• 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.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs Non-intelligent/materialistic evolution

P.S. What's with the hidden agenda hs? Most people on JFEF have no agenda other than learning, teaching, sharing, considering, debate and moments of humor, be they funny, dry or otherwise. Keywords: most people.

Again, as in the other thread, I suggest you read Pixie of Key posts. Pixie had a hidden agenda. One that eventually revealed itself.

Define what you perceive as someone's hidden agenda, on this thread. What is this alleged hidden agenda?
 
The fact that so many folks in this forum seem to agree with this "non-intelligent" view makes me wonder if there isn't something more
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yesss... :raises hands in anticipation:

some hidden agenda perhaps.
Click to expand...
...nooooh..

Damn. Soooo close. Correct answer would've been
The fact that so many folks in this forum seem to agree with this "non-intelligent" view makes me wonder if there isn't something more, perhaps mountains of evidence that can't be refuted even though whoever shoots it down and estabilishes a new theory would win the Nobel price.


Oh, and while it's slightly aged, and some parts need further explanation if you're new to the field, this documentary does a good job at explaining Evolution to laymen (read: bwinwright:p).
 
Last edited:
bwinwright said:
:D Richard Dawkins believes, as did Darwin, that natural selection is sufficient to explain the functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, non-intelligent, blind watchmaker.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Dawkins and Darwin both assume that this sophisticated process of a biological system to mutate and adapt to various environments "must" be the product of non-intelligence.
Click to expand...
It is not an assumption. It is based on observed evidence. At no point is it necessary to postulate any guiding intelligence to explain the evolution of life. Postulating the manipulations of a guiding intelligence, for which there is no evidence, is the assumption.

Their claim of non-intelligence being responsible for natural selection is THE controversial point.
Click to expand...
Do you know what "natural" means? Natural selection is the result of natural processes such as physics, chemistry, thermodynamics etc. The "controversy" is entirely one sided, as is the "controversy" between science and young-Earth creationists, or engineers and Lunar landing hoax conspiracy theorists.

Why Darwin and Dawkins want to attribute such complexity to non-intelligent sources, I can only guess, because there only appears to be their "assumption" that this is true.
Click to expand...
Why just Dawklins and Darwin? It's more than that, it's virtually the whole of science. At any rate, they didn't want to attribute complexity to non-intelligent sources, they simply followed the evidence where it lead. And the evidence lead to natural processes being able to add complexity through a combination of random mutations and environmental selection.

I listened to a debate about this subject between those who believe in intelligent design vs. those who believe in a non-intelligent/strictly materialistic form of evolution.

William F. Buckley disagreed with the Dawkins-Darwin argument. He actually makes sense. I also listened to a debate between Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Michael Shermer. Dr. Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, simply devastated Dr. Shermer, an atheist.
Click to expand...
What were Buckley's qualifications in the field of biology?

According to whom did Dr. Meyer "devastate" Dr. Shermer?

Shermer does not, last I read, identify himself as an atheist.

Intelligent design, the teleological argument for the existence of God, was believed and taught by folks like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Descartes, Emerson, Thoreau, and many other pretty bright people. Yet, many of the people in this forum seem to agree with the Dawkins-Darwin crowd.
Click to expand...
Blatant appeal to authority. Those men also believed things that have proved to be wrong over the intervening centuries. They did not have the information that we have today so their opinions are hardly relevant to modern science. What about all the pretty bright people who today accept the theory of evolution by natural selection?

The Dawkins-Darwin belief that non-intelligence can produce highly complex systems simply defies logic. The fact that so many folks in this forum seem to agree with this "non-intelligent" view makes me wonder if there isn't something more, some hidden agenda perhaps.
Click to expand...
You have yet to define this "logic". Many things that science has revealed about the universe have seemed to defy "logic".

The idea that the Earth is a sphere and not flat seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that time is not a universal constant seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that the universe is expanding seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that continents can drift many thousands of miles seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that complexity derives from simplicity and not from greater complexity seemed counter-intuitive.

Apparently Darwin lost a loved one and became angry at God, and like a small child, wanted to hurt God by denying him.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the Touched by an Angel logical fallacy.

And Dawkins reportedly believed the teleological argument until the unholy behavior of organized religions finally drove him insane with hate for all religions, thereby leading him to his present status as the world's most famous atheist.
Click to expand...
Is this melodrama all you have to offer in place of actual evidence to support your position?

Having participated in this forum for maybe 30-40 hours over the past year, I realize there are some extremely intelligent people participating. This JREF site could very well be the largest gathering of highly intelligent people anywhere on the internet. It wouldn't surprise me.

However, since so many folks in this forum are so incredibly bright, I simply can't believe very many "honestly" believe this Darwin-Dawkins "non-intelligence" claim.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... You're saying that you can't understand why smart people don't agree with you. Could it be that you are mistaken? And where is your "intelligence claim"? You keep saying that you have evidence to support your case, but you have yet to reveal it.

And again, it's far, far more than just Darwin and Dawkins that you're up against.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many of the participants in this forum simply enjoy taking the "implausible" side of any and all arguments just to see what happens. It's just a thrill for them to play THE DEVIL's ADVOCATE.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to shatter your comforting rationalization, but the people who are disputing your arguments accept evolution by natural selection as much as they accept electromagnetism, gravity, thermodynamics and chemistry.
 
bwinwright said:
However, since so many folks in this forum are so incredibly bright, I simply can't believe very many "honestly" believe this Darwin-Dawkins "non-intelligence" claim.
Click to expand...


Is your personal incredulity really all that you've got?
 
bwinwright said:
:D Richard Dawkins believes, as did Darwin, that natural selection is sufficient to explain the functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, non-intelligent, blind watchmaker... (snip)
Click to expand...
Come on, just one smiley for emphasis this time? I think we deserve at least three.

Also, you didn't really answer my question last time around. If we were to assume for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution is 100% false, what's your point?

I have a new question for you as well. If intelligent design is science, then what is the proposed mechanism for the process, where has it ever been observed, and how can we experimentally test for it?







Oh, I have a proposal. Let's get a giant dart gun and tranq God in the ass, so we can haul him back to the lab for study. That ought to answer all our questions once and for all.
 
For a physical interaction to occur, it must be possible. I.e. Not violate physical law.

For something to continue existence as a system it must be capable of withstanding physical laws that would otherwise destroy the system. (Interactions with all other manner of law and physical systems)

If an interaction of physical matter occurs and forms a system which will be destroyed by another interaction under natural law, it will not survive as a system. (It is useful to think of this on an atomic scale.)

If interaction of matter forms a system which is able to operate without major degradation when encountering other common interactions with matter it may encounter, it will continue to exist. (For a period of time which the system can continue to withstand or even thrive with other physical interactions)

Simply:

1.) Things must first be possible.
2.) Things must be equipped to survive if they are to continue existence.

If you apply this to every interaction from the beginning of time, all you require is natural law to get perceived order.

Systems of matter which are both possible, and well equipped to compete and coexist with other systems will continue existence until they are destroyed by an interaction which it is not equipped to be able to coexist with.

Clearly this leads to the things which are best equipped continuing. Interactions building new, or modifying existing systems can continue to occur, and because of these two rules, over a period of time they will become more and more equipped to survive. (Trillions of bad systems die out)

After 13.7 billion years of this occurring, you, as a result of one of these systems of matter are going to see things which appear to be ordered. They appear to be following a balanced order because they have to be, or else they simply would not exist, and would not have been able to exist in the first place.
 
Last edited:
bwinwright said:
Their claim of non-intelligence being responsible for natural selection is THE controversial point.
Click to expand...


Call me stupid if you want, but I don't understand how the idea that natural selection is the result of non-intelligent processes could possibly be controversial.

Could you explain the concept of intelligent natural selection for me using an example, such as the running speed of Gazelles?

The non-intelligent theory is that Gazelles with mutations that adversely affect their running speed are more likely to be eaten by lions, removing these harmful mutations from the gene pool, while Gazelles with mutations that improve their running speed are less likely to be eaten by lions, allowing these beneficial genes to be preserved and duplicated.

In what way does your understanding of the process in this example differ from ours?
 
bwinwright said:
:D Richard Dawkins believes, as did Darwin, that natural selection is
Click to expand...
No

Please resist the temptation to perpetuate the myth that its a belief system at work... its an understanding founded on observation-based hypothesis formulation and testing, with results that repeatedly and consistently show - to anyone with the prerequisite comprehension skills - that the current model (of reality) is the best to date. If/when a better model is found, the current model will be set aside. Can you at least comprehend that there is a difference between beliefs and understanding?

bwinwright said:
Dawkins and Darwin both assume that this sophisticated process of a biological system to mutate and adapt to various environments "must" be the product of non-intelligence.
Click to expand...
No, not must. Try to mutate and adapt to various environments, "must" be<insert> is - according to repeated studies - </insert>the product of

bwinwright said:
Why Darwin and Dawkins want to attribute such complexity to non-intelligent sources, I can only guess,
Click to expand...
Again, no.

You do have an alternative; you could study the subject for yourself, rather than rehashing mind-numbingly stupid woo
 
Last edited:
bwinwright said:
The Dawkins-Darwin belief that non-intelligence can produce highly complex systems simply defies logic. The fact that so many folks in this forum seem to agree with this "non-intelligent" view makes me wonder if there isn't something more, some hidden agenda perhaps.
Click to expand...
To me your OP is not a defense of ID but a long ramble to get to this point - namely that JREFers have a hidden agenda or are just playing Devil's Advocate.

Since you seem to specialize in guesses and unsupported claims, I'd be quite interested in having you speculate on what our hidden agenda might be? Any thoughts?

And while musing on that topic, pursue it further. How is it that our agenda is so well hidden? How is the secrecy enforced? What happens to someone who lets the cat out of the bag?

Finally, you went through the same sign-up procedures as all of the rest of us. How did we know to keep you out of the Hidden Agenda Club? Who else would you speculate got the heave-ho? Do you think I am an insider because I can assure you nobody taught me the secret handshake.
 
SezMe said:
To me your OP is not a defense of ID but a long ramble to get to this point - namely that JREFers have a hidden agenda or are just playing Devil's Advocate.

Since you seem to specialize in guesses and unsupported claims, I'd be quite interested in having you speculate on what our hidden agenda might be? Any thoughts?

And while musing on that topic, pursue it further. How is it that our agenda is so well hidden? How is the secrecy enforced? What happens to someone who lets the cat out of the bag?

Finally, you went through the same sign-up procedures as all of the rest of us. How did we know to keep you out of the Hidden Agenda Club? Who else would you speculate got the heave-ho? Do you think I am an insider because I can assure you nobody taught me the secret handshake.
Click to expand...

I think that the Hidden Agenda is quite obvious. A bunch of self-proclaimed athiests know that God is real, but they are dooming themselves to eternal damnation for... no, it doesn't quite work like that, does it?

My own Hidden Agenda is promoting dualism. I better find out what it is so I can do it properly.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
The hallmark of a solid theory is that it makes predictions about things that could not have been examined when proposed, and is supported by all the evidence both before and after it was proposed.

Ask an Evolutionary biologist to name something that would disprove evolution and they may say, "fossil bunnies in the Precambrian." Evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life makes predictions about how morphologically and genetically similar organisms must have had a common ancestor, and the fossil and genetic evidence bears this out. The fusion of two chromosomes into one in the hominid line is a prediction of Evolutionary biology which is borne out of genetics, a field which is does not inherently depend on the Theory of Evolution and which could have entirely disproved evolution. The fossil record, filled with organisms which are ancestors of modern organisms and most of which have gone extinct without leading to modern descendants is another prediction of the theory borne out of rocks which serve no ideological master.

Now, I ask you, what specific predictions does Intelligent Design make which could be tested, or disproven? None. ID proponents claim incredulity at the evidence that an intelligent designer could have merely made things look as they are - that the Earth is ancient and has been teeming with living things that have died and changed over time. Try to make a single statement that could ever be disproven about ID and you'll understand why it is not a science.
Click to expand...

:cool:I don't know how to prove, scientifically, that intelligence was responsible for natural selection, evolution, etc. However, philosophy is always ahead of science. Common sense or logic seems to be all that's necessary for someone without a political agenda.

Remember Einstein? He devoted the last 30 years of his life trying to prove, scientifically, that everything is connected in his UNIFIED FIELD theory. He never could actually prove it but he probably had FAITH that it was so, right? This faith being a reflection of his philosophy.
 
Apparently Darwin lost a loved one and became angry at God, and like a small child, wanted to hurt God by denying him.
Click to expand...

Actually, this was only a part of his loss of faith. As Darwin uncovered more and more species that performed horrific ungodlike acts to ensure their species survival, he denied that a god would have conciously designed something like that. Take for example particular species of wasps, who sting other animals (such as giant tarantulas) to paralyse them (but keep them alive), drag them back to their nest, and lay eggs inside of them. Thus the prey is slowen eaten alive from the inside out while being concious but unable to react. Why would your god design something like that? Was he on crack? Bad day at the office?
 
bwinwright said:
:cool:I don't know how to prove, scientifically, that intelligence was responsible for natural selection, evolution, etc. However, philosophy is always ahead of science. Common sense or logic seems to be all that's necessary for someone without a political agenda.

Remember Einstein? He devoted the last 30 years of his life trying to prove, scientifically, that everything is connected in his UNIFIED FIELD theory. He never could actually prove it but he probably had FAITH that it was so, right? This faith being a reflection of his philosophy.
Click to expand...

One at a time: Common sense is not enough to determine what is true and what is not. Time and again the universe has stunned us by operating differently than we had imagined. No idea, however elegant, can stand up in the face of contradictory evidence. No one understood this more than Kepler, the astronomer who was thoroughly convinced that the planets in their celestial spheres were supported by invisible platonic solids. However, his unflinching examination of the data over a lifetime lead him not only to reject his geometrically perfect idea, but also devise the rules of planetary motion which apply to all orbiting bodies. Common sense tells us that rocks are solid, but we now understand that they are made of atoms which are almost entirely empty.

Einstein's dedication to a unified field theory was not an outgrowth of faith, but one of confidence. He was confident in his achievements, and in the achievements of others and he suspected that there was some way to unify physics. That may indeed be possible, but his confidence was borne out of the evidence, not in spite of it. His work in this area was thrown against the piles of evidence and never remained intact. For any idea to be taken seriously it must theoretically be very easy to break. It can only withstand scrutiny if it is actually true. The groundless belief that some god made everything can never be disproven, only made an unnecessary embellishment to what we have learned. God is not required to explain anything.
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
No

Please resist the temptation to perpetuate the myth that its a belief system at work... its an understanding founded on observation-based hypothesis formulation and testing, with results that repeatedly and consistently show - to anyone with the prerequisite comprehension skills - that the current model (of reality) is the best to date. If/when a better model is found, the current model will be set aside. Can you at least comprehend that there is a difference between beliefs and understanding?

No, not must. Try to mutate and adapt to various environments, "must" be<insert> is - according to repeated studies - </insert>the product of

Again, no.

You do have an alternative; you could study the subject for yourself, rather than rehashing mind-numbingly stupid woo
Click to expand...

:)Philosophy is always ahead of science, right? People have ideas first, then prove them scientifically, right? Einstein and his Unified Field? He devoted the last 30 years of his life to proving this theory, but never could make it happen. He "believed" it, just couldn't prove it.

That's the way I feel about Intelligent Design. In my view, this explanation for natural selection is more plausible than the Darwin-Dawkins view that this evolutionary process didn't require any intelligent direction. This view seems to defy common sense.

It's a lot like WTC Building Number 7. After watching the video of this building collapse, it simply defies common sense to believe this building was not a controlled demolition. Yet, on this JREF forum the popular belief is that WTC Building Number 7 was not a controlled demolition. This truly amazes me.
 
bwinwright said:
That's the way I feel about Intelligent Design. In my view, this explanation for natural selection is more plausible than the Darwin-Dawkins view that this evolutionary process didn't require any intelligent direction. This view seems to defy common sense.

It's a lot like WTC Building Number 7. After watching the video of this building collapse, it simply defies common sense to believe this building was not a controlled demolition. Yet, on this JREF forum the popular belief is that WTC Building Number 7 was not a controlled demolition. This truly amazes me.
Click to expand...

You have a very special type of common sense, it would seem.
 
bwinwright said:
That's the way I feel about Intelligent Design. In my view, this explanation for natural selection is more plausible than the Darwin-Dawkins view that this evolutionary process didn't require any intelligent direction. This view seems to defy common sense.
Click to expand...

Let's apply your much vaunted "common sense" to the idea that some perfect, loving, and all seeing entity made all living things. There are some problems which immediately arise.

Firstly, why do we breathe and eat through the same orifice? This essentially guarantees that some people will choke to death. It's not even as if separate breathing and eating apparatuses are impossible or even unheard of - dolphins do it.

Why don't we make vitamin C? Only some primates, bats, and gerbils don't make their own vitamin C, and that list includes us. Why the hell would a god design us able to die of a horrible wasting disease if we don't eat a vitamin most other animals make just fine?

Beyond our own design, there are other troubling problems. Why is it that most types of organisms that have ever lived are dead? Look at the Burgess Shale some day. It's the earliest appearance of multicellular life. It's a veritable fossil parade of organisms, and none of them exist today. Why would a god create a dizzying variety of organisms over billions of years, and kill them all off? The Flood doesn't even explain this because most modern organisms don't appear in the fossil record at all and Noah was alleged to have saved only pairs of animals, the rest should have drowned.

This isn't even going into larger philosophical questions about the existence of death and suffering.
 
Last edited:
miraclepy9.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom