So, what is Intelligent Design?
- Thread starter Iacchus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- design intelligent
Let me have ago....Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
The base-energy of our existence progresses from its base....
"the base..... progresses from its base"
Oops, sorry, the translation....
We start with zero energy and build up energy
.....indeterminism.....
Hmmm.....maybe a reference to probabilistic nature of the quantum (micro)world.
.....towards the classical order and law seen within our perception.
"seen within our perception"
Okay, now we are in the macroscopic world ("seen within our perception") where classical physics holds sway.
No, actually I don't understand it either
BillyJoe
pupdog said:
ID only tries to develop methods to detect design. If a student asked the question above (of course the question would only even make sense if design was first detected on a grand scale), the teacher could respond that we do not know, and ID doesn't and can't tell you that.
T'ai Chi,
An arrowhead is used for a specific purpose and it is designed with that specific purpose in mind.
Evolution, on the other hand is blind as evidenced by such things as vestigial organs (eg appendix), faulty organs (eg the human eye), etc etc.
So it's a category error to make a connection between arrowheads, which were intelligently designed, and living things to make the conclusion that life was Intelligently Designed
BillyJoe
I possibly have the term wrong but.....T'ai Chi said:
An arrowhead is used for a specific purpose and it is designed with that specific purpose in mind.
Evolution, on the other hand is blind as evidenced by such things as vestigial organs (eg appendix), faulty organs (eg the human eye), etc etc.
So it's a category error to make a connection between arrowheads, which were intelligently designed, and living things to make the conclusion that life was Intelligently Designed
BillyJoe
And yet what is it about reality that doesn't require our own interpretation? How can you possibly tell someone that 1 + 1 = 2 ... if, they can't see it for themselves?Tricky said:
Afraid not. The parity check is, always was and, will always remain with the individual.
However, it still requires a human being to "interpret" the evidence.
As I had said before, the absolute truth is very much like the sun the sky, by which a whole myriad of truths -- in effect life on this planet -- can be derived. Yes, and each one has a unique relationship with, that "absolute truth."
Or, perhaps in your heart?
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.CV.htm
Yeah, what a slacker.
This is a little of the topic for the thread, and I apologize to all, but I was skimming through the website you linked to, Iacchus. I'm assuming you're Dennis Hamilton IRL. If so, something struck as I was reading, and forgive me if this is totally off base. As I said, I haven't had a chance to read the material thoroughly, but I read enough to get certain impressions. Are you simply drawing a parallel to your life and that of Christ or Dionysus, or do you actually think you are the second coming?Iacchus said:
If it's the former, I applaud your imagination. If it's the latter, you have other issues than debating ID with us with which to contend.
Please. I mean no offense by this, and I've been known to be thick about things before, but could you address briefly what you're getting at with the website?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
All right, I'm going to try to make this simple for you. Some things can be shown to be fact empirically by repeated tests. For example, you release a stone from your hand and it falls. Every time. You can repeat this experiment as often as you like and it always works. Thus, you can say that gravity is a truth. Add one object to another object and you get two objects. That works. Every time.Iacchus said:
Now we step up the pace a bit. Examine an organism to see if it contains DNA. It does every time. We know what DNA is and how to extract it. We even know how to analyze it with consistant results.
Now try to examine an organism to see if it contains evidence of a designer. You cannot. You have no idea what fingerprints a creator would leave or how to test for them. You simply cannot devise such a test. All of the "evidence" is your interpretation because there is no data.
Exactly. Nothing can be tested because each individual is a different case. The "truths" that you find "in your heart" are not truths, at least in the sense of being factual. They are, essentially, beliefs, which are based on your emotions, not data. If they really were "truths" then, like gravity, they would be true for everybody.Iacchus said:
It does not. It merely needs to work as you have predicted it would work. This is why the Randi Million Dollar Challenge is specifically set up to have experiments which require no judging. If a dowser can consistantly locate hidden objects, then he wins. You don't have to "interpret" whether of not he found the object.Iacchus said:
What normally happens, though, is that a paranormal believe will ignore the results of the tests and start interpreting reasons for failure. This is not scientific. Anything that requires all interpretation and no data is not scientific. That is why ID is not scientific.
That implies that some truths are more "true" than other. I object to the use of the word "truth" to refer to something that is only opinion. I have often heard people say "it's true for me," thinking that this phrase somehow imparts veracity to their claims. But a person could claim absolutely anything followed by the phrase "it's true for me". To borrow from my childhood lingo, "your sayin' so don't make it so."Iacchus said:
Nice poetry, but of course not factual. Believe me, I love poetry and I completely understand the heart=feeling brain=thinking metaphors. In poetry, it is wonderful device. In the real world, the heart is not the seat of emotions. Interestingly, I have heard that many of the Greeks thought that the liver was the repository of emotion. Go figure.Iacchus said:
from T'ai Chi:
Is it a coincidence that IDers are evangelical christians? Behe and Dembski may not be a literalist as other Creationists (such as the Chalcedon group (intent on establishing a theocracy in America), but their arguments have been refuted many times. Phillip Johnson, one of the leaders of the "Wedge Strategy" wrote "Truth (with a capital T) is truth as God knows it. When God is no longer in the picture there can be no Truth, only conflicting human opinions." Johnson and others of his ilk believe that there is some sort of grand conspiracy amongst scientists whose purpose is not to advance knowledge, but to refute Christianity.
For further discussion of this disingenuous aspect of Creationist "scientists", I refer readers to chapter 8 of Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel."
...said with that wink and a nod.
Is it a coincidence that IDers are evangelical christians? Behe and Dembski may not be a literalist as other Creationists (such as the Chalcedon group (intent on establishing a theocracy in America), but their arguments have been refuted many times. Phillip Johnson, one of the leaders of the "Wedge Strategy" wrote "Truth (with a capital T) is truth as God knows it. When God is no longer in the picture there can be no Truth, only conflicting human opinions." Johnson and others of his ilk believe that there is some sort of grand conspiracy amongst scientists whose purpose is not to advance knowledge, but to refute Christianity.
For further discussion of this disingenuous aspect of Creationist "scientists", I refer readers to chapter 8 of Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel."
pupdog said:
Nope, I typed with no wink and no nod, despite your beliefs otherwise.
Some are, some aren't. A counterexample is ID proponent (I believe I read that in one of his books) that comes to mind is Huston Smith. He is not an evangelical Christian.
From the ReligiousTolerance site, they list the following belief types that wouldn't contradict what ID stands for:
"A monotheist (e.g. a Jew or Muslim who believes in one God)._
A duotheist (e.g. a Wiccan or Zoroastrian who believes in two deities)._
A trinitarian (e.g. a Christian who believes in three divine personality within the unity of a single godhead).
A polytheist (e.g. a Hindu who believes in many Gods and Goddesses)._
A Deist who believes that God created the universe, set it in motion, left, and has not been seen since.
An Atheist, Agnostic or Humanist who holds open the possibility of a very advanced species of intelligent beings existing in the universe._"
I do believe that since ID is belief friendly, sure, there are bound to be more religious people supporting it, much like there are bound to be more atheists in the skeptical movement.
Do I think I'm Dionysus or Jesus Christ? No. However, do I think what I've written is a parallel and hence "represents" the second coming? Quite possibly.Phil said:
Of course there's another quirk in the whole matter here. For why am I speaking about Dionysus and not Jesus? And indeed the Book of Revelation has already been fulfilled and, the Last Judgment was performed in the year 1757 in the Spiritual World. For a more complete account please refer to Chapter 1 of my book ...
http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html
KelvinG
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2001
- Messages
- 2,387
T'ai Chi said:
A long, possibly impressive resume does not disqualify someone from being an idiot.
But, to be more diplomatic, it might be better to say Dembski's work is idiotic.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Ooh, a curriculum vitae.
Dembski claims that the flagellum has "specified complexity" because the probability of it being created by the action of all natural causes is less than the probability bound. First of all, we cannot enumerate all possible natural causes, only known natural causes. But, more absurdly, he treats the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object. How does he compute the probability of its formation? By considering the chance gathering of a bunch of proteins in one place, then their chance assembly into a flagellum. That's ridiculous, since that's obviously not how it happened. Where did the genome go?
So (1) his definition of specified complexity is faulty; and (2) then he doesn't even consider all known natural causes, but merely one cause: pure chance.
So, as usual with Creationists, it's god vs. pure chance.
~~ Paul
Rather than asking whether there is evidence for intelligent design, it seems to me that the question really is whether there is evidence for intentional design.
One possible argument might then be that, yes God designed all creatures, and the reason some have features which must really be considered design flaws is that He just isn't all that smart.
One possible argument might then be that, yes God designed all creatures, and the reason some have features which must really be considered design flaws is that He just isn't all that smart.
No, it still requires a human being to run the tests and "validate" the results.Tricky said:
And if there were no sun, would there be DNA?
It always has and always will be "my" interpretion. Just like 1 + 1 = 2. It will always be what my "mind" interprets it to be.
The truth exists in everything, although "relative" from one thing to the next. However, the one true constant we have is the sun. Now, can you see a possible correlation -- and hence "inherent design" -- to a Creator here?
Do you know what would be ironic? Is if I could teach everyone on this board how to see The Truth for themselves. And we could all tell James Randi to go take a hike! And we could say, Sorry Randi, the truth is self evident and you'll have to see it for yourself. Now that would be a blast!
How about all the remote viewing experiments conducted by the CIA? As I understand much of that was successful and, repeatable. Not unless the Nova program that I saw was entirely wrong?
As I said the truth exists in everything. However, as I already said, there comes a time when you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hmm ... And that time may be arriving shortly.
This is all debatable. While I'm afraid I have to stick with my own experience on this one.
And quoted from my post above ...Dymanic said:
Iacchus said:
As I said the truth exists in everything. However, as I already said, there comes a time when you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hmm ... And that time may be arriving shortly.
Max560
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Messages
- 256
Iacchus said:I've been around long enough to know how to make up my own mind on the matter, Thanks!
As matter-of-fact this has pretty much been my postition from the getgo.
Well, good for you then.
So let me asky you this, Do you believe that God exists? ... Obviously you don't.
I have seen no evidence that would lead me to the conclusion that God exists. I have seen evidence that other people believe that God exists, but that's about it. Produce this God for me, and I will chat with him and draw my own conclusions.
Naturally, people are resistant to change, and I don't care what side of the fence you're sitting on, be it science or religion.
People do seem to resist change. The only problem is that some people resist it through the use of torture, murder, inquisitions, shunning, etc. In fact, you can still see this sort of thing go on wherever there is no separation of church and state. So, it actually does matter what side of the fence you are on.
And yet you can't just throw out a whole body of knowledge just because of an emerging trend which, is what science was at the time.
Of course you can. If by "throw out" you mean no longer rely on disproven theories, we do that all the time. As far as trying to eliminate old therories, there is actual value in studying them, and trying to understand why people held them to be true. This has the effect of causing us to think about why we believe what we currently believe, and also prepares us to be receptive to new ideas.
Ever hear the expression, "The pendulum swings in the opposite direction?" Be careful what you say, you may wind up eating your own words.
I will never have to worry about evidence making me eat my words. Any credible theory that has emperical evidence to back it up is to be embraced. The only "pendulum" I need to fear is the kind where religious fanatics try to reinstate another Dark Age, where they get to sanction what is true or not, and get to decide what evidence is. So as long as the yahoos are kept at bay, I don't think I will looking out for the pendulum to swing back. Besides, even if it did swing back, the nature of reality would still be independent of any kooky world view imposed by any would be future taliban.
Your mistake is that you've lumped me in the same category with everybody else.
I have made no mistake. I don't actually care what category you are in. I was just trying to answer the question you posed.
Yeah, that would be the easy way out now wouldn't it?
Yes, it would. That's why it's so popular.
And what's to keep me from thrusting the door wide open then? A "non-truth?" Exposure to such truths can be very dangerous, especially when you're not ready for it.
I have no idea what you are actually trying to say here. It sounds like some kind of warning. I will try to duck and cover in the event of a real emergency.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
If the sun is a true constant, then we have millions of true constants. The Earth, the stars, grass, Johnny Carson, even pi. Perhaps the Creator is Johnny Carson eating a piece of pi.
~~ Paul