• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evil Design: A Better Case For It Than Intelligent Design?

Dave1001

Illuminator
D
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
3,704
Intelligent Design is a trojan horse attempt to get Christian creationism into the classroom, but wouldn't there be a better case for Evil Design than Intelligent Design? Intelligent seems a bit comparative: perhaps the designer is relatively dumb but very powerful. But evil: that's seems hard to me to argue against. Look at all the sentient things that have been created into situations of extreme suffering? If a contrasting theory should be taught along side Darwinism, wouldn't Evil Design be more appropriate than Intelligent Design?:)
 
You might have a similar inverse problem to the problem of evil. You'd have the problem of good.

1) An omnipotent, omnimalevolent god exists.
2) an omnimalevolent, omnipotent god should destroy all good
3) good exists

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
You might have a similar inverse problem to the problem of evil. You'd have the problem of good.

1) An omnipotent, omnimalevolent god exists.
2) an omnimalevolent, omnipotent god should destroy all good
3) good exists

Aaron
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, in the way that it seems more evil to keep a nice (good) person alive, and then offer them intermittant false hope as you torture them, than it is simply to kill them and end their existence.
 
Dave1001 said:
I'm not sure, in the way that it seems more evil to keep a nice (good) person alive, and then offer them intermittant false hope as you torture them, than it is simply to kill them and end their existence.
Click to expand...

Ah, an appeal to "a higher evil." lol

This is exactly symmetrical!

The response to the "higher good" defense is the demonstration of higher evils, so I suppose the responce to higher evils should be a demonstration of higher goods.

Have you heard of selfless heros sacrificing their own lives for the good of others? This should be completely disallowed in a world designed by a perfectly evil creator. They undermine his power to cause maximal suffering.

Aaron
 
Dave1001 said:
But evil: that's seems hard to me to argue against. Look at all the sentient things that have been created into situations of extreme suffering? If a contrasting theory should be taught along side Darwinism, wouldn't Evil Design be more appropriate than Intelligent Design?
Click to expand...

1) 'good' and 'evil' are human concepts, and can be argued somewhat relative
(unless you are claiming that there is an ultimate Good)

2) are you claiming that suffering, via pain, is all bad, or bad no matter what? That pain is all bad? Or ignoring that we have the free will and choice to do good or bad, that is our choice and not any designer(s) personal choice?
 
HeavyAaron said:
Ah, an appeal to "a higher evil." lol

This is exactly symmetrical!

The response to the "higher good" defense is the demonstration of higher evils, so I suppose the responce to higher evils should be a demonstration of higher goods.

Have you heard of selfless heros sacrificing their own lives for the good of others? This should be completely disallowed in a world designed by a perfectly evil creator. They undermine his power to cause maximal suffering.

Aaron
Click to expand...

I'm not actually arguing for Evil Design to be taught in schools along with evolution. Just that it may be a superior alternative to Intelligent Design.
 
There are those who regard the material world as a creation of a lesser god, the Demiurge, which traps souls - immaterial creations of the supreme god. In their system the Demiurge represents Evil, while the supreme, spiritual god also represents Evil. They are know as Sado-Manichaeists and are as likely to be right as anybody else.
 
Dave1001 said:
But evil: that's seems hard to me to argue against. Look at all the sentient things that have been created into situations of extreme suffering? If a contrasting theory should be taught along side Darwinism, wouldn't Evil Design be more appropriate than Intelligent Design?:)
Click to expand...

What these type of "FSM-ish" posts do, is to not devalue a design hypothesis, but rather say that Darwinian natural selection is responsible for the horrors of the world.

I'm not sure how that helps your case.
 
T'ai Chi said:
What these type of "FSM-ish" posts do, is to not devalue a design hypothesis, but rather say that Darwinian natural selection is responsible for the horrors of the world.

I'm not sure how that helps your case.
Click to expand...

Darwinian natural selection is responsible for the horrors of the (living) world. And the beauty. And all the stuff in between. And yes, I include the products of human behavior; Darwin did not specify genes as the replicator, after all, and operant conditioning is analogous to natural selection.

I don't see why you would think that natural selection would only wish to take credit for all things bright and beautiful. "The problem of evil" is only a problem for omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entities. Natural selection is not threatened by it a bit.
 
Evil Design by a moron or what?

I'm all for "C Student Design" myself. Do it all at the last minute, just enough to get by, no worries about any future problems or even existing problems so long as it gets the job done.
 
I don't think there's any evidence that the universe is either fundamentally good OR evil. It appears to be humans that put those lables out there. Good seems to equal "good for us" and evil seems to be "not good for us". What makes you think humans are so important? Oh that's right, genetic programing for survival.
 
HeavyAaron
Have you heard of selfless heros sacrificing their own lives for the good of others? This should be completely disallowed in a world designed by a perfectly evil creator. They undermine his power to cause maximal suffering.
Click to expand...
Not really.
Selfless hero with lots of friends, large family, wife and kids to support, etc sacrifices himself to save a young girl of seven. The girl may have had a few friends and a couple of parents.
Lets say seven people’s lives would be directly affected by the life and death of the girl. Now let’s suppose 35 people’s lives would be directly affected by the hero. While the short term good, saving the girl, is there, the long term evil, death of hero, outweighs the effect of the short term good.

I think I’ve turned the typical Christian begging the question around enough to make my point.

Ossai
 
Dave1001 said:
I'm not actually arguing for Evil Design to be taught in schools along with evolution. Just that it may be a superior alternative to Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...

Oh my... yes, I know.... what, am I not allowed to play along?

Aaron
 
Dark Jaguar said:
Evil Design by a moron or what?

I'm all for "C Student Design" myself. Do it all at the last minute, just enough to get by, no worries about any future problems or even existing problems so long as it gets the job done.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't explains partially degraded, disabled DNA strands, like legs for whales, etc. A C student would have to have hacked at the DNA to disable the leg formation, while leaving it mostly in, but making it appear as if it had degraded. While I can see a C student using a generic vertebrate template, then hacking the legs and tails into nothing and fins, that still doesn't explain it all. In other words, they operated as if they developed these creatures via evolution.

Also some of the interactions are far too complex to have been done by a lazy C student. A dung beetle, or a bombadier beetle, or flies and mosquitoes, for that matter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom