INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs Non-intelligent/materialistic evolution

[bwinwright]

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.

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. Their claim of non-intelligence being responsible for natural selection is THE controversial point.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[fls]

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

 

[cyborg]

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.

I suppose I could challenge the forums members to find one stupid thing each of these people believed in. (And there are probably many and I can think of a few).

But then I doubt that would really make you grasp the idea that the idea itself is what one has to argue the merits of: that being intelligent is no guaruntee of being right.

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.

Are you?

 

[Jeff Corey]

...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...

You probably will ignore the facts, as usual, but Darwin was not "the world's most famous atheist.
http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html

 

[D'rok]

...
Intelligent design, the teleological argument for the existence of God, was believed and taught by folks like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero...

Just a guess, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you haven't read the works of these particular thinkers.

 

[Polgara]

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.....................

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.

Ah, insanity - it comes in all shapes and sizes. I try to stick with the old adage of "proof in the pudding".

I've traveled insanity or madness for a short while. It was merely me forcing some new realities upon myself. I had a grand maul of cognitive dissonance. I realized that BS was more prevalant that truth or factual based notions... I had to learn to accept the fact that no one 'really' knows how in the hell we got here, nor do they know why we are here - or, more pointedly, if there is a reason why we are here. Period. Although I lean towards certain theories and postulations as making the most sense, given what we do know as fact in the here and now.

Prove ID. I'll buy it if it can be at least reasonably proven.

P.S. Just because someone loses a debate, does not mean they are necessarily wrong. It could be that the losing party in a debate just happens to suck at debating. This inability to win a debate may result for a myriad of reasons, not just simply because the person's stance is wrong or inaccurate.

P.P.S. There are a myriad of reasons why people are on here. I am certain that each individual has more than one reason for being on here. I sometimes am seriously and earnestly here to learn things re: science. And, sometimes I am on here to debate for the sake of debate. The list goes on. You should consider why you are on here, what you need from this site, etc.

P.P.P.S. If you want to really go on a mind bend, read Howard Bloom. -evil grin

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

 

[MattC]

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

 

[Eskarina]

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.

I, for one, am looking forward to reading your analysis of the logical deficiencies in the theory of evolution.

 

[erlando]

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.

And you still haven't really read or listened to any of the overwhelming evidence against your position. IMO that says more about you than anything else.

And again: The watchmaker argument is a strawman. Please stop regurgitating it.

 

[westprog]

The Dawkins-Darwin belief that non-intelligence can produce highly complex systems simply defies logic.

It's particularly annoying when the religious belief that the universe as a whole appears to be a created object is mixed up with the pseudoscientific stuff about it being impssible for natural processes to create complex objects (rebutted above). It's a sleazy trick to try to make what's being argued unclear. Buckley was either deliberately mixing up two entirely different subjects, or he was too fuzzy-minded to appreciate the difference.

 

[paximperium]

Did you run away from your other threads? Still trying huh?

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.

Very simplistic but otherwise true.

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. Their claim of non-intelligence being responsible for natural selection is THE controversial point.

FALSE. Dawkins, Darwin and almost all BIOLOGISTS and scientists believe that evolution is due natural processes due to EVIDENCE.

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. 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.

Yes it is an assumption that nature led these events. We do know nature exist. Unlike you, scientists do not make things up.

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.

Are we suppose to believe you? We've already seen your bias and dishonesty. Post the link to this debate.

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.

Yawn...You love your wonderful logical fallacies don't you?
Hello Mr Dishonest:

Your examples are irrelevant. For starters, Voltaire was a deist who actually devoted his efforts to debunking teleological arguments for God. Others like Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, never went so far as to conflate their prime mover with an object of worship. It's worth noting that Pascal actually accused Descartes of being insincere in his faith, in that he was just using "God" to cheat his way out of his logical dilemma.

Besides, it's possible for philosophers to be wrong, or for their ideas to be questioned and challenged as time goes by. Do you think Plato's "Republic" is a good model for society to follow? Do you agree with what Aquinas said about how it was imperative for the Church to torture heretics?

I hope you realize that design is actually an evolutionary process. It uses existing materials or builds off of existing designs, involves a lot of trial and error, and inevitably results in a lot of failed prototypes until we find something that works. That sounds a lot like evolution to me. Additionally, designing and using tools is an evolved behavior; an adaptation that gave human ancestors a survival advantage.

Intelligent design is like Lamarckian evolution in that the only way it makes sense is if it piggybacks on the concepts of Darwinian evolution.

This was answered MULTIPLE times and you CHOOSE to ignore it.

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.

Hello Mr Dishonest. Do you truly believe that everyone has forgotten your 2 other dishonest threads?
WE HAVE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES:
Explain how and why complex systems require an intelligence?
Your continued cowardice and dishonest dodging of this question shows your weak and pathetic argument is nothing more than garbage.

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

Irrelevant. Evolution is scientifically sound and your argument is irrelevant and pathetic. What a disgusting human being you are. Truly disgusting.

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.

Irrelevant. Dawkins is one atheist. How is that relevant to your argument or the multiple different reasons for why others are atheist? Oh wait, you stereotype atheists...nevermind. Still waiting for you to actually post some reference to your claim.

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.

You being here hasn't helped. Thanks for the suck up until you launch your attack.

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.

Keep believing that if it makes you feel better. I have yet to meet a single atheist that became an atheist because of Darwin of Dawkins and most people are not so stupid as blindly follow a messiah or a book...oh wait nevermind.

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.

Now comes the back stab. Thanks for speaking for all here. Talk about arrogant.
Bwin: "You're all so smart, you must all believe like me but are just being coy. You all love me and don't think I'm a dishonest moron afterall!!! "

Seriously bwin. Why the hell are you posting this garbage?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Hello Mr Dishonest. Do you truly believe that everyone has forgotten your 2 other dishonest threads?
WE HAVE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES:
Explain how and why complex systems require an intelligence?
Your continued cowardice and dishonest dodging of this question shows your weak and pathetic argument is nothing more than garbage.

Now now, he's given us an answer already: Well respected philosophers from before Darwin said so, and watches aren't known to assemble themselves. Also, the notion that gas and dust could form galaxies by themselves is ridiculous.

 

[Btodd]

William F. Buckley disagreed with the Dawkins-Darwin argument. He actually makes sense.

If you're speaking of the debate I think you are, Kenneth Miller destroyed their whole team. William F. Buckley even remarked at how impressed he was with Ken Miller after the debate. I seem to recall Ken mentioning that Evolution explains the fossil record, and asking for Intelligent Design to explain it. I think we're all still waiting on an answer.

1. God couldn't get his designs right the first time, and had to keep trying?
2. God couldn't decide on what he wanted, so he kept wiping out species and starting over?
3. Over 99% of God's creation no longer exist. Evolution explains that; what does Intelligent Design have to say? 'God works in mysterious ways'?

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.

Strange, I don't remember it like that. I seem to remember Stephen Meyer relying on argument from incredulity, and not a shred of positive evidence for his claim. And I'm pretty sure that Michael Shermer goes by 'non-believer' or 'agnostic', specifically avoiding the atheist label. At any rate, debates don't settle scientific issues, research and evidence do....can you point me to any peer-reviewed papers Stephen Meyer has written that give positive evidence for Intelligent Design?

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.

Appeal to (dead) authorities. I don't believe in Evolution because Dawkins or Darwin did, I believe it because the evidence is overwhelming.

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.

If adhering to evidence is logical, it most certainly does not 'defy logic'. Your appeal to a 'hidden agenda' is merely another avoidance of producing evidence for what you believe. Since there is no evidence for ID, you turn to speculating on the psychology of others, which is a common 'You just hate God' type of argument that theists love to make. It doesn't move you one inch closer to supporting Intelligent Design.

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.

Wait, aren't you going to say that Darwin recanted on his death bed?

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.

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.

Get back to us with your positive evidence for ID. All of this mind-reading is old hat, and confirms that you are avoiding the evidence in favor of other, irrelevant appeals.

 

[Twiler]

Hey kids! Let's watch bwinwright present a viewpoint!

Emphasis of a perceived negative quality!

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.

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. Their claim of non-intelligence being responsible for natural selection is THE controversial point.

Statement of disbelief!

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. 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.

Unreliable anecdote!

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.

Invoking reverence!

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.

Non-sequitur!

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.

Invoking propaganda!

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.

Disarming compliment!

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.

Self-delusion!

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.

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.

How does bwinwright refute the arguments placed against him? By ignoring them! Isn't he clever?

No.

 

[hgc]

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.

Come on, you can do better than guess. Their reasons are well stated, ie., evidence observed and presented.

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

While I don't know why Darwin became an atheist, I can tell you that he did not blame a deity in which he didn't believe for the difficult medical situations and sufferings of many of his children. He blamed the fact that he had married his first cousin, and that many of his recent ancestors had done the same. He became a fierce advocate of ending this practice.

 

[Blackadder]

Thanks for the compliment. I feel much smarter now. After all I am one of those wackos who actually reads a book about quantum physics for fun. (In the hope that I understand a bit of it after rereading it twice.)

But you are right. We are smart. I came here on a random google link and stayed because within an hour I saw that many people here actually think about stuff. Ask questions. Answer questions. And are able to say: "Ok I was wrong. I see how the answer you all gave me leads to evidence X and my view of Y is not correct." I would suggest you do the same. I do. When I say something silly about economics, and people correct me, my view of economics changes. It might take a while, or maybe I need another source to be really convinced. Do it! Take a some time to sit back, think 'Why am I thinking this? ID? Why? What if I am wrong? Am I afraid to be wrong? Am I afraid of the unknown? Am I afraid for what is true in case I am wrong about ID? Why does Darwinism scare me? (in case it scares you) In case you are not afraid: " Did I really LOOK at all things they keep shouting at me? Why didn't I look at it?" If you did look: "Do I understand it?" (Evidence for evolution is so huge, it takes a long time to discover all of it, and nobody blames you if you don't have time to study it in detail. But in a day you should be able to consume enough material to really get the picture)

For me the evidence for evolution started as a child when I encountered basic things, creatures and plants in nature. As a teenager I began to read about it (But girls and money were more important) As an adult I began to understand it and discovered some real scientific evidence. But all those years (I am 32 now) I kept encountering bits and pieces that concinced me more and more. In daily life (garden, pets) , in news on tv, in the papers, on holiday. In history books. Human behaviour. My own body.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

Does it also make you wonder whether we are smarter than you?

Because that is the conclusion you should be reaching.

 

[Polgara]

Prove ID please, Mr. Bwinwright, rather than pontificating around in circles.

It doesn't matter why Darwin chose his paths and studies and considerations. What matters is if his works had/have credence, evidence.... It doesn't matter why any of these players chose their paths. It only matters if we have an interest in learning about things and possibilities. It only matters if their works have real foundation..

Let's get down to evidence. Let's get down to proving your ID beliefs, etc.

Go for it.

 

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:

1 - 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. . .

2 - 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. . . .

3 - 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. . . .

4 - 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. . .

1 - correction: Dr. Meyer is a proponentist of intelligent design. (Search "Dover Trial" for details).

2 - The not-really-hidden-at-all agenda is that ID is inconsistent with observation, logic, data, reason, and reality (aka 'Evidence').

3 - Belief has nothing to do with it.
Evidence does not support ID. Evidence does support non-intelligence.

4 - Just as it appears to be a thrill for you to play The Devil's Tunicate.
"Invasive species -
Over the past few years, urochordates (notably of the genera Didemnum and Styela) have been invading coastal waters in many countries, and are spreading quickly. These mat-like organisms can smother other sea life, have very few natural predators, and are causing much concern."