • the fact that so far no one has been able to identify how someone can tell if something is designed
  • explained why the majority of what is observed is poorly designed
  • identified the model for predicting design
  • produced a model of the designer
while from the theological perspective there is the fact that what is observed proves that the designer is
  • incompetent
  • inept
  • capricious
  • ignorant
  • incapable of learning from past mistakes
  • sloppy
  • uncaring
  • cruel
There are other reasons both scientific and theological but I think they can all be summed up that the classic concept of ID is simply stupid.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-11-2006 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-12-2006 12:56 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 301 (369275)
12-12-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Hyroglyphx
12-12-2006 12:56 AM


Re: Other options.
The problems with Dembski's Filter is that it is undefinable and can also be applied to utter nonsense examples. It is but a joke except to the gullible. For example, I hit a golf shot. The ball lands exactly 64 inches from the hole and exactly 64 inches from the sprinkler head and exactly 64 inches from a divot which is exactly my age if we consider one inch equals a year. Now considering that that hole is 17,316 inches long and an average of 540 inches wide or about 9,350,640 square inches.
Now odds of over 9 million to one are so impossible that I must have been aiming for that exact spot and the placement must be intentional.
What would consider to be a poor design, especially in light of you stating that there is no design at all?
Everything is poorly designed if we look at it as having been designed. There are no examples of good design once we reach the object level.
I have said that it might be possible to consider ID if we only look at the systems level and at the lowest, most basic areas even there. If we look at the forces being design, the system of evolution as being design, then perhaps I could make a case for ID at that level.
I've discussed that at length here at EvC. (see Message 1 and Message 1 as examples)
This is intriguing to me because, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have posted pictures you've taken of nature with the quoted caption, "God is awesome!" So, in one instance you attribute design to God and say that His creation is masterful, but in the next, you call Him inept.
Well, I don't think I ever used that caption but I would certainly consider it. I do not believe that GOD sits down to design a rose and then sits back and admires his handiwork. You need to remember that when I photograph one flower I reject many hundreds in the same frame because they do not merit capture. I also prune the picture, often then enhance the image and clean it up.
If you don't believe that God has anything to do with creation, aside from setting it in motion, you cede that God lets the chips fall where they may as His grand surprise. That would imply that God isn't awesome at all, but is just a bystander as we are about nature. That would mean that your god had no power in the formation of the plants that you were photographing.
Why does that not make GOD awesome. GOD designed a system, one based on random mutations, chance and the filter of Natural Selection that works. It has worked for billions of years. To me that is pretty awesome.
If from a theological, engineering or scientific perspective we try to say that GOD designed the object or critter though, I see no way that we could conclude that the designer is anything other than inept and at best, mediocre.
If the designer worked for me she would get fired.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-12-2006 12:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by GDR, posted 12-12-2006 5:59 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 132 of 301 (369376)
12-12-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by GDR
12-12-2006 5:59 PM


Re: Other options.
I find your statement contradictory.
How so?
I don't have a problem with evolution by natural selection but if you throw in random chance as well I have to wonder where is there room for a designer? If it really is random then a designer would have no idea how the design was going to wind up. Like throwing a bunch of metal parts into a dryer and winding up with a watch. Good man that Paley.
Well, all the indications are that random plays a part throughout evolution. The mutation side seems to be unpredictable and on the filter side we also see constantly changing environments punctuated by truly random events like the Siberian Traps or the meteor that splashed down a few hundred miles from me.
I think that it is pretty clear that no particular critter or species was some intended product, they were all a surprise. I do believe that as you put it, "a designer would have no idea how the design was going to wind up."
Why would God just set in motion a process that could wind up with a microbe as being the highest life form, some form of super being with far more intelligence than us or anything in between.
Why not?
I'm much more inclined to believe that if God set the evolutionary process in motion and has not intervened with it since then, He would have known what the end product was going to be.
Sure, many people are more comfortable with such a belief. It is nice knowing that some sky-daddy knew it was gonna happen and everything is turning out as expected. But there just is no support that I can see for such a position. If in fact, that is the case it makes GOD or the designer into some pretty cruel creature or pretty damn incompetent. Remember, almost every species supposedly designed failed, they died out, became extinct. A designer that has an almost 100% failure rate in His designs is not too good.
Also much of the discussion seems to assume that what we see now is the finished product. I don't know about you, but I believe that what we see is still a work in progress and that the important part of the creation is not what is now but what will be. The more important part of the creation is the part that isn't physical and that world in which that soul, consciousness, or personality will reside.
Well, since I believe that if there is design it is only at the very basic level, then I would say that design is finished, was finished billions of years ago. As to questions related to stuff like a soul, I just think that's pretty much a waste of time. There is simply no evidence that anything like a soul will ever be demonstrable and if it was, that it would pretty much negate the characteristics most theists attribute to "soul".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by GDR, posted 12-12-2006 5:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 12-12-2006 7:06 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 136 of 301 (369390)
12-12-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by GDR
12-12-2006 7:06 PM


Re: Other options.
I know that you are a Christian so I have to wonder where you see God involved in this. I don't agree that it is clear that any given species is not an intended product. There is no way of knowing and is only personal opinion. Incidentally we can say that the mutations occurred but we can't scientifically say that the mutations were either random or caused.
You are putting a whole bunch of subjects into one paragraph so let me try to narrow it down some. The first sentence is simply not related to anything in this thread really but I have addressed that in many other threads and would be happy to do so again.
Then you go on to state "I don't agree that it is clear that any given species is not an intended product. There is no way of knowing and is only personal opinion." which again is theological and one I have addressed even in this thread. Since we can see that we have almost a 100% failure rate when we look at the history of any species, if they were the intended product then the designer is incompetent.
Would you hire a designer that had a record of 100% failures?
Incidentally we can say that the mutations occurred but we can't scientifically say that the mutations were either random or caused.
Well there is evidence that random mutations happen and there is zero evidence of intentional caused mutations. Sorry, but I just see no reason to bring in some outside power when there is zero evidence for such a power and looking at the results seems to show that the outside power is pretty inept and not needed to explain what is seen.
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.
What? Sorry but that just seems so totally irrelevant.
A life is a life. Just because some species failed to survive because of natural selection doesn't mean that the overall creation is flawed. Other life has taken their place.
Right, the system worked. I have said all along that I might be able to make a case for ID at the basic level. If the goal was to create life and for life to continue, then the process of evolution seems pretty successful. But if that is the case then life, any life is the desired outcome and individual critters, even man, is just a happenstance.
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.
Again, that is only true if you are looking at critters as the product instead of the process being the product.
Just because there is no physical evidence that we can discern doesn't mean that the soul isn't reality.
Yup. Doesn't mean it is real either.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 12-12-2006 7:06 PM GDR has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 176 of 301 (369886)
12-15-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
12-15-2006 7:57 AM


Mclean Case
AbE: Now I find myself suddenly questioning the inspired ruling from Judge Overton in the Arkansas case of a couple decades ago. Is that just a rewrite of ACLU findings, too?
Unfortunately, the transcript of that case was lost. There is however considerable material at McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
Edited by jar, : change subtitle

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 12-15-2006 7:57 AM Percy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 188 of 301 (371113)
12-20-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by DivineBeginning
12-20-2006 8:57 AM


Why?
It offers nothing that has not been debated here and is based on a false assumption.
The basic assumption is that the goal is man, and technology. If you agree that life does not necessarily mean "Technological Human", then we already know of many forms of life that are not dependent on many of the conditions cited.
In addition, almost every one of the factors mentioned has a very large margin of error. For example, the right distance from the sun if we only consider the Earth ranges from 91 million miles to 94.5 million miles MINIMUM. That is a range of 3.5 Million miles, about a 4% margin.
We know of life that requires low oxygen levels or even no oxygen; life that needs higher oxygen levels.
We know of life that needs oxygen in a gaseous form and life that cannot use oxygen in its gaseous form.
We know of life that does just fine without sunlight.
We know of life that requires frigid temperatures.
We know of life that only lives in boiling sulphuric hot springs.
As has been pointed out here many, many, many times, we are also projecting from a sample of one.
The only form of life we know so far is what we see here on earth. Even there we find that the requirements vary greatly, and we have no indications that what we see is all that is possible and every indication that every time we find a set of conditions where we think life would be impossible, we are wrong.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 8:57 AM DivineBeginning has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 7:01 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 194 of 301 (371253)
12-20-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by DivineBeginning
12-20-2006 7:01 PM


Re: Why?
Have you watched the whole video yet? I'm impressed if you have.
Certainly not. I did read the transcript though. What a joke.
Sure there are organisms that can survive in cold temperatures and boiling sulfphuric acid, etc etc. But the problem is, if the whole earth was like that, WE couldn't survive.
LOL
What does that have to do with anything? You seem to think that "We" are something special. Life existed for billions of years before man and will likely exist for billions of years after we are gone.
If the earth's crust couldn't support the magma and the tectonic activity, what would happen to all the organisms?
First, it is not the crust that supports the magma but the magma that supports the crust. And if there is energy in the interior, there will be tectonic activity. Look at Jupiter, Saturn. See activity?
The tectonic activity argument is one of the silliest of all.
The organisms that rely on that might not exist, but our experience has been that no matter where we look, no matter the environment, we find life. Look in ice, we find life. Look in water miles deep in the rocks isolated from the sun and surface for millions of years, and we find life.
I thought you would see that pretty clearly. Please tell me that{what?} false assumption this is based on.
The false assumption is that the conditions were prepared for the critter instead of realizing that the conditions determined the critters.
If conditions were different, the critters would be different.
The problem is that the video is created to fool the gullible suckers. It is master con artists playing hide the pea shell games. They bring up unknowns and irrelevancies and try to hide them in scientific sounding clutter so the pigeon doesn't realize he is being conned.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 7:01 PM DivineBeginning has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 7:43 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 200 of 301 (371278)
12-20-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by DivineBeginning
12-20-2006 7:43 PM


Re: Why?
You are truly a pompous jerk!! These are scientific facts that cannot be disputed any more than the facts you feed everyone!!! Do us all a favor and keep your comments that are so indignant to yourself. You are a disgrace to the scientific community when you make comments like that
Actually I was responding not as much from the science perspective but rather as a Christian. I find it embarrassing that so called Christians are so gullible that con-artists like the ones at Discovery Institute can so easily fool them.
You pointed out that you thought "WE couldn't survive."
So what? Life went on here on earth for billions of years before man and will likely go on for billions of years after man is gone.
You posted:
If the earth's crust couldn't support the magma and the tectonic activity, what would happen to all the organisms?
The facts are that the crust does not support the magma, the magma supports the crust.
As I said:
jar writes:
First, it is not the crust that supports the magma but the magma that supports the crust. And if there is energy in the interior, there will be tectonic activity. Look at Jupiter, Saturn. See activity?
The tectonic activity argument is one of the silliest of all.
The organisms that rely on that might not exist, but our experience has been that no matter where we look, no matter the environment, we find life. Look in ice, we find life. Look in water miles deep in the rocks isolated from the sun and surface for millions of years, and we find life.
You asked:
I thought you would see that pretty clearly. Please tell me that{what?} false assumption this is based on.
As I said, the false premise is that the conditions were designed for the critter while the evidence says that the critters are a result of the conditions.
Remember, for a good bit of the history of the earth, the conditions were not suitable for humans. But the conditions were suitable for the critters that lived at that time. As the environment changed, as the filter of Natural Selection changed, different critters passed through and became the critters that suited the environment.
The questions and issues I have pointed out should be addressed.
Edited by jar, : for some reason I often type one for on
appalin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 7:43 PM DivineBeginning has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 10:27 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 210 of 301 (371305)
12-20-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by DivineBeginning
12-20-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Why?
jar writes:
Life went on here on earth for billions of years before man and will likely go on for billions of years after man is gone.
to which DivineBeginning replied:
Can you prove this?
In science nothing is proven, but the evidence is so overwhelming that it can be said to be proven in general conversation. The earliest pre-Cambrian life forms found so far date to around 3.5 Billions of years ago. Plus, every year there are new discoveries that push that date back even further.
As to life existing long after man is gone, as I said, it is likely. All the evidence so far says that the wondrous process of Evolution that GOD created will assure that life goes on.
jar writes:
The facts are that the crust does not support the magma, the magma supports the crust.
to which Divine Beginnings replied:
Are you that ignorant? They are talking about the crust being thick enough to support the rising energy from the molten magma.
Sorry but again, your response makes no sense. There are many places where the rising energy from the molten magma breaks through the surface. Some good examples are Black and White Smokers found along the mid ocean rifts.
And guess what we find there? Life. Lots of life. Wondrous life.
Another place where we see the energy from the molten magma breaking through the surface is in the Hot Springs, particularly in Yellowstone.
And guess what we find there? Life. Lots of life. Wondrous life.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 10:27 PM DivineBeginning has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 10:56 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 213 of 301 (371310)
12-20-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by DivineBeginning
12-20-2006 10:56 PM


Re: Why?
Divine Beginnings writes:
OK Jar, you got me. You win!! I will shut up now. It is obvious that I cannot play in your court.
Don't give up, learn. You are being lied to and conned by the folk at Discovery Institute, ICR, and unfortunately, lots and lots of ignorant Christian Pastors.
They prepare slick looking videos like the one you linked to that are honestly filled with nonsense. They count on the ignorance about science among their audience and the habit of accepting stuff on authority that is all too common in many Christian Communities to allow them to get away with it and convince folk to pony up the bucks.
What you do need to know is that there are many, many Christians, every bit as devout as yourself, that have no problems with the Theory of Evolution.
Can I suggest that you also look at a few other sites.
Theistic Evolution
The Clergy Project, a list of over 10,000 US Christian Clergy that support the TOE and reject Biblical Creationism.
A Catechism of Creation: An Episcopal Understanding
All Science teaches us is How GOD did it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 10:56 PM DivineBeginning has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 218 of 301 (371478)
12-21-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by DivineBeginning
12-21-2006 6:43 PM


Re: learning
I will never relinquish my faith in Jesus Christ to anyone or thing, but I will never quiet my thirst for learning more.
No problem there and no one here will likely challenge such a position. What you need to understand is that Science and the Theory of Evolution are no threat. All we are doing is learning how GOD did it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-21-2006 6:43 PM DivineBeginning has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 230 of 301 (371623)
12-22-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by GDR
12-22-2006 11:30 AM


Re: Science done by IDists
That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed.
But NOT to the conclusion that we are "Intelligently Designed."
Either position requires faith.
No. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be seen or examined. The former position can be based solely on the evidence while the later requires an initial "Faith" in the existence of some Designer.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 11:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:29 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 238 of 301 (371663)
12-22-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by GDR
12-22-2006 2:29 PM


Re: Science done by IDists
I understand that you would have done better but I guess God just had to go with the intelligence that he had.
If you look at the product, critters, then hell yes I could do better. See Message:8 of the Intelligent Design, an Engineering Perspective.
Memes cannot be seen or examined thus requiring faith, whether or not an intelligent designer exists or not.
But they can. We do just that here at EvC and in fact, that is exactly what you are doing in questioning my Memes.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:29 PM GDR has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 263 of 301 (371864)
12-23-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by GDR
12-23-2006 4:07 PM


Re: Abstractions
As I've said earlier, when Theists are accused of filling the gaps left by science with God. Aren't Atheists doing the same thing when they pass off the gaps in science as something scientists just haven't figured out yet?
No, not at all. Saying that we do not yet know and answer is entirely different than saying the answer is God. For one thing, answers are limiting unless they lead to new questions. They are a dead end.
ID is a dead end, a termination, a death of ever understanding; ID is the Truimph of Ignorance over Knowledge.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 4:07 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 6:11 PM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024