A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

Moi? I'm not omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, nor any of the other things the intelligent designer is supposed to be.

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?

It's only a logical possibility it you can define the intelligent designer logically. If you can, then it's a logical possibility. As for having no interaction after the initial creation, see my first sig line again.

~~ Paul

 

[Dragonrock]

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.

Evolution isn't bad, it is just good enough. It doesn't create the best solution; it creates the solution that works well enough. If some creature has an attribute that gives it a slight advantage over its fellows then it has a better chance of survival. It doesn't mean it absolutely will survive, just that it's more likely to. But, in order for one creature to survive, some other creature must die. Evolution is the constant battle between all species’ attempts to make babies.

If a perfect predator were ever produced what do you think would happen? Let us say that a new carnivore appeared. This creature was as fast as a cheetah, strong as an lion, hunted in packs like wolves, had an immune system that protected it against all pathogens, never lost a baby due to birth problems, could quickly adapt to extreme hot or cold, could regenerate lost limbs, could see infrared and ultraviolet light, could see in extreme low light, had sonar for cases of total darkness, and was immune to all defenses like skunk musk or porcupine quills. This creature would eat everything in sight. It would quickly subdue every other creature, eventually destroying all prey until only it remained. Then it would turn on its own population and because they are the perfect predator the winner of the battle would come down to luck, or, more likely, the slight differences among population. Evolution would continue in that the creatures who were strongest would survive. In this case, strongest would refer to those best able to handle the decrease in food supply. Maybe those that lost the ability to regenerate lost limbs would actually become favored over those that could because the regeneration takes too much energy. Then, suddenly, our perfect predator is no longer perfect. They have some attributes that are not the best for the current situation. So, our less than perfect predators disappear and are slowly replaced by something that fits the new situation.

Climates, landmasses, diseases, and many other things change constantly. What was perfect one day may be a detriment the next.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

IDers have two choices:

1. Demonstrate that the intelligent designer has an ongoing interaction with the world. You can do this by gathering direct evidence to that effect or by showing mathematically that naturalistic evolution cannot produce life as we know it.

2. Admit that he does not interact with the world and so must have designed everything prior to creation. In this case, evolution is doing the work one way or the other, so stop arguing with evolution.

Most IDers are not opting for (2), so where is the research program?

~~ Paul

 

[Loss Leader]

If a perfect predator were ever produced what do you think would happen? Let us say that a new carnivore appeared. This creature was as fast as a cheetah, strong as an lion, hunted in packs like wolves, had an immune system that protected it against all pathogens, never lost a baby due to birth problems, could quickly adapt to extreme hot or cold, could regenerate lost limbs, could see infrared and ultraviolet light, could see in extreme low light, had sonar for cases of total darkness, and was immune to all defenses like skunk musk or porcupine quills. This creature would eat everything in sight.

I believe you are describing my wife.

 

[Reilynn]

Quick quip

Jar Jar Binks was intelligently designed.

The best way I have for getting ID advocates to leave me alone (although I only use this at work when I am trying to get stuff done) is the state that they have a point. The creator was probably some sort of space alien in a flying saucer (any shape will do). After a few moments, when they realize this really is an identical argument to theirs, they flee and never mention the subject to me again. The Flying Spaghetti Monster works well too, but then you have other people coming back to hear more about him because he is so darn entertaining.

 

[Shrike]

Do you or do you not believe your car was 'intelligently designed'? Yet we have recalls...imperfections.

Not so much a bad argument, more a bad example.
A car is relatively well-designed, in some cases even good.
But then it's manufactured. Down to a price, sometimes changed in small ways for ease of production, not with the optimum materials for the end-product, etc.
And then you get recalls.
Then, you have owners mistreating it, not adhering to the manufacturers guidelines with regard to use and maintenance, etc.
And then you get breakdowns etc.
[/derail]

 

[T'ai Chi]

Moi? I'm not omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, nor any of the other things the intelligent designer is supposed to be.

That is one option.

The other option is that a designer is not god(s) but other life forms, aliens. So in that respect, if aliens could be designers, you certainly could be to. So why not give it your best shot and see if you can do better?

 

[T'ai Chi]

You can do this by gathering direct evidence to that effect or by showing mathematically that naturalistic evolution cannot produce life as we know it.

You haven't shown that naturalistic evolution can produce life. Something from nothing? Life from only chemicals? You believe naturalistic evolution has shown that?

In this case, evolution is doing the work one way or the other, so stop arguing with evolution.

Theistic evolution, deism, and others, have no problems with this.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You haven't shown that naturalistic evolution can produce life. Something from nothing? Life from only chemicals? You believe naturalistic evolution has shown that?

The theory of abiogenesis is a bit like the grand unification theory. It's a difficult problem that has not yet been cracked. Are you suggesting that the biochemists who are currently working on this area of research should stop looking for an answer because you've already provided it for them? Do you claim, right now, that a natural theory of the origin of biochemistry from simple organic molecules will never be found?

Theistic evolution...

Is that what you call intelligent design?


For all the other readers: I know Justin will not respond to this post. He's either got me on 'ignore' or is pretending he's got me on 'ignore'. I just want everyone else to see just what it is he refuses to (is afraid to?) engage.

 

[Loss Leader]

Is that what you call intelligent design?

From a purely semantic viewpoint, "theistic evolution" sounds like a step down from ID. It sounds like the hand of God to get us over the abiogenesis problem and then a free-running system after that.

I don't know if that's what he meant, though. And I don't know if that would really satisfy many ID people. After all, why would God start the process if he didn't have some sort of plan in mind? And why would he allow catastrophic events like "snowball earth" and the dinosaur extinction event (which does not have a cool enough name) after having started life on its way?

 

[Cuddles]

That is one option.

The other option is that a designer is not god(s) but other life forms, aliens. So in that respect, if aliens could be designers, you certainly could be to. So why not give it your best shot and see if you can do better?

And the aliens were created by...

 

[Mashuna]

And the aliens were created by...

Alien Turtles.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You haven't shown that naturalistic evolution can produce life. Something from nothing? Life from only chemicals? You believe naturalistic evolution has shown that?

It doesn't matter that I haven't shown it. If the IDer wants to refute it definitively, he has to show that it is mathematically impossible. If all he wants to say is "I'm not convinced yet," that's fine. I have no argument with that.

What do you mean "something from nothing"? It's not from nothing, it's from chemicals, mutations, selection, and all the other aspects of evolution. The word "nothing" should be in scare quotes.

~~ Paul

 

[fishbob]

And the arguments "against" ID don't rule out a creator and then evolution taking place. So they're really not arguments against it.

Define ID.
It does not count if you refer to evolution in any way as part of your definition. (Most of the definitions I have heard boil down to something like 'I don't believe in evolution'. This is not useful.)

Once you have your definition, try to find any bit of evidence that supports your version of ID, but excludes evolution.

Betcha can't do it. And that is a great argument against ID.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The other option is that a designer is not god(s) but other life forms, aliens. So in that respect, if aliens could be designers, you certainly could be to. So why not give it your best shot and see if you can do better?

Then who designed the aliens? Who designed the designer of the aliens? The answer that aliens designed us answers nothing.

 

[Mr. Scott]

We can close our eyes to shut out bright light. We can stop breathing momentarily to avoid bad odors or poisons. We can close our mouths to keep from eating bad food. Why then can't we close our ears when exposed to loud noises?

From http://www.suite101.com/:

Tensor tympani [muscle] is attached to the upper part of the malleus and pulls the tympanic membrane inward by contracting. It renders the tympanic membrane more tense. Contraction of the Tensor tympani reduces the effectiveness of sound transmission, and thus protects the inner ear from loud sounds.

Godidit

 

[Mojo]

Alien Turtles.

All the way down!

 

[Cuddles]

All the way down!

That's what I was going to say. Have you considered applying for the million?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Then who designed the aliens? Who designed the designer of the aliens? The answer that aliens designed us answers nothing.

What banged the big bang? What banged the banger of the big bangs? Naturalistic turtles all the way down? The answer that there must have been a naturalistic reason explains nothing.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Define ID.
It does not count if you refer to evolution in any way as part of your definition.

Let's me get this straight, you're basically baffled by the definition of "design" and the definition of "intelligence" ?