Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Indeed there is, a thing called "Deity".

I guess it depends how one defines "Deity."

[bob x]

The concept of "deity" at issue here is a "personal" one, who functions like us, except better: we make mental models of possible future outcomes, and choose among them because we "want" certain things and don't want others. The power behind the natural universe (whatever name you choose) does not operate by precalculating future outcomes (lightning follows what at each instant is the path of least resistance, without regard for where that path is going to end up). We have a natural tendency to describe anything we don't understand in "personal" terms, because that mode of conceptualizing is what we have to work with, but it leads to stupid misunderstandings.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

The concept of "deity" at issue here is a "personal" one, who functions like us, except better: we make mental models of possible future outcomes, and choose among them because we "want" certain things and don't want others. The power behind the natural universe (whatever name you choose) does not operate by precalculating future outcomes (lightning follows what at each instant is the path of least resistance, without regard for where that path is going to end up). We have a natural tendency to describe anything we don't understand in "personal" terms, because that mode of conceptualizing is what we have to work with, but it leads to stupid misunderstandings.

Sounds to me like designing G-d. Although quite how intelligent may be a matter of perspective...

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Yes, MW, I know what an oxymoron is. I'm just wondering why people believe that "intelligent design" is such a one. Is there a "stupid design"?

Have you seen the new "smart" car?

[Paladin]

As far as I can see, Intelligent Design won't be accepted because of the perception that it is the slippery slope toward a purely religious outlook. In addition, I am not intelligent enough to fathom how a philosophic and maybe poetic outlook based on observable phenomena can be classified as science.
I could even give some credence to the idea that intuitive, a priori knowledge can rival the scientific process but to call them the same thing seems wrong.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi Dondi,

Evolution is not intelligent, it operates by chance and sheer numbers and in some living organisms by adaptability, (though even adaptability can be seen as random). But in some sense you are correct to question why I call it an oxymoron, it would have suited my argument better and more precisely to have just called it a moronic statement. So it may not be a strictly obvious oxymoron... but I am sure you get my point.

Tao

It is precisely this operation by chance and sheer numbers that are being called into question. Evolutionary scientists haven't been able to adequately explain how the origin of life, the first viable cell came into being. The numbers are so fantastic as to call the event as possible though natural means. Yet the saying is, "Well, it's obvious because we are here now, so it must have happened." That is not science either. That's faith.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dondi

It is precisely this operation by chance and sheer numbers that are being called into question. Evolutionary scientists haven't been able to adequately explain how the origin of life, the first viable cell came into being. The numbers are so fantastic as to call the event as possible though natural means. Yet the saying is, "Well, it's obvious because we are here now, so it must have happened." That is not science either. That's faith.

Evolutionary science does not rely on such a weak argument. Looking at the variations we see in the fossil record from different time periods we can clearly see evolution at work. This is a 4 billion year old story of gradual change where the scientists have made predictions and had them confirmed by subsequent finds. The scientific argument for evolution is not weak, it is very strong. And it has nothing to do with faith. Creationism on the other hand has no scientific validity whatsoever....yet tries to say it does. Comparing the two is actually impossible. Its like comparing kindergarten art with a Leonardo. It is naive and manipulative Bible thumping propaganda for naive easily led people. It is no more credible than flat earth theory.

Tao

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Evolutionary science does not rely on such a weak argument. Looking at the variations we see in the fossil record from different time periods we can clearly see evolution at work. This is a 4 billion year old story of gradual change where the scientists have made predictions and had them confirmed by subsequent finds. The scientific argument for evolution is not weak, it is very strong. And it has nothing to do with faith. Creationism on the other hand has no scientific validity whatsoever....yet tries to say it does. Comparing the two is actually impossible. Its like comparing kindergarten art with a Leonardo. It is naive and manipulative Bible thumping propaganda for naive easily led people. It is no more credible than flat earth theory.

Tao

When you are speaking of Creationism, I assume you are referring to the literal six-day model. But that is not what intelleigent design is all about. Intelligent design is questioning the evolutionary model in that claims that the processes involved were completely natural. I have no problem with examining the evidence of evolution. If this is the manner in which life was created and divesified, I would be more than happy to accept it. But there are so many unanswered questions that should be addressed that doesn't account for naturalistic means. The aforementioned origin of the first viable living cell, for instance. If you are going to present evolution as the answer, you are going to have to start at the beginning.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I guess it depends how one defines "Deity."

How aboot, any supernatural being that is worshipped as controlling some part or all of the world and/or aspect of life and/or is the personification of a force.... :\ how aboots that, for a stupid design?

[wil]

It is my understanding that the current thought is moving away from the primordial ooze on this planet to life form, bacteria, spore from another system being rained down on us.

It is also my understanding that yes we have this piece of the puzzle and that there exist many missing links. Like the leap from a light sensitive patch of skin to an eyeball. And of course we've had the lack of origin of a species discussion in other threads.

Between the whole eden on earth concept being in serious doubt as well, both theories have so many holes in them that the combination of the two still doesn't knit a decent afghan. I think evolution as it is known today and Genesis, and Intelligent design will all be as equally as far away from what is finally discerned as the historical creation of life as we know it on this planet. ie each will have pieces of the puzzle, but the omissions and mistakes in all will be so large that argument over who was closest will be meaningless.

Have no fear though, each camp will revise their interpretations to proudly say, "Yeah, that is what I meant, see it was right all along."

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by wil

Have no fear though, each camp will revise their interpretations to proudly say, "Yeah, that is what I meant, see it was right all along."

Interpretation and manipulation of words..... Such an art... The art we call religion

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dondi

When you are speaking of Creationism, I assume you are referring to the literal six-day model. But that is not what intelleigent design is all about. Intelligent design is questioning the evolutionary model in that claims that the processes involved were completely natural. I have no problem with examining the evidence of evolution. If this is the manner in which life was created and divesified, I would be more than happy to accept it. But there are so many unanswered questions that should be addressed that doesn't account for naturalistic means. The aforementioned origin of the first viable living cell, for instance. If you are going to present evolution as the answer, you are going to have to start at the beginning.

Lmao...who made GOD?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Lmao...who made GOD?

The men with the parchment and ink... They made god.... Anyone with a bible in their hand.... They keep the creation alive.... And are the life support system to keep stability....

[Tao_Equus]

And the weird man-frock industry alive!!

[bob x]

Dondi, you are confusing "evolution" (how life has developed, since the time when it was here) with "abiogenesis" (how life could have gotten started in the first place). They are rather different problems: the theory of evolution is equally compatible with theories that the first cell arose naturally, or arose by supernatural creation, or was engineered by passing aliens, or was a whim of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It is certainly true that no reasonably complete theory of how abiogenesis could have worked exists currently or is likely to exist in the near future. But throwing up your hands in the face of the problem and saying "God did it!" is not satisfactory (besides leaving you with a "god of the gaps" who will keep getting smaller everything something more is explained). You reference "fantastic" numbers: these are derived from ludicrous pretenses at calculation based on false assumptions. Don't let yourself swallow whatever the creationists want to peddle today, just because they are Christians and so you want to give them benefit of the doubt.