NOVA program: Judgement Day, Intelligent Design on Trial

uruk said:
ID'rs say that certain biological systems could not have evolved randomly. <snip> Well, if the system did not come into being by itself, then how else if not by a designer or designers?
Click to expand...

I always wanted to smack an ID'er across the mouth and tell them "That's NOT how it works dummy"

For those ID'ers who say things like "How could <so and so, like a flaggellum> evolve RANDOMLY. It's designed because it works perfectly for what it does"
They need to be told that these genetic mutations, though random, DON'T pick out something cool to use, like it was PLANNED. The key word here is RANDOM. TONS of mutations occur...most are useless, many are detrimental, causing the mutation to die out because it didn't work out...but RARELY, something mutates that actually WORKS for their betterment. These mutated creatures benefit from this mutation and pass it along to their offspring. And they then have this mutation, and pass it along to their offspring..and so on and so on. Sometimes, the mutation is so good, and comes about at a time when an existing species is at the verge of extinction (maybe due to a weather event, or cosmological or geological event) and this new mutation helps the few newly mutated creatures survive, while the others die off. This new creature than becomes a new species that branched off from their ancestors and EVOLVED so they could survive, pro-create and pass on their genes to their offspring. Simple as that. All the species around are here because of past mutations that WORKED. Millions failed, but they aren't around for show and tell (obviously).

Also, another of the ID'ers silly comments goes like this. "See this mountain..nothing special, right? See this other mountain (Mt Rushmore). That CLEARLY shows it was created by an intelligence, right? (DUH!).
So, these pretty deer are intelligently created, see" WRONG. the mountain isn't ALIVE, dummies, obviously it was intelligently created to look like 4 presidents. But LIVING creatures are a different story. Like apples and oranges. I also KNOW for a FACT that Mt Rushmore WAS intelligently designed by humans. I don't need to make an assumption because I know the FACTS.

Also, I've seen beautiful NATURAL formations that WEREN'T created by any intelligence. It was created by rain, wind, erosion...etc. Even though it may look like it was designed by an intelligence, IT WASN'T. Nauture created it through winds, rain, erosion...etc.

There are also very cool looking (some could say designed looking) cosmological objects as seen through large telescopes (Ant nebula, anyone).
Having an *appearence* of intelligence doesn't infer intelligence. Not by any means. Random clouds can look designed, and we all know that's not the case. So stop with these silly claims. It makes ID'ers look even more naive, gullible and lacking in intelligence and common sense.

Cheers,
DrZ
 
LawnOven said:
I don't know if any one has posted this in this thread yet but it's definitely relevant to this conversation.

Point of Inquiry interviews Micheal Behe

From November 9th, 2007

He talks specifically about the trial quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Interesting podcast. I was happy to see them treat each other in a very civil manner. However, I did wish they had asked Dr. Behe exactly what he meant at the trial when he said astrology could be thought of a science under his definition.
 
Last edited:
Gregoire said:
Interesting podcast. I was happy to see them treat each other in a very civil manner. However, I did wish they had asked Dr. Behe exactly what he meant at the trial when he said astrology could be thought of a science under his definition.
Click to expand...

Good question. I think the point is that Behe believes that any "theory" is science, even those that have been trashed by current scientists - as he says, "science" includes the ether theory of light propagation which Einstein refuted and the crystal spheres theory that Kepler negated. He does this as an intellectual exercise that allows him to include ID as science, while giving him some latitude to disbelieve evolution, which most other scientists hold to be science. This gives him the camel's nose under the tent that he needs to adhere to ID and still remain a scientist. Under this definition, then, astrology is science, even though the science community (alas, not civilization in general) has long ago dropped it. He had to say that, or else he was liable to be cited as a kook by the science community, at least in his own reckoning.
 
T'ai Chi said:
And design detection doesn't necessarily exclude evolution.

For example, there are many people who believe 'god' set it all into motion, then evolution took over.
Click to expand...
Using the magic word "god" does not explain anything, it tells us nothing, and doesn't show us how the universe works.

Paul

:) :) :)

Nothing is learned, because you can make that so-called god anything you want it to be.
 
Gregoire said:
Interesting podcast. I was happy to see them treat each other in a very civil manner.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was. I begin to get an inkling of what motivated Behe to go where he's gone, but not as to why he remains there (providing, of course, that he's not being disingenuous about the journey). I liked that ending phrase, where malaria has "unintended consequences" while doing good in the world under god's supervision. I wonder how one squares unintended with omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence. Christians, particularly Catholics, as I well know, have a fair amount of that sort of cognitive dissonance in their lives.
 
shadron said:
Good question. I think the point is that Behe believes that any "theory" is science, even those that have been trashed by current scientists - as he says, "science" includes the ether theory of light propagation which Einstein refuted and the crystal spheres theory that Kepler negated. He does this as an intellectual exercise that allows him to include ID as science, while giving him some latitude to disbelieve evolution, which most other scientists hold to be science. This gives him the camel's nose under the tent that he needs to adhere to ID and still remain a scientist. Under this definition, then, astrology is science, even though the science community (alas, not civilization in general) has long ago dropped it. He had to say that, or else he was liable to be cited as a kook by the science community, at least in his own reckoning.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation, but it still doesn't make sense to me. :confused:
 
drzeus99 said:
T'ai Chi....just a few important points here. Granted, ID does not 100% necissarily mandate that the intelligence MUST mean "god". It's close to 99.99999999999%, but not 100%.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. It requires an intelligence that is privileged in exemptions to the natural laws of the universe. This is a perfectly workable definition of a divine being.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I don't agree. It requires an intelligence that is privileged in exemptions to the natural laws of the universe. This is a perfectly workable definition of a divine being.
Click to expand...
And it takes no and/or very little intelligence and/or knowledge to believe in a so-called god, children for one, believe in one with no problem, once brainwashed, well come to think of it, so do many adults.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
uruk said:
Thank you. This would be the only alternative for an ID'r to hold if they are exluding god or gods as the designer.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's true. It's the only one that I can see as an alternative to supernatural explanations, but not all supernatural explanations require a god.
For instance, there was a guy on here before that suggested that living things had within them a vital essence that "wants" to evolve, and which causes the right mutations to occur at the right times, with foresight.
That's supernatural, but without god.

I've known some New Agey people who like the ID idea, but not with an idea of god.

Unfortunately for them it would also make thier claim that biogenesis could have only come about through intelligent design as hogwash.
Click to expand...
Superficially yes, but they can claim that abiogenesis is impossible in the conditions that existed on earth at the time of life's origin here, but that other conditions that may have existed elsewhere would have allowed for it.

It would also render irreducible complexity as bunk.
Click to expand...
Why? I mean, irreducible complexity is bunk, but I don't see why the concept makes less sense under extraterrestrial designers than it does under a divine one. The extraterrestrials simply have not be irreducibly complex, while we are. There argument isn't that life must be irreducibly complex, simply that life as we observe it is.

Of course, the whole idea of irreducible complexity is so messed up as to be meaningless, I just don't follow your logic here.
 
I don't think I understand irreducible complexity from the theological side.

Why, if god is omnipotent, could he not arrange for evolution, which is also his creation (in Behe's view) to handle even the irreducible parts? Why would he need to intervene in just those few cases, after being so careful about the rest of biology? Freudian slips? Just not quite clever enough? The only valid ID reason I can think of is that these cases are an intentional life preserver thrown to those who are smart enough to see all the way to the end (such as Behe) and are therefore on the edge of doubting that a god is necessary. Of course he then knows that most such people are going to ignore his hint anyway. What a devious, spiteful sob. Reminds me of Pat Robertson would be like as World Emperor, except for the smart part.
 
Shadron said:
Why, if god is omnipotent, could he not arrange for evolution, which is also his creation (in Behe's view) to handle even the irreducible parts? Why would he need to intervene in just those few cases, after being so careful about the rest of biology? Freudian slips? Just not quite clever enough? The only valid ID reason I can think of is that these cases are an intentional life preserver thrown to those who are smart enough to see all the way to the end (such as Behe) and are therefore on the edge of doubting that a god is necessary. Of course he then knows that most such people are going to ignore his hint anyway. What a devious, spiteful sob. Reminds me of Pat Robertson would be like as World Emperor, except for the smart part.
Click to expand...
If the creationists are correct, evolution is incapable of producing irreducibly complex mechanisms. Therefore god has to intervene supernaturally to poke genomes to encode such mechanisms. This opens the window for god to be playing around with creation occasionally. Why creationists need this sort of interventionist god I do not know.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
If the creationists are correct, evolution is incapable of producing irreducibly complex mechanisms. Therefore god has to intervene supernaturally to poke genomes to encode such mechanisms. This opens the window for god to be playing around with creation occasionally. Why creationists need this sort of interventionist god I do not know.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

But if god created it it must be capable. Even if he had to permanently bend the laws of physics/chemistry/biology that operate. Otherwise he is caprecious, something such a being shouldn't be (I suppose; doesn't seem like a "perfect" attribute).

Oh, well.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
I don't think that's true. It's the only one that I can see as an alternative to supernatural explanations, but not all supernatural explanations require a god.
Click to expand...
Funny, talking about the supernatural I haven't known anyone that doesn't end up talking about a so-called god.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom