INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs Non-intelligent/materialistic evolution

[godless dave]

10) What is the "Universal Law of Attraction", and what evidence supports its existence?

 

[temporalillusion]

10) What is the "Universal Law of Attraction", and what evidence supports its existence?

http://www.thesecret.tv/

 

[Frozenwolf150]

8) When two advocates of Intelligent Design disagree on a point, e.g. who the designer is, how do they settle that disagreement?

The same way people with religious differences have always settled their disputes throughout history: through civil discourse and meaningful dialogue.

 

[Tricky]

The same way people with religious differences have always settled their disputes throughout history: through civil discourse and meaningful dialog.

Oh yeah, like those Crusades things. Wasn't that a series of bilateral discussions and conferences? I think they gave out Holy Grail key-chains as souvenirs.

 

[Wowbagger]

8) When two advocates of Intelligent Design disagree on a point, e.g. who the designer is, how do they settle that disagreement?

A lot of them would say "it's not important!"

I notice that a lot of I.D. proponents will try to dismiss anything their "theory" can't explain as "not important". Everything from the identity of the Designer, to the origins of diseases. All of it does NOT matter, as long as they can reaffirm their chosen beliefs.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

Crocs and alligators also. Euuuuuuuu! They are better "designed"!!! How can that be?
.

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.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Crocs and alligators also. Euuuuuuuu! They are better "designed"!!! How can that be?
.

Hey, they've lasted many millions of years, though they've speciated often enough. Ambushing prey and chilling out with a slow metabolism's a great gimmick for survival.

Shame that doesn't lead to a big brain, though.

 

[Nogbad]

Apparently Darwin lost a loved one and became angry at God, and like a small child, wanted to hurt God by denying him. 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.

It is true that the Darwins loved their daughter very much but the rest of the above is just silly.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I was going to jump in, but the pool has been drained.

~~ Paul

 

[six7s]

...the pool has been drained.

The cesspit is deep, full to over-flowing and still warm

 

[Wildy]

Crocs and alligators also. Euuuuuuuu! They are better "designed"!!! How can that be?

It's because they were designed in God's image.

 

[KingMerv00]

It's because they were designed in God's image.

May Sobek smile upon you.

 

[bwinwright]

I suspect we're all just cheap bastards.

Timothy and Paul got it wrong? It's really the love of parsimony that is the root of all evil?

Linda

fls, I don't understand the frugality comment but if that's a picture of you, then the universe wasn't frugal when it came to passing out good looks to you.

 

[bwinwright]

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.

ImaginalDisc, you are the perfect example of the type of mindlessness making me weary. I don't have a problem with science, which "must" be able to prove or disprove something through an experiment in a laboratory. That's fine. However, science is never enough, is it? You "must" have a philosophy, some idea beyond science, right? Like Einstein believed everything is connected, but just couldn't prove it "scientifically". I understand all that!

My problem with people like Dawkins is they say, "I don't totally reject the idea of an intelligent designer, but I seriously doubt there is one, and there really isn't a need for one." To me that's absolute insanity, total dishonesty. All I'm trying to understand is how anyone can honestly believe that ORDER does not require intelligent direction. Now, as far as the nature of this intelligence, who the hell could possibly know. But to deny that it must exist is absolutely rediculous and totally illogical!!!!!!

 

[bwinwright]

Logic, logic, logic

in re the devil, I play cards with him every Sunday, and he assures me that he needs no advocates - he himself is quite good at it and needs no assistance.

The difference between this forum and others, bwinwright, seems to be that the people here require evidence before accepting something you say - there's no "acceptance on faith" here. They repeat their mantra "evidence... evidence... EVIDENCE!" like they're all zombies wearing lab coats. I'm also pretty sure that some of them eat brains.

You seem to be supposing that natural selection has some overriding intelligence directing it. I'll get in before most to offer the question, "Have you any evidence to support this belief?"

~ Matt

Logic, logic logic...I can't think of the guy who was the most famous atheist at Oxford for years and years before Dawkins but he changed his mind and became an advocate for intelligent design after he learned about DNA.

He realized that anything so incredibly complex couldn't have possibly just "happened" over time. It's like the totally disassembled wristwatch putting itself back together, WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. It simply can't happen! It's illogical to assume it can. That's my problem with smart-asses like DAWKINS. He just loves being able to use his high powered brain and personality to get sheeple to believe that ORDER doesn't necessarily require intelligent direction. It's illogical and absurd!

I am amazed this is still an argument.

 

[cyborg]

he realized that anything so incredibly complex couldn't have possibly just "happened" over time. It's like the totally disassembled wristwatch putting itself back together, without any intelligent direction. It simply can't happen!

1 + 1 = 4?

 

[paximperium]

ImaginalDisc, you are the perfect example of the type of mindlessness making me weary. I don't have a problem with science, which "must" be able to prove or disprove something through an experiment in a laboratory. That's fine.

False. No that is not science. Science is process of gathering knowledge and synthesizing conclusions. It does not have to be in a lab.

However, science is never enough, is it? You "must" have a philosophy, some idea beyond science, right? Like Einstein believed everything is connected, but just couldn't prove it "scientifically". I understand all that!

False again. Einstein had a philosophy that could be called pantheistic but he never made this claim using science. It was a personal belief.

My problem with people like Dawkins is they say, "I don't totally reject the idea of an intelligent designer, but I seriously doubt there is one, and there really isn't a need for one." To me that's absolute insanity, total dishonesty.

Why? Maybe one day you'll actually have the guts to answer that question instead of Arguing from Personal Incredulity.

All I'm trying to understand is how anyone can honestly believe that ORDER does not require intelligent direction.

Thanks for stating this multiple times without ever answering why,
To start this wonderful list AGAIN:
The BWINWRIGHT UNANSWERED QUESTION (DODGE) LIST:
1) Justify and explain why order requires intelligence? Provide a mathematical proof or evidence to support his assertion.
2) Describe and explain the mechanism for how "god" directs ID or evidence for ID.
3) How exactly is natural selection intelligently guided? If it's THE controversial point, it's something we should know.
4) Name at least one observed instance of the design process in action.
5) Propose a way in which intelligent design can be experimentally tested.

Now, as far as the nature of this intelligence, who the hell could possibly know. But to deny that it must exist is absolutely rediculous and totally illogical!!!!!!

Nice straw man. No one has denied it, we just deny that it is likely. Sure it is possible, such as the possibility of unicorns and pixies that control the cosmos but is it likely? Not one bit.

 

[RandFan]

All I'm trying to understand is how anyone can honestly believe that ORDER does not require intelligent direction.

My first thread on this forum was a thread in support of ID. That was a long time ago. It took awhile but an honest commitment to the truth lead to accepting the fact of evolution.

As a former ID proponent I can tell you that it is very easy to believe that a snowflake (order) can come from chaos (storm). Evolution is one of the simplest concepts ever derived and it has been used to make scientific predictions countless times. It conforms to other scientific disciplines like archeology and biology. It's used to develop medicine and increase crop yields. It is a fact. To not accept it is perverse which is why I am no longer an ID proponent.

 

[RandFan]

I am amazed this is still an argument.

It's a fact. If it wasn't we wouldn't be able to use evolution to create medicine, increase crop yields, make predictions about where to find fossils and find them, make predictions about genetics and prove those predictions time and time again.

There's no "argument". It's over. Evolution won.

 

[Gate2501]

All I'm trying to understand is how anyone can honestly believe that ORDER does not require intelligent direction.

Did you not see the picture of the snowflake that was linked on page 1???

You are either willfully ignoring posts that PROVE that you are wrong about order, or you are horribly mentally impaired and cannot conprehend why you have been proven wrong.

Step back from the fact that everyone seems to be bashing you, and really think about the snowflake example. Then refine your statements about order, or walk into traffic