A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

T'ai Chi said:
a) You're welcome to design a better one.
Click to expand...
A better one already exists, in sharks, for example.

b) If there is no ID, then you're basically saying that evolution is bad?
Click to expand...
Evolution is indifferent. We, as humans, may see evolution as inefficient (or "bad" as you call it). But, evolution works the "best" it can, given what limited resources it can work with. Those resources being what is already available on the life form, and what is in its enviornment, etc.
In that sense, evolution, being a natural force, is indifferent to what humans think might be "good" or "bad".
 
It may be worth adding that another reason ID does not work as a science is because it is an appeal to human aesthetics. We humans judge what is "good" and "bad". Some of us humans pin the results of that assignment as proof of a creator's existence.
Science, on the other hand, appeals to natural processes that are indifferent to what we humans think is good and bad. Evolution is such a process.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Seems to me an intelligent designer would have done a better job. What a hack my lower back is.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to do better. Just make sure to have a grand design that is not bad all around. Oh, also you need to start from scratch.

They want him here, now. After all, what good is it if he set things up and then disappeared (see my first sig line)?
Click to expand...

What good is it? Who knows, but it is a logical possibility. I don't know about "disappear", but not having a direct creative role after the initial creation.. why not?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Why is design prohibited from being as good as it needs to be?
Click to expand...

You stated, "It seems a little odd to argue against ID by really saying that evolution is bad." I responded by saying that evolution is not bad. It's rarely more than adequate. I made no statement as to whether such a feature of evolution did or did not differ from design. I made no statement that design would preclude such a manner of operation. I never claimed that design was prohibited from anything.

Your question being a non-sequator and something of a straw man, I will not answer it.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Why is design prohibited from being neither bad or good and from being simple 'is' ?
Click to expand...

I guess that logically there's nothing inherantly impossible with the idea of the ultimate designer as a cowboy builder who knocks off early on a Friday with the job half-done. It's just not the usual concept people have :)
 
jmercer said:
Not long enough a period for a significant evolutionary change, I think.

Since we are descended from "pack animals", I think a more likely cause for our strong immune system is that groups pass diseases more readily than loners. This would provide enough time for evolution to select those with stronger immune systems.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There were extreme pressure on the system, starting from the time we planted crops and lived in the same spot for years. Grow even worse when we lived in cities.

However there is a simple proof that evaluation has happened. You can tell the difference between
a. Chinese
b. Japanese
c. Viking
d. African.
You can do this by just looking at a photo of the face. How long ago when the total population of humans which we all were decended from were only a few hundred? 50,000 years? During this time we have split up into our own populations and independently evolved. Now multiply the evolution by 100 and you have several different species, which are not capable of breeding with each other.
 
Loss Leader said:
You stated, "It seems a little odd to argue against ID by really saying that evolution is bad." I responded by saying that evolution is not bad. It's rarely more than adequate.
Click to expand...

If one is saying 'design x is bad', but really knows that evolution is responsible for design x, then they are indeed saying evolution is bad.
 
T'ai Chi said:
If one is saying 'design x is bad', but really knows that evolution is responsible for design x, then they are indeed saying evolution is bad.
Click to expand...

I think that you are not thinking about what is the purpose of evolution. Evolution may not have designed the best immune system (or the best whatever) but the idea is to keep the genes going. And we are here, aren't we?

Perhaps there was a human being with perfect immune system once but he was killed by another one with a system half as good but with a larger brain.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Why is design prohibited from being neither bad or good and from being simple 'is' ?
Click to expand...
Design is not prohibited from being simple 'is'. But, I think most ID advocates don't accept that: They want their designer to do the best job an omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-etc.. being can do.
Even if that was not the case, even if ID advocates accepted less-than-perfect work as evidence of a designer, the concept of ID still does not provide any testable, empirical evidence to support it.
So, while ID might be a pleasing philosophy for some, it can not be considered science.
 
Last edited:
Another argument against ID could be that mice and rabits have to eat their own feces in order to digest cellulose. Either a stupid creator/a creator who hates rodents/a creator with a serious feces fetish, would have created such a poor digestive system.
 
CBVan said:
A good, simple argument to use against ITers is this:
If an intelligence designed humanity, why are our immune systems so darn bad?
Click to expand...

Bad argument. Proves nothing. None of us knows exactly WHAT God is or it's abilities or the lack thereof.

Do you or do you not believe your car was 'intelligently designed'? Yet we have recalls...imperfections.
 
plindboe said:
Another argument against ID could be that mice and rabits have to eat their own feces in order to digest cellulose. Either a stupid creator/a creator who hates rodents/a creator with a serious feces fetish, would have created such a poor digestive system.
Click to expand...

Another bad argument based on lack of all the facts and knowledge. Ever see rabbits gagging from doing this? *I* only see happy-go-lucky rabbits...don't you?
 
Loss Leader said:
Evolution is necessarily only as good as it needs to be to keep the darn creature alive until it can reproduce. It may sometimes create creatures that do better than just barely stay alive but such is not required and cannot as a rule be expected.
Click to expand...

No argument here. Only I'd like to ask you, or anyone here, that if the sole reason for anything's existance is to just reproduce...to live long enough so it can reproduce...as to what the purpose to this might be, over that of say keeping that which is already alive, alive.

I find it interesting that all creatures and life are just here to make more of the same, with no real purpose to any of it. And if there IS some sort of purpose, only an outside- of- it's- own- existance being...A God, if you will...could be responsible for such action. That is the only explanation for *purpose*.
 
Iamme said:
Another bad argument based on lack of all the facts and knowledge. Ever see rabbits gagging from doing this? *I* only see happy-go-lucky rabbits...don't you?
Click to expand...

Caecotrophy/Coprophagia in rabbits certainly isn't a secret, but is well-documented.

http://www.google.dk/search?num=100&hl=da&as_qdr=all&q=rabbit+caecotrophy&btnG=Søg&meta=


From ask-the-vet.com:

http://www.ask-the-vet.com/rabbit-care.htm

Rabbits practice caecotrophy. You may read about rabbits being coprophagic, they eat their own feces and that's what caecotrophy is - they ingest contents produced by the caecum (the large colon of the rabbit). The colon of the rabbit produces 2 kinds of feces - the hard pellets which are just excreted and what you find in your rabbit cages, and the soft droppings (which are rich in water and micro-organisms) which are ingested by your pet rabbit. Your pet rabbit will ingest these soft droppings (caecotrophs) as soon as they are passed out through the anus so it's highly unlikely that you will ever find any on your rabbit cage floor.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Iamme said:
No argument here. Only I'd like to ask you, or anyone here, that if the sole reason for anything's existance is to just reproduce...to live long enough so it can reproduce...as to what the purpose to this might be, over that of say keeping that which is already alive, alive.
Click to expand...

As has been said, a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. My answer to your question is that I personally see no other purpose. If there is another purpose, I can find absolutely no evidence that such exists or what that purpose might be. Without further information, I believe the wisest course is to act on the information available and keep an eye out for any new data that might come in.

I find it interesting that all creatures and life are just here to make more of the same, with no real purpose to any of it. And if there IS some sort of purpose, only an outside- of- it's- own- existance being...A God, if you will...could be responsible for such action. That is the only explanation for *purpose*.
Click to expand...

I see absolutely no logic in jumping from the statement that there might be a purpose to the conclusion that only God could have been responsible for such a purpose. As John Glover in the new Twilight Zone episode "A Small Talent for War" indicated, perhaps we were bred by aliens to be a race of soldiers. Your leap of faith from "purpose" to "God" is unwarranted.
 
Iamme said:
No argument here. Only I'd like to ask you, or anyone here, that if the sole reason for anything's existance is to just reproduce...to live long enough so it can reproduce...as to what the purpose to this might be, over that of say keeping that which is already alive, alive.

I find it interesting that all creatures and life are just here to make more of the same, with no real purpose to any of it. And if there IS some sort of purpose, only an outside- of- it's- own- existance being...A God, if you will...could be responsible for such action. That is the only explanation for *purpose*.
Click to expand...

Why do you think there is a purpose?

If you think, hypothetically, of a universe where some kind of molecule occured by random chance that could self-replicate, with occasional errors, what would you expect to see? You'd see the descendants that are descended from whatever was most successful at producing descendants. They have no purpose, they simply produce more descendents because only the one that did this now exist - any that didn't produce descendents obviously don't exist anymore. Amazingly enough, this is exactly what we see. Obviously this does not mean that a creator didn't start it off, or prod them along the way, or do it all itself, but this is not needed and so there is no reason to assume it happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom