Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Krikkiter]

What do you think a universe without an intelligent cause would look like?

randman isn't even sure the universe exists

 

[Lowpro]

You say that the world is evidence of a designer then deny the reality of the world?

...Holy crap how did I miss that?

 

[tsig]

Since when is a religious concept not borne of observation or testing? I reject the idea that ID is exclusively religious in the first place, but religion entails observation and reason though precedes modern science and so, of course, is not necessarily "testing" under scientific standards. Then again, neither is the evo mythology.

Show me an atheist IDer.

 

[tsig]

Why would you assume God would need to be designed? A juvenile question on your part if I ever heard one.

Because your whole argument is that complicated things need to be designed.

 

[Krikkiter]

Right on! My granddad wern't no ape!! and don't go talkin' 'bout my mother, yes she was hairy and liked bananas but that's it!!

My granmaw was the same but she also had one of those dogs that god designed to fit into a car.

 

[tsig]

Why would you assume God would need to be designed? A juvenile question on your part if I ever heard one.

I don't assume it. The evidence says it is. Just look at the principle of cause and effect. You cannot have the universe without a cause. Nothing in the natural world violates this principle; hence the natural world has a cause.

Is it an intelligent cause or not? Does it have principles and order? The idea that intelligence is not involved in the origination of the universe is just wacked; maybe one of the wackiest things man has ever come up with. Every conspiracy theory in the world could be true and not hold a candle to this concept in terms of believability. By that, I mean almost anything else, no matter how fantastical, could be true, and yet wouldn't support this idea that the universe stemmed from nothing at all and has no intelligent cause.

You need to get this straight, if god doesn't need a designer then not everything needs a designer.

 

[Twiler]

you need to get this straight, if god doesn't need a designer then not everything needs a designer.

Nooo! Don't cross the streams!

 

[tsig]

Consider St. Anselm's proof of the existence of God:

1 - God is that being greater than which cannot be conceived.

2 - Obviously, a God who exists is greater than one which does not.

3 - Therefore, God exists.

It is, you have to admit, a good trick: defining God into existence.

The primary trick is convincing yourself that what can be conceived in the human mind must be real.

 

[tsig]

Evolution does not exist within a vacuum. If the universe suggests there is a God, a Designer, a Creator, then we have to start with that assumption.

Therefore, evolution (which definition) can be true but should rightly be viewed within an ID paradigm.

You have transposed the cart and the horse.

 

[tsig]

The evidence bar seems to have fallen on the ground.

God did it, the bible said it, I believe it./rman off

 

[Twiler]

Consider St. Anselm's proof of the existence of God:

1 - God is that being greater than which cannot be conceived.

2 - Obviously, a God who exists is greater than one which does not.

3 - Therefore, God exists.

It is, you have to admit, a good trick: defining God into existence.

It relies upon the 'hidden premise' trick; Why should we assume an entity that exists must be greater than one that doesn't?

 

[tsig]

Maybe a false dichotomy, but for the life of me I can only think of two possible explanations for a statement such as this.

Explanation #1: randman is an obvious troll who's just playing us, or...

Explanation #2 : randman is so blinded by ideology/theism/whatever, that he can ignore about a century of quantum physics and how the universe really works.

Things DO happen without cause, again and again and again. In spite of Einstein's deepest intuitions, "God" does play dice with the universe.

Here, randman is, I think, parroting Aquinas. Like raising Haekel ad nauseum in another thread, my disappointed response remains, "Is that all you've got?"

I've always found Thomas' proof of god "Since there can't be uncaused things there must be an uncaused thing" singularly unconvincing.

 

[tsig]

Indeed. There's not really any point in attempting to engage in reasoned discussion with someone so out of touch with reality and firmly entrenched in IDiocy. That's why I killfiled him.

Target practice.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

...and don't go talkin' 'bout my mother, yes she was hairy and liked bananas but that's it!!

You should be grateful to your dad...

...at least he shaved her down and taught her to speak!


credit to Eddie Murphy!

 

[Krikkiter]

Purely for entertainment value (since that's what this thread seems to be about just at the moment - randman being unable to produce any evidence for his designer other than "42"), I found this:

http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/1...nt-design-blog-a-hoax-john-a-davison-edition/

Davison himself posted quite a few nasty comments there.

 

[catsmate]

You say that the world is evidence of a designer then deny the reality of the world?

Meh that's not his worst offense against logic.
Personally I like to postulate the humanity was created by it's time travelling descendants, who also created this universe. I haven't found a god-botherer who can refute it. Of course they couldn't do a better job because they knew what humanity was like.

Show me an atheist IDer.

Those nuts who believe aliens created humanity perhaps? For example the Raelians.

Target practice.

Meh, he's not even that entertaining.

 

[Dinwar]

Since when is a religious concept not borne of observation or testing? I reject the idea that ID is exclusively religious in the first place,

Your acceptance or rejection of the idea is irrelevant. It's the truth--ID started as a reaction to courts saying that Creationism was religion, not science (because the only evidence for Creationism is the Bible) and therefore couldn't be taught in public schools. The court records where this decision was made, which include the reasons for the decision, are public records and available if you care to look. At this point, you're simply willfully ignoring the facts.

but religion entails observation and reason though precedes modern science and so, of course, is not necessarily "testing" under scientific standards. Then again, neither is the evo mythology.

~sigh~ Do I really need to say AGAIN that it was, and that evolution's first critics were Creationists with MUCH better arguments than any you've offered? Probably. Read "Darwin's Century" to see the process, starting from well before Darwin (the author starts with the Chain of Being). It outlines the big issues people had with the idea pretty clearly, and shows how evolution was systematically tested.

There's also a fair bit of physics-chauvinism in this quote. Testing a scientific theory doesn't mean going into a lab and running a controlled experiment--otherwise astronomy, geology, paleontology, and a number of other sciences would be impossible. "Testing" means determining the conditions in which your idea can either be proven right or wrong, and finding those conditions. In the early days of physics a lot of this was done in a lab, but there's nothing philosophically wrong with letting nature run the experiment, as the historical sciences (those dealing with events that typically or exclusively happen in the past) do. A paleontological "experiment" may be an outcrop that shows the evolution of a clade through time, or it may be a reef that crosses the K/Pg boundary, or it may be a set of rocks that should yield an expected intermediate form. I've seen all of them used, and all were accepted as valid tests, by all scientists who cared to look at them.

 

[Wowbagger]

So the proper thing to do is look at things with the assumption of a Designer and see if it works.

And guess what?

It does!

So, basically, you confess that your entire position depends on confirmation bias.

I hope everyone else on this forum recognizes the value of empirical science, in the form of Evolution.

...Holy crap how did I miss that?

Randman's position, it seems, isn't merely "Everything is evidence of Design, but nothing is evidence of the Designer", but a more disturbing:

"Everything is evidence of Design, but nothing is evidence of the Designer; and it is possible that all the evidence of Design isn't even real. But, our assumptions of the Designer are the best thing we can rely on."

Where does one go from there?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Dinwar,

I agree that ID is fundamentally an end run for those with either a conscious or subconscious religious bias, but...

...having read "Darwin's Black Box"*, I do appreciate that a scientific, secular argument can be made for "irreducible complexity". Having also read critiques of that book, I think the arguments are fundamentally flawed, but still see how they can have a rational nexus.

*interestingly, Behe's book is found among the "Evolution" books at Mackay's Used Books - talk about a Trojan Horse! I have it in my collection - it's good to see how the other side thinks/argues.

 

[steenkh]

...having read "Darwin's Black Box"*, I do appreciate that a scientific, secular argument can be made for "irreducible complexity".

Can this be formulated in a way so that it is not just an argument from personal incredulity?

As far as I know, all examples that ID'ers have proposed as being of irreducible complexity have been shown to be quite reducible, and this does not bode well for this as a valid scientific argument.