|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: I can go no further in the argument until I establish a solid reason why the objection exists. But, to answer some of the questions, far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but if evolution is true, then there is no need for a God, other than to create, perhaps, the first atom. I'm curious as to why you are dismissive of the concept of the creator creating the first atom along with the conditions for that for that atom to evolve. That would most certainly require an intelligent designer and would be consistent with my understanding of what ID is when stripped of its politics. This of course would not preclude the possiblity of the designer connecting with the creation metaphysically. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: I'm curious as to why you are dismissive of the concept of the creator creating the first atom along with the conditions for that for that atom to evolve. That would most certainly require an intelligent designer and would be consistent with my understanding of what ID is when stripped of its politics. This of course would not preclude the possiblity of the designer connecting with the creation metaphysically.NJ writes: If you look at the Deist position, this about all that God did. According to some of them, God, (as abstract a concept as any) set the ball in motion and just sort of observes for the rest of eternity. If this is this case, I wonder how anyone could come to believe that God exists. At least the main body of theism is based off an informed faith. But this deist belief seems to be supported by, literally, nothing-- except perhaps the notion that it is counterintuitive to suppose that everything comes from absolute nothingness. Frankly I am not prepared to say whether the designer intervened during the evolutionary process or whether it was designed to design itself but I don't accept that either is necessarily a deistic position. If evolution was designed in such a way that it required no intervention it would not preclude a designer from intervening in life in general supernaturally. For example a creator could cause miracles that wouldn't impact the evolutionary process, a creator could give a consciousness or soul to part or all of the creation, a creator could interact metaphysically with that consciousness and even give it direction, or a creator could even inject him or herself physically into the creation. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: 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. Hi jar. Welcome back. It's a better place with you here. I find your statement contradictory. 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. 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. 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. 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. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: 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." 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.
jar writes: Why not? 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.
jar writes: 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. 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.
jar writes: 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". 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. Just because there is no physical evidence that we can discern doesn't mean that the soul isn't reality. Cavediver wrote in another thread that he sees our universe as being projected. Who can say for sure what is behind the projector but I'm inclined to believe that it is a world more real, (whatever that might mean), than this one. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: I don't agree that it is clear that any given species is not an intended product....iceage writes: 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? I was just disagreeing with jar on his assertion that it is clear that any given species is not an intended product. I don't think it is clear at all, but it doesn't necessarily mean that all species are intended. I am prepared to accept that one could make a good argument for the idea that some species are just by-products of natural selection. That doesn't mean however that it is true of all species. This guinea worm sounds like a pretty miserable piece of work but no worse than some people that we could name.  I have no idea but I imagine that it is possible that this worm also serves some necessary service Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: So to GDR what do you say to this evidence that ID is NOT mainly about cosmology ? I see ID as being about all that we can observe and not just cosmology. I understand that there are people that misuse ID as a back door method of disputing evolution. I contend that they are at the opposite end of the spectrum from Dawkins who misuses science as a method of refuting religion. As far as I'm concerned ID is just an updating of Paley's argument. In my own view the argument is even more compelling than it was at the time of Paley. When I read about relativity, QM or even genetics it screams out to me "design". Is that science? No. Where some people look at the world and universe around us and see random chance others like myself see design. Again, neither is scientific. 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 |
sidelined writes: What exactly would the researchers expect to find that would differentiate the notion of evolution by natural means from a intelligent designer who's characteristics they refuse to specify?If an intelligent designer was the hidden variable within the oddly imprecise workings of biology how would they distinguish this? They cannot any longer simply state that the complexity of a phenomena is evidence since they must then explain how this cannot be accomplished by natural means, again undermining their own agenda. You want it both ways. How is it possible to prove something can't be done by natural means. You can only prove that it can. If using the concept of the "God of the Gaps" is wrong, then it is just as wrong to use the Science of the Gaps" as well.The naturalist explanation for something that can't be explained is that if the science was advanced enough we would know the natural explanation. That is no more scientific than saying that God did it. "Complexity of a phenomena" is evidence but it is not scientific. We just come to our own conclusions and have to accept that we aren't all going to agree. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
sidelined writes: Why do you suppose that is the case? Could it be because the world is not supernatural but natural? Sure it could be but the opposite conclusion is just as valid.
sidelined writes: It is not wrong to use God of the gaps, it is just not scientific. A "science of the Gaps" {As you so call it} is not of the same character at all though, since any conjecture into the nature of that which is not known by science must be consistent with that which is already known by science. Science consistently furthers knowledge while God consistently becomes less necessary to explain the things we see and, indeed ,clarifies nothing but further muddies the waters we would investigate because there is no consensus at all on just what God entails. Actually from what I can see, the more science discovers the more we realize how little we truly understand. Lisa Randall writes,"We understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago - and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the universe than ever before". I suggest that the more science discovers about the world the more necessary God becomes. Science of the gaps uses pure conjecture to postulate what science can't explain. It isn't science any more than religious faith is. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
When Richard Dawkins starts talking about memes, or explanations for consciousness it is just as much a matter of faith as is God did it.
RAZD writes: "Science of the Gaps" is filled by conjecture, hypothesis based on (a) current theory that explains each side of the gap (b) extrapolation of theory to cover the missing area. This makes a prediction that anything found that fits in this gap will also fit on the string line of the hypothesis between each side of the gap. If there is no empirical evidence a theistic explanation is just as valid as a materialistic explanation. Both are borne out of faith. Dawkins does a great job of explaining science but he goes beyond science when he evangelizes on behalf of his atheistic beliefs. (Science of the Gaps) Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
iceage writes: Memetics: the theoretical and empirical science that studies the replication, spread and evolution of memes Dawkins in "A Devil's Chaplain" writes: Another objection is that we don't know what memes are made of, or where they reside. Memes have not yet found their Watson and Crick; they even lack their Mendel. Whereas genes are to be found in precise locations on chromosones, memes presumably exist in brains, and we have even less chance of seeing one than of seeing a gene (though the neurobiologist Juan Delius has pictured his conjecture of what a meme might look like). Dawkins talks about memes like believers talk about God. Dawkins may be a fine scientist but that doesn't mean that everything he says is scientific. Your quote from wiki only tells a part of what is said. 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. The study of cultural change can be tested; the study of memes can't. 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. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
RickJB writes: Wrong. One is bourne out of faith, the other is tentatively indicated by circumstantial empirical evidence. That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed. Either position requires faith. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
RickJD writes: Two questions:- 1. Which circumstantial evidence points to ID? 2. In what way has this circumstantial evidence been used to make successful predictions and to unearth direct evidence? 1. The moral code. The intracacy, balance and symmetry in nature. Our ability to love or hate, know sorrow or joy, appreciate beauty, etc. That we can express ideas. 2. In no way. Neither can the study of memes. Memetics as I posted earlier is the study of cultural evolution. I am not saying that cultural evolution doesn't occur. What I am saying is that there is no empirical evidence to explain why cultural evidence occurs. Dawkins and others propose memes whereas others like myself believe that there is the hand of a designer behind the process. Neither position is scientific so we are forced to come to our own conclusions based on non-scientific evidence.
GDR writes: Either position requires faith.RickJD writes: Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Scientists go out and try to find evidence, they don't rely on faith. If they did rely only on faith then you certainly wouldn't be typing messages into a computer right now. Saying that memes exist doesn't make it true either. I agree that scientists try and find evidence. But when they, (as Dawkins does with memes), can't find empirical evidence and go ahead and publish the theory anyway, then it becomes an issue of faith. Either the metaphysical exists or it doesn't. We are not going to be able to prove either position through empirical means. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: But NOT to the conclusion that we are "Intelligently Designed." I understand that you would have done better but I guess God just had to go with the intelligence that he had.
jar writes: 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. Memes cannot be seen or examined thus requiring faith, whether or not an intelligent designer exists or not. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
NosyNed writes: There is considerable evidence that the type of "design" that we are an example of is exactly NOT the kind of designs that humans (the only intelligent designers we know of) produce. In fact, the evidence (not "circumstantial" -- but I'm not sure what you mean with that word) shows that we are a product of evolutionary processes because we are formed in exactly the way that experimental "designs" produced by those processes are formed. (I was quoting Rick, when I used the term "circumstantial".) This is just the same old argument. I'm not arguing that the evolutionary processes exist. Why do they exist? How did they come into existence in the first place? These questions can't be answered by the scientific method. All we can do, as I said, is look at the non-scientific aspects of our existence and come to our own conclusions. In my view none of this or us would exist without an intelligent designer. Science is about discovering what we can about the nature of the design. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Why are you so dead set against the idea of memes anyway ? You keep going on about it, to no good point. Why ? Atheists are forever accusing theists of using the argument of "God of the Gaps". I as a theist contend that atheists do exactly the same thing. There is evidence that cultural evolution exists. Why does it exist. A theist would suggest the possibility that maybe this is part of a metaphysical design. Dawkins, the atheist, suggests the possibility of memes. Theists fill the gap with an intelligent designer and Atheists fill the gap with memes. "God of the Gaps" or "Science of the Gaps". Your choice. There is no empirical evidence for either thus both positions are positions of faith. 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
