INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs Non-intelligent/materialistic evolution

[bwinwright]

:D 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]

:D 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.

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/snowflake.jpg

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?

:D 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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4073693#post4073693) 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? :p

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."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunicate)

[Polgara]

P.S. What's with the hidden agenda hs? Most people on JFEF have no agenda other than learning, teaching, sharing, considering, debate and moments of humor, be they funny, dry or otherwise. Keywords: most people.

Again, as in the other thread, I suggest you read Pixie of Key posts. Pixie had a hidden agenda. One that eventually revealed itself.

Define what you perceive as someone's hidden agenda, on this thread. What is this alleged hidden agenda?

[Safe-Keeper]

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 moreYes, yes, yesss... :raises hands in anticipation:

some hidden agenda perhaps....nooooh..

Damn. Soooo close. Correct answer would've been
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, perhaps mountains of evidence that can't be refuted even though whoever shoots it down and estabilishes a new theory would win the Nobel price.

Oh, and while it's slightly aged, and some parts need further explanation if you're new to the field, this documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6413987104216231786&ei=o93fSPfMOImwiALiwM2ZCw&q=the+blind+watchmaker) does a good job at explaining Evolution to laymen (read: bwinwright:p).
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6413987104216231786&ei=o93fSPfMOImwiALiwM2ZCw&q=the+blind+watchmaker)

[Foster Zygote]

:D 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.
Correct.

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.
It is not an assumption. It is based on observed evidence. At no point is it necessary to postulate any guiding intelligence to explain the evolution of life. Postulating the manipulations of a guiding intelligence, for which there is no evidence, is the assumption.

Their claim of non-intelligence being responsible for natural selection is THE controversial point.
Do you know what "natural" means? Natural selection is the result of natural processes such as physics, chemistry, thermodynamics etc. The "controversy" is entirely one sided, as is the "controversy" between science and young-Earth creationists, or engineers and Lunar landing hoax conspiracy theorists.

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.
Why just Dawklins and Darwin? It's more than that, it's virtually the whole of science. At any rate, they didn't want to attribute complexity to non-intelligent sources, they simply followed the evidence where it lead. And the evidence lead to natural processes being able to add complexity through a combination of random mutations and environmental selection.

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.
What were Buckley's qualifications in the field of biology?

According to whom did Dr. Meyer "devastate" Dr. Shermer?

Shermer does not, last I read, identify himself as 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.
Blatant appeal to authority. Those men also believed things that have proved to be wrong over the intervening centuries. They did not have the information that we have today so their opinions are hardly relevant to modern science. What about all the pretty bright people who today accept the theory of evolution by natural selection?

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.
You have yet to define this "logic". Many things that science has revealed about the universe have seemed to defy "logic".

The idea that the Earth is a sphere and not flat seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that time is not a universal constant seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that the universe is expanding seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that continents can drift many thousands of miles seemed counter-intuitive.

The idea that complexity derives from simplicity and not from greater complexity seemed counter-intuitive.

Apparently Darwin lost a loved one and became angry at God, and like a small child, wanted to hurt God by denying him.
Ah yes, the Touched by an Angel logical fallacy.

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.
Is this melodrama all you have to offer in place of actual evidence to support your position?

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.
Hmmm... You're saying that you can't understand why smart people don't agree with you. Could it be that you are mistaken? And where is your "intelligence claim"? You keep saying that you have evidence to support your case, but you have yet to reveal it.

And again, it's far, far more than just Darwin and Dawkins that you're up against.

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.
I'm sorry to shatter your comforting rationalization, but the people who are disputing your arguments accept evolution by natural selection as much as they accept electromagnetism, gravity, thermodynamics and chemistry.

[Loss Leader]

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.


Is your personal incredulity really all that you've got?

[plumjam]

Is your personal incredulity really all that you've got?

You´d find that hard to believe? ;)

[Silentknight]

:D 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... (snip)
Come on, just one smiley for emphasis this time? I think we deserve at least three.

Also, you didn't really answer my question last time around. If we were to assume for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution is 100% false, what's your point?

I have a new question for you as well. If intelligent design is science, then what is the proposed mechanism for the process, where has it ever been observed, and how can we experimentally test for it?







Oh, I have a proposal. Let's get a giant dart gun and tranq God in the ass, so we can haul him back to the lab for study. That ought to answer all our questions once and for all.

[schlitt]

For a physical interaction to occur, it must be possible. I.e. Not violate physical law.

For something to continue existence as a system it must be capable of withstanding physical laws that would otherwise destroy the system. (Interactions with all other manner of law and physical systems)

If an interaction of physical matter occurs and forms a system which will be destroyed by another interaction under natural law, it will not survive as a system. (It is useful to think of this on an atomic scale.)

If interaction of matter forms a system which is able to operate without major degradation when encountering other common interactions with matter it may encounter, it will continue to exist. (For a period of time which the system can continue to withstand or even thrive with other physical interactions)

Simply:

1.) Things must first be possible.
2.) Things must be equipped to survive if they are to continue existence.

If you apply this to every interaction from the beginning of time, all you require is natural law to get perceived order.

Systems of matter which are both possible, and well equipped to compete and coexist with other systems will continue existence until they are destroyed by an interaction which it is not equipped to be able to coexist with.

Clearly this leads to the things which are best equipped continuing. Interactions building new, or modifying existing systems can continue to occur, and because of these two rules, over a period of time they will become more and more equipped to survive. (Trillions of bad systems die out)

After 13.7 billion years of this occurring, you, as a result of one of these systems of matter are going to see things which appear to be ordered. They appear to be following a balanced order because they have to be, or else they simply would not exist, and would not have been able to exist in the first place.

[Brian-M]

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


Call me stupid if you want, but I don't understand how the idea that natural selection is the result of non-intelligent processes could possibly be controversial.

Could you explain the concept of intelligent natural selection for me using an example, such as the running speed of Gazelles?

The non-intelligent theory is that Gazelles with mutations that adversely affect their running speed are more likely to be eaten by lions, removing these harmful mutations from the gene pool, while Gazelles with mutations that improve their running speed are less likely to be eaten by lions, allowing these beneficial genes to be preserved and duplicated.

In what way does your understanding of the process in this example differ from ours?

[six7s]

:D Richard Dawkins believes, as did Darwin, that natural selection is No

Please resist the temptation to perpetuate the myth that its a belief system at work... its an understanding founded on observation-based hypothesis formulation and testing, with results that repeatedly and consistently show - to anyone with the prerequisite comprehension skills - that the current model (of reality) is the best to date. If/when a better model is found, the current model will be set aside. Can you at least comprehend that there is a difference between beliefs and understanding?

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.No, not must. Try to mutate and adapt to various environments, "must" be<insert> is - according to repeated studies - </insert>the product of

Why Darwin and Dawkins want to attribute such complexity to non-intelligent sources, I can only guess, Again, no.

You do have an alternative; you could study the subject for yourself, rather than rehashing mind-numbingly stupid woo

[SezMe]

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.
To me your OP is not a defense of ID but a long ramble to get to this point - namely that JREFers have a hidden agenda or are just playing Devil's Advocate.

Since you seem to specialize in guesses and unsupported claims, I'd be quite interested in having you speculate on what our hidden agenda might be? Any thoughts?

And while musing on that topic, pursue it further. How is it that our agenda is so well hidden? How is the secrecy enforced? What happens to someone who lets the cat out of the bag?

Finally, you went through the same sign-up procedures as all of the rest of us. How did we know to keep you out of the Hidden Agenda Club? Who else would you speculate got the heave-ho? Do you think I am an insider because I can assure you nobody taught me the secret handshake.

[westprog]

To me your OP is not a defense of ID but a long ramble to get to this point - namely that JREFers have a hidden agenda or are just playing Devil's Advocate.

Since you seem to specialize in guesses and unsupported claims, I'd be quite interested in having you speculate on what our hidden agenda might be? Any thoughts?

And while musing on that topic, pursue it further. How is it that our agenda is so well hidden? How is the secrecy enforced? What happens to someone who lets the cat out of the bag?

Finally, you went through the same sign-up procedures as all of the rest of us. How did we know to keep you out of the Hidden Agenda Club? Who else would you speculate got the heave-ho? Do you think I am an insider because I can assure you nobody taught me the secret handshake.

I think that the Hidden Agenda is quite obvious. A bunch of self-proclaimed athiests know that God is real, but they are dooming themselves to eternal damnation for... no, it doesn't quite work like that, does it?

My own Hidden Agenda is promoting dualism. I better find out what it is so I can do it properly.

[bwinwright]

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

:cool:Jeff Corey, I guess you are so anxious to tell me how wrong I am that you have a difficult time reading. Read it again...I said DAWKINS!!!

You can help yourself by checking out MASARU EMOTO.

[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.

:cool:I don't know how to prove, scientifically, that intelligence was responsible for natural selection, evolution, etc. However, philosophy is always ahead of science. Common sense or logic seems to be all that's necessary for someone without a political agenda.

Remember Einstein? He devoted the last 30 years of his life trying to prove, scientifically, that everything is connected in his UNIFIED FIELD theory. He never could actually prove it but he probably had FAITH that it was so, right? This faith being a reflection of his philosophy.

[Crundy]

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

Actually, this was only a part of his loss of faith. As Darwin uncovered more and more species that performed horrific ungodlike acts to ensure their species survival, he denied that a god would have conciously designed something like that. Take for example particular species of wasps, who sting other animals (such as giant tarantulas) to paralyse them (but keep them alive), drag them back to their nest, and lay eggs inside of them. Thus the prey is slowen eaten alive from the inside out while being concious but unable to react. Why would your god design something like that? Was he on crack? Bad day at the office?

[ImaginalDisc]

:cool:I don't know how to prove, scientifically, that intelligence was responsible for natural selection, evolution, etc. However, philosophy is always ahead of science. Common sense or logic seems to be all that's necessary for someone without a political agenda.

Remember Einstein? He devoted the last 30 years of his life trying to prove, scientifically, that everything is connected in his UNIFIED FIELD theory. He never could actually prove it but he probably had FAITH that it was so, right? This faith being a reflection of his philosophy.

One at a time: Common sense is not enough to determine what is true and what is not. Time and again the universe has stunned us by operating differently than we had imagined. No idea, however elegant, can stand up in the face of contradictory evidence. No one understood this more than Kepler, the astronomer who was thoroughly convinced that the planets in their celestial spheres were supported by invisible platonic solids. However, his unflinching examination of the data over a lifetime lead him not only to reject his geometrically perfect idea, but also devise the rules of planetary motion which apply to all orbiting bodies. Common sense tells us that rocks are solid, but we now understand that they are made of atoms which are almost entirely empty.

Einstein's dedication to a unified field theory was not an outgrowth of faith, but one of confidence. He was confident in his achievements, and in the achievements of others and he suspected that there was some way to unify physics. That may indeed be possible, but his confidence was borne out of the evidence, not in spite of it. His work in this area was thrown against the piles of evidence and never remained intact. For any idea to be taken seriously it must theoretically be very easy to break. It can only withstand scrutiny if it is actually true. The groundless belief that some god made everything can never be disproven, only made an unnecessary embellishment to what we have learned. God is not required to explain anything.

[bwinwright]

No

Please resist the temptation to perpetuate the myth that its a belief system at work... its an understanding founded on observation-based hypothesis formulation and testing, with results that repeatedly and consistently show - to anyone with the prerequisite comprehension skills - that the current model (of reality) is the best to date. If/when a better model is found, the current model will be set aside. Can you at least comprehend that there is a difference between beliefs and understanding?

No, not must. Try to mutate and adapt to various environments, "must" be<insert> is - according to repeated studies - </insert>the product of

Again, no.

You do have an alternative; you could study the subject for yourself, rather than rehashing mind-numbingly stupid woo

:)Philosophy is always ahead of science, right? People have ideas first, then prove them scientifically, right? Einstein and his Unified Field? He devoted the last 30 years of his life to proving this theory, but never could make it happen. He "believed" it, just couldn't prove it.

That's the way I feel about Intelligent Design. In my view, this explanation for natural selection is more plausible than the Darwin-Dawkins view that this evolutionary process didn't require any intelligent direction. This view seems to defy common sense.

It's a lot like WTC Building Number 7. After watching the video of this building collapse, it simply defies common sense to believe this building was not a controlled demolition. Yet, on this JREF forum the popular belief is that WTC Building Number 7 was not a controlled demolition. This truly amazes me.

[Mashuna]

That's the way I feel about Intelligent Design. In my view, this explanation for natural selection is more plausible than the Darwin-Dawkins view that this evolutionary process didn't require any intelligent direction. This view seems to defy common sense.

It's a lot like WTC Building Number 7. After watching the video of this building collapse, it simply defies common sense to believe this building was not a controlled demolition. Yet, on this JREF forum the popular belief is that WTC Building Number 7 was not a controlled demolition. This truly amazes me.

You have a very special type of common sense, it would seem.

[ImaginalDisc]

That's the way I feel about Intelligent Design. In my view, this explanation for natural selection is more plausible than the Darwin-Dawkins view that this evolutionary process didn't require any intelligent direction. This view seems to defy common sense.

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.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

[alex04]

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8098/miraclepy9.jpg

[SimonD]

Is it time for cats yet?

[Twiler]

I suspect that I was, in fact, born without common sense. This would explain the incredularity which my actions sometimes provoke.

Reading rubbish like this only makes me feel like I'm better off without it.

[Safe-Keeper]

It's a lot like the shape of the Earth. After watching countless flat landscapes, even from mountaintops, it simply defies common sense to believe this planet is round. Yet, on this JREF forum the popular belief is that the Earth is not flat. This truly amazes me.Your logic is flawed.

'Research by Common Sense' was a popular philosophy back in the day, but they eventually realized that all the logic in the world couldn't help you to a solution if you didn't also have facts. Hence today's method of "Research by Research", if you will.

Sure, it may baffle us at first that the Earth is round, that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition (note that on this one, I don't speak for myself), or that a ship floats even though it's heavier than water. So do some research, get into the facts, and then reevaluate your stance.

If we were to reject every idea that seems incredulous at first glance, as you do with evolution, we'd never have had airplanes or rocket ships.

[westprog]

That's the way I feel about Intelligent Design.

It's a lot like WTC Building Number 7.


Exactly like, I'd say.

[bwinwright]

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

:)I like the way you think. I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction. If you don't believe that order requires intelligent direction, you and I will always disagree about this particular matter.

[bwinwright]

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/snowflake.jpg

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.

:cool:Westprog, I like your beautiful little perfect looking water crystal or whatever it is.

Check out MASARU EMOTO. His research reveals the effects various emotions like love, hate, etc. have on water. The picture you have posted here appears to be water imbued with the emotion of love, peace, joy, or something in harmony with the emotional frequency of Mother Nature.

Apparently, beauty and order are the product of MIND, in everything, including NATURE. Emoto subjects water to various forms of emotion, then freezes the water, and examines the resulting ice crystals.

The crystals formed from hateful emotions are not symmetrical, but twisted and distorted looking. Since our bodies are approximately 70% water, we might want to think and feel more lovingly, joyfully, peacefully for prettier and healthier bodies, right?

Personally, I believe everything is intelligent because of things like this.

[Mashuna]

I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction. If you don't believe that order requires intelligent direction, you and I will always disagree about this particular matter.

So as long as people start by agreeing that ID is true, you can prove that ID is true.

[westprog]

:cool:Westprog, I like your beautiful little perfect looking water crystal or whatever it is.

Check out MASARU EMOTO. His research reveals the effects various emotions like love, hate, etc. have on water. The picture you have posted here appears to be water imbued with the emotion of love, peace, joy, or something in harmony with the emotional frequency of Mother Nature.

Apparently, beauty and order are the product of MIND, in everything, including NATURE. Emoto subjects water to various forms of emotion, then freezes the water, and examines the resulting ice crystals.

The crystals formed from hateful emotions are not symmetrical, but twisted and distorted looking. Since our bodies are approximately 70% water, we might want to think and feel more lovingly, joyfully, peacefully for prettier and healthier bodies, right?

Personally, I believe everything is intelligent because of things like this.


That was a picture of a snowflake - something that is complex, and is formed by entirely natural processes. The trillions of perfect, beautiful and complex structures that have been formed since the Earth was created show that intelligence is not required. It's certainly not necessary to have an emotional context for crystals to grow. They organise themselves. That physical processes use energy to create order in the universe is indeed how intelligence arises.

[Crundy]

:cool:Westprog, I like your beautiful little perfect looking water crystal or whatever it is.

Check out MASARU EMOTO. His research reveals the effects various emotions like love, hate, etc. have on water. The picture you have posted here appears to be water imbued with the emotion of love, peace, joy, or something in harmony with the emotional frequency of Mother Nature.

Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls,[3] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. [4] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings. [5]

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.[6] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,[7] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.[8]

Sounds great. Any other unproven, badly designed experiments you want to use to backup your already weak argument?

[Polgara]

So as long as people start by agreeing that ID is true, you can prove that ID is true.

You noticed that, did you? :eye-poppi

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
-- Albert Einstein

[slingblade]

Check out MASARU EMOTO.

You've watched that movie, haven't you?

You not only watched it, you probably sat hunched over, close to the screen, mouth agape, and sucked up every moment of it eagerly...even the many moments where you had no idea what they were talking (or signing) about.

His research reveals the effects various emotions like love, hate, etc. have on water.

No. He says that's what it reveals, and you believe him. You believe him because you want to, oh so much, and you don't care that his methods are hidden, his results cherry-picked and unreplicable by anyone else.

The picture you have posted here appears to be water imbued with the emotion of love, peace, joy, or something in harmony with the emotional frequency of Mother Nature.

No. It represents the mechanism of crystalline growth structure, found in ice and in minerals. This structure is not affected by emotion.

Apparently, beauty and order are the product of MIND, in everything, including NATURE. Emoto subjects water to various forms of emotion, then freezes the water, and examines the resulting ice crystals.

He then discards every one that does not represent what he wants it to, and never reports the failures, which are the majority. He never blinds his studies, doesn't follow any respected scientific method, and relies on confirmation bias and the gullibility of his audience, of which you are an eager and willing member.

It's too bad you don't know enough to be embarassed over it. Because you really ought to be.

The crystals formed from hateful emotions are not symmetrical, but twisted and distorted looking. Since our bodies are approximately 70% water, we might want to think and feel more lovingly, joyfully, peacefully for prettier and healthier bodies, right?

Heh. No.

It has been proven, many times and with good science, that our moods can affect our health. But it's not because our cellular mass contains water.

Personally, I believe everything is intelligent because of things like this.

Which is why I have no respect for your arguments. You'll believe anything, won't you, as long as it makes you feel good?

Link: (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/your_friday_dose_of_woo_h2ooooooommmm.php)

The third example was the work of Masura Emoto, who tapes words to bottles of water. The water is chilled and forms into crystals descriptive of the words used. For example, if the word "love" is taped to a bottle, beautiful crystals form; if the words "you make me sick" are used, ugly images appear.

What the film makers didn't say is that Emoto knows the word used, and looks for a crystal that matches that word (biased data selection). To demonstrate a real effect, Emoto would need to be blind to the word used.

James Randi has said that if Emoto could perform this experiment double-blinded, it would qualify for the million dollar prize. (He has never applied.) Such a protocol would show there is no correlation between the words taped to a bottle and the crystals formed within. These experiments have not been performed to a scientific protocol and have never been independently replicated.

Funny how only Emoto can make water do what Emoto says it will do.

And if you look very closely at the water crystal image Westprog provided, as I have, you will see numerous flaws in it. It isn't perfect; it isn't even symmetrical.

Characteristically, you're seeing only what you want to see, not what's actually there.


Here's another site, which explains how snowflakes (and crystalline structures in general) form. I'm betting you won't read it. It takes all the "god magic" out of it, but the process is still amazing. More amazing, in that it doesn't need a mind to occur.

...the vast majority (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm) of snow crystals are not very symmetrical. Don't be fooled by the pictures -- irregular crystals (see the Guide to Snowflakes) are by far the most common type. If you don't believe me, just take a look for yourself next time it snows. Near-perfect, symmetrical snow crystals are fun to look at, but they are not common.

In sum:

WrjwaqZfjIY

[Beerina]

Technically you can treat ID and evolution as separate theories.

And ID isn't in some privileged position. It doesn't get to say, "See? Evolution is wrong, therefore ID is right."

ID must, itself, prove its own self.

And ID does not do that in any way whatsoever.


ID's predictions, as far as I can tell:

1. At least one intelligent designer must have existed

As far as I can see, we see no evidence of such a creature, anywhere, aside from claims of irreducible complexity.

2. Irreducible complexity

There must be some structures in biology that are:

A. Sufficiently complex that it's exceedingly unlikely they could evolve given the "size" of steps that evolution occurs in.

B. Have no other structures evident elsewhere in biology from which they might have evolved.


Evolution predicts that no such B exists.


Actual lists of such things, as claimed by ID proponents, are always provisional, because biologists do, indeed, discover paths of possible evolution. For example, the rotating bacterial flagellum. A simpler, non-rotating poison injector was discovered. Suddenly a reasonable path is discovered. And so it goes for things on this "ID list". Over and over, one after another, they are shot down as irreducibly complex. It seems unreasonable to think this will be altered in the future. In any case, it's poor science on ID's part since, if nothing else, they place too much of the weight of their argument on what is, at best, a highly faulty and provisional list.

In other words, since their supposedly iron-clad list has elements shot down on a regular basis, they have no reason to believe anything on the list is immune to explanation, and thus it's statistically invalid to place much weight on the list as evidence for ID.

[rocketdodger]

Personally, I believe everything is intelligent because of things like this.

Not everything is intelligent...

[Mashuna]

You noticed that, did you? :eye-poppi

It did amuse me. I guess it's one way to try to win a debate.

[Polgara]

It did amuse me. I guess it's one way to try to win a debate.

I should try that in one of my finance meetings here at work. My theory by Susan Katherine: This is how the numbers work. You must agree with me before I explain it to you.

heh

-evil grin

[rocketdodger]

That's the way I feel about Intelligent Design. In my view, this explanation for natural selection is more plausible than the Darwin-Dawkins view that this evolutionary process didn't require any intelligent direction. This view seems to defy common sense.

It also defies common sense that a ship weighing thousands of tons will float. So clearly, all of those must be a hoax as well...

It's a lot like WTC Building Number 7. After watching the video of this building collapse, it simply defies common sense to believe this building was not a controlled demolition. Yet, on this JREF forum the popular belief is that WTC Building Number 7 was not a controlled demolition. This truly amazes me.

It must also amaze you that the moon is in fact not made of cheese, because darn it sure looks like it does, don't it?

[Terry]

It also defies common sense that a ship weighing thousands of tons will float. So clearly, all of those must be a hoax as well...

Ships made of METAL, be it noted. Metal which quite clearly sinks in water - you can try the experiment yourself!

[Crundy]

Indeed. It does seem that the main argument for ID is "I don't understand how this works, therefore god must have done it".

[Safe-Keeper]

Check out MASARU EMOTO. His research reveals the effects various emotions like love, hate, etc. have on water. The picture you have posted here appears to be water imbued with the emotion of love, peace, joy, or something in harmony with the emotional frequency of Mother Nature.How strange that this only happens in cold areas. Is there really no harmony in the emotional frequencies of Mother Nature in, say, Taipei, Houston or Rome? Why does it hardly ever snow there?

Ships made of METAL, be it noted. Metal which quite clearly sinks in water - you can try the experiment yourself!Aaah, but did you imbue those metal sheets with joy, friendship and compassion? Therein lies the rub.

[Polgara]

The fact is that this type of gibberish is great for SciFi. It's great to hope that maybe there is some groovy type of force in play.

It's not great to live your life based upon magically endowed snowflakes. In fact, it's very dangerous.

Mr. OP, you need to be wary. If you are applying these "beliefs" to your life, for example: health issues, etc. You are in deep doo, my friend.

[Jeff Corey]

Ships made of METAL, be it noted. Metal which quite clearly sinks in water - you can try the experiment yourself!

And concrete! You ever try to float that?
On August 2, 1917, N.K. Fougner of Norway launched the first ocean-going concrete ship, an 84 foot long boat named Namsenfjord. With the success of the ship, several more small concrete vessels were built.



Picture of the Namsenfjord

[learner]

:)I like the way you think. I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction. If you don't believe that order requires intelligent direction, you and I will always disagree about this particular matter.

I live near a beach. it is about twelve thousand years old ( older than the earth, i know, bear with me) it is 18 miles long and grades from sand, imperceptibly to pebbles from one end to the other. Years ago pirates, landing ashore at night would carry samples from the beach that they had previously collected at one mile intervals. Using these samples they were able to judge their position on the beach by comparison and without giving themselves away with lights. Clever stuff. This beach is beautifully organised. According to you this organisation must require intelligent direction. It doesn't, it is no more than an algorithmic sieve action brought about by wave action.
I could go on about wave action, gravity, planet rotation and friction and even how it allows you to surf! its very interesting, but no way intelligent. I suspect you know all you think you need to know. And all in one book.
Oh, and what is materialistic evolution?

[Shalamar]

Intelligent Design/Creationism is true because there is a God.
Since there is a God, Intelligent Design MUST be true.
Since Intelligent Design is True, Evolution MUST be false.
Since Evolution is False, Intelligent Design is True!

Intelligent Design Wins! Its Common Sense!

No.. No... Intelligent Design FAILS. Common Sense is not a scientific trait. Common Sense says that anything heavier than air falls. Yet Airplanes stay up in the air. Science wins.

Intelligent Design, in order to have proofs, MUST stand on its own evidence. So far it has none. Intelligent Design is a basis of pure faith.

[CurtC]

:)I like the way you think. I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction.

I look forward to this discussion with you, but first, you must agree that intelligent direction requires orderliness.

[Wildy]

No.. No... Intelligent Design FAILS. Common Sense is not a scientific trait. Common Sense says that anything heavier than air falls. Yet Airplanes stay up in the air. Science wins.

You could have just pointed to quantum theory. Pretty much none of it makes any sense whatsoever.

[westprog]

And if you look very closely at the water crystal image Westprog provided, as I have, you will see numerous flaws in it. It isn't perfect; it isn't even symmetrical.


I had some difficulty finding a snowflake picture from Google. Most of the pictures are generated or drawn, because they end up looking neater - though to my taste, the imperfection of nature is preferable.

Anyone can see the complex patterns made by nature quite independently of life and intelligence. There's no need to abandon or seek religious faith to appreciate this.

[Wowbagger]

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. We don't assume any such thing!

Intelligence as a cause is not really completely ruled-out by natural algorithms and theories such a Evolution.

Intelligent Designers, such as God, are rendered superfluous: An entity unecessary to build and utilize the models of science.

If you ask Dawkins, he would say he is a "defacto" atheist. He admits he does not know, with absolute certainty if God exists or not. He thinks his existence is just very unlikely.

And, one can still be a good person, without God, you know.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Actually, this was only a part of his loss of faith. As Darwin uncovered more and more species that performed horrific ungodlike acts to ensure their species survival, he denied that a god would have conciously designed something like that. Take for example particular species of wasps, who sting other animals (such as giant tarantulas) to paralyse them (but keep them alive), drag them back to their nest, and lay eggs inside of them. Thus the prey is slowen eaten alive from the inside out while being concious but unable to react. Why would your god design something like that? Was he on crack? Bad day at the office?



What? Who ever heard of anything like that? I think you're making it up.

[Ashles]

:cool:Westprog, I like your beautiful little perfect looking water crystal or whatever it is.

Check out MASARU EMOTO. His research reveals the effects various emotions like love, hate, etc. have on water. The picture you have posted here appears to be water imbued with the emotion of love, peace, joy, or something in harmony with the emotional frequency of Mother Nature.

Apparently, beauty and order are the product of MIND, in everything, including NATURE. Emoto subjects water to various forms of emotion, then freezes the water, and examines the resulting ice crystals.

The crystals formed from hateful emotions are not symmetrical, but twisted and distorted looking. Since our bodies are approximately 70% water, we might want to think and feel more lovingly, joyfully, peacefully for prettier and healthier bodies, right?

Personally, I believe everything is intelligent because of things like this.

Ironically I believe not everything is intelligent because of posts like this.

[six7s]

:cool:I don't know how to prove, scientifically, that intelligence was responsible for natural selection, evolution, etc.Then, please, stop pretending you have any certainty that ID is anything other than agenda-driven wishful thinking

However, philosophy is always ahead of science.You like this phrase, huh? Will this be the subject of your next tangent?

Common sense or logic seems to be all that's necessary for someone without a political agenda.If you are implying that someone has an agenda, then please be specific.

Remember Einstein?Forget Einstein; although you might know his name and that he merits some rather superlative epithets, it is abundantly clear that you have no idea what he was doing in 'the last 30 years of his life', nor do you understand why or how. Instead, remember that this is a critical thinking forum and try to think before you post any more nonsense

[paximperium]

What did I miss? Let me see, same old drivel...no new content, logical fallacies, nonsense and continued dishonest dodging of the main questions...

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.

To everyone else, please feel free to add to this list. We can keep adding onto it until he actually answers it or keeps cowardly and dishonestly running away.

[Crundy]

What? Who ever heard of anything like that? I think you're making it up.

Heh, I actually went to find a reference and then saw your username and almost p**sed myself :D

[six7s]

I can only prove ID using common sense or logicYou persist in using the wrong term

You are not proving ID; you are merely asserting it - from a position of ignorance and incredulity with regard to reality

dictionary.reference.com/browse/prove (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prove)

dictionary.reference.com/browse/assert (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assert)

[Tricky]

Actually, this was only a part of his loss of faith. As Darwin uncovered more and more species that performed horrific ungodlike acts to ensure their species survival, he denied that a god would have conciously designed something like that. Take for example particular species of wasps, who sting other animals (such as giant tarantulas) to paralyse them (but keep them alive), drag them back to their nest, and lay eggs inside of them. Thus the prey is slowen eaten alive from the inside out while being concious but unable to react. Why would your god design something like that? Was he on crack? Bad day at the office?
There are lots of examples in the animal kingdom of less-than-moral behavior. Several times I've witnessed Mallard drakes gang-raping a female duck. As I understand, sometimes they wind up killing the female.

Oh, yeah, and those noble Lions? The leader of the pride will often kill any offspring that are not his own.

Boy, that intelligent designer was sure one mean bastard.

[six7s]

Boy, that intelligent designer was sure one mean bastard.Amen to that!

ooaGhYFHIzg

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

[bokonon]

Bwinwright, you've started a half a dozen threads in the past week, and I've yet to see you do anything in any of them except express your own personal incredulity. If you're actually capable of engaging in discussion, I'd like to find out more about the intelligence that you see designing the world.

Is it just one big brain, or is it more like Santa and his helpers, or terrorist cells? By that I mean, is there one central authority that comes up with all the designs, and manufactures them, or does the central authority farm out design tasks to "tree elves" for forests and "raccoon elves" for raccoons, and "bacteria elves" for bacteria, etc? Or is it completely decentralized, with independent cells of intelligence deciding for themselves whether they'll design raccoons or giraffes, and then handling the manufacture autonomously?

The non-intelligent design faction has put forth a number of specifics ("small changes, deep time," "descent with modification," "natural selection," etc.) as a basis for discussing their theory. Does the "intelligent design" crowd have anything like that, or does it always boil down to "Wow, I can't understand how that would work, so I'll assume intelligent design" for folks like you?

You've said, "Unless you accept that complex order requires intelligence, we'll never agree," but as far as I can see, you've never attempted to make the case that this premise is true. Of course, people who assume intelligence is required are already on the same page you're on, so they don't need convincing. Do you believe that snowflakes require intelligence? Do you believe that Saturn's rings require intelligence? If so, why?

For me, the properties of gaseous water molecules at low temperatures in the presence of a suspended dust particle upon which to crystallize "explains" snowflakes without requiring intelligence. Orbital mechanics "explains" the rings of Saturn without requiring intelligence. Why do you think intelligence gets involved in these cases? Would snowflakes look different without the involvement of intelligence? How would they look, and why?

[I Ratant]

What? Who ever heard of anything like that? I think you're making it up.
.
Tarantula Hawk Wasp....abpit 1-1/2 times lifesize.. huge bug!
They do to tarantulas what the ichneumeon does to other bugs.
Ona cause god made them do it, or in the fullness of time it just works out well for them.

[Brian-M]

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.

To everyone else, please feel free to add to this list.


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.

To everyone else, please feel free to add to this list.

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

I was very disappointed that he never answered my question. I've never heard any claim of natural selection being intelligently guided, and I was seriously hoping he could tell me how it's supposed to work.

Call me stupid if you want, but I don't understand how the idea that natural selection is the result of non-intelligent processes could possibly be controversial.

Could you explain the concept of intelligent natural selection for me using an example, such as the running speed of Gazelles?

[Brian-M]

I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction. If you don't believe that order requires intelligent direction, you and I will always disagree about this particular matter.


Intelligent direction is not required to produce order. This is not just an opinion, but a firmly established scientific fact, backed up by thousands of examples. If your 'proof' of intelligent design is based on the claim that order requires intelligent direction, then it has already been thoroughly disproven an there is nothing more to discuss.


Check out MASARU EMOTO. His research reveals the effects various emotions like love, hate, etc. have on water. The picture you have posted here appears to be water imbued with the emotion of love, peace, joy, or something in harmony with the emotional frequency of Mother Nature.

Apparently, beauty and order are the product of MIND, in everything, including NATURE. Emoto subjects water to various forms of emotion, then freezes the water, and examines the resulting ice crystals.

The crystals formed from hateful emotions are not symmetrical, but twisted and distorted looking. Since our bodies are approximately 70% water, we might want to think and feel more lovingly, joyfully, peacefully for prettier and healthier bodies, right?


I think this subject deserves a thread of it's own. Why not post that claim on the general skepticism board? I'm sure you'll get a lot of responses. :)

[Ichneumonwasp]

Heh, I actually went to find a reference and then saw your username and almost p**sed myself :D


:D:D

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[KingMerv00]

Common sense or logic seems to be all that's necessary for someone without a political agenda.

I agree. The Earth is flat.

Remember Einst....

And then I stopped reading.

[Polgara]

I'm still stuck on someone proving something only if the listening party will agree to it already, in whole or in part.

?

That's like walking into a courtroom and telling everyone you'll prove you're innocent if they agree to trust you first.

Just state the case, already. ID ID ID

[AWPrime]

:cool:I don't know how to prove, scientifically, that intelligence was responsible for natural selection, evolution, etc. However, philosophy is always ahead of science.Actually no. Philosophy without proper backing is just wild guess work.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

:)I like the way you think. I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction. If you don't believe that order requires intelligent direction, you and I will always disagree about this particular matter.

Good point, I now posit the philosophical theory of "Intelligent Weight". In which God puts invisible and extremely heavy backpacks of his love on us, which we also can't feel, and this is true because I can't feel gravity acting on me. And if just makes sense, I mean how else do you explain flying birds, planes, and ships that just won't sink. Or why the moon, the Sun, and all the stars and planets don't crash into us if the Earth is giving off some invisible energy! Witchcraft I say! Atheists can't keep their fairy tales straight!Science can't explain anything! Did you know atheists don't believe in God? :rolleyes:

[Silentknight]

You know, it's kind of like how in order to truly understand God's love, you already have to be willing to drop your drawers, bend over, and close your eyes. Whatever you feel, have faith, it's God. No peeking now.

Anyway--

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.

To everyone else, please feel free to add to this list.

[KingMerv00]

To everyone else, please feel free to add to this list.

6) Please give an example of how ID is falsifiable.

[Crundy]

There are lots of examples in the animal kingdom of less-than-moral behavior. Several times I've witnessed Mallard drakes gang-raping a female duck. As I understand, sometimes they wind up killing the female.

Oh, yeah, and those noble Lions? The leader of the pride will often kill any offspring that are not his own.

Boy, that intelligent designer was sure one mean bastard.

Don't forget the Schla Fly, which brainwashes the offspring of others and kills any others who do not act in the same way as it.

[Tricky]

Don't forget the Schla Fly, which brainwashes the offspring of others and kills any others who do not act in the same way as it.
Yeah, but that's a totally synthetic creature. Nothing natural about it.

[westprog]

Intelligent direction is not required to produce order. This is not just an opinion, but a firmly established scientific fact, backed up by thousands of examples. If your 'proof' of intelligent design is based on the claim that order requires intelligent direction, then it has already been thoroughly disproven an there is nothing more to discuss.


It's one of those strange non-arguments. I'm not sure if it passes the Turing Test. I gave a well known example of an ordered structure being produced by natural means. I was actually complimented, and my observation was used as the springboard for another observation. But the actual point wasn't addressed in any way.

[Crundy]

I think bwinwright has acknowledged a good ass-whupping and has shyed out of this discussion. Oh well.

[Tricky]

I think bwinwright has acknowledged a good ass-whupping and has shyed out of this discussion. Oh well.
I think it is more likely that bwinwright has other forums to spam. But you could be right. Oh, the optimism of youth.

[Wowbagger]

6) Please give an example of how ID is falsifiable.

7) Show us how I.D. can be applied to real scientific problems, to help us understand or resolve them, in more precise detail; such as treating diseases, saving wild animals, or increasing farming yeilds.

These pages will show you how Evolution is applied to those things:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/conservation_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/agriculture_01

[Tricky]

7) Show us how I.D. can be applied to real scientific problems, to help us understand or resolve them, in more precise detail; such as treating diseases, saving wild animals, or increasing farming yeilds.
8) When two advocates of Intelligent Design disagree on a point, e.g. who the designer is, how do they settle that disagreement?

[westprog]

I think bwinwright has acknowledged a good ass-whupping and has shyed out of this discussion. Oh well.

I notice that creationists have two simultaneous points of view. On the one hand, they take it for granted that all the evidence will continue to support evolution indefinitely, and that the evidence that might disprove evolution entirely - a beast descended from a combination of species, say, or a fossil of a man riding a dinosaur - will never be found.

[Personal Grudge]

I notice that creationists have two simultaneous points of view. On the one hand, they take it for granted that all the evidence will continue to support evolution indefinitely, and that the evidence that might disprove evolution entirely - a beast descended from a combination of species, say, or a fossil of a man riding a dinosaur - will never be found.

I would say that it's more of a situation that... no matter how much evidence is provided to support evolution, they can rest on the idea that no fossil will ever be found of an "intermediate" species.

Of course, even if such a fossil was discovered, the flawed system of "belief" will always allow for a new excuse. The advantages of "common sense" and "belief" include the ability to always fabricate a new story to deny the evidence. This ability is quite convenient for upholding a flawed belief system.

[I Ratant]

A fossilized man -in- a fossilized dinosaur would be Nirvana for the C guys.
Last meal before drowning in the Flood... :)
For "intermediate species", they always point to a "gap" on both sides of the new one.

[Robin]

:)I like the way you think. I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction. If you don't believe that order requires intelligent direction, you and I will always disagree about this particular matter.
And I guess you are still going to avoid explaining why you think intelligent direction does not require orderliness.

[Robin]

To everyone else, please feel free to add to this list.
9. Explain how intelligence could exist without order.

[six7s]

I think that the only intelligent direction for bwinwright is to go back and start again in an orderly manner

[westprog]

I would say that it's more of a situation that... no matter how much evidence is provided to support evolution, they can rest on the idea that no fossil will ever be found of an "intermediate" species.


A creationist - someone who when introduced to your grandfather, refuses to believe it unless your father is there too.

Of course, even if such a fossil was discovered, the flawed system of "belief" will always allow for a new excuse. The advantages of "common sense" and "belief" include the ability to always fabricate a new story to deny the evidence. This ability is quite convenient for upholding a flawed belief system.

There are many flawed arguments used by creationists, but they always revert to nit-picking the theory of evolution. They never discuss their own "theories" and the evidence supporting them. It's always the "flaws" in evolution. Point out a logical fallacy and they revert to "What about the laws of thermodynamics?".

[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/

:rolleyes:

[Silentknight]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. (http://mike-combs.com/writings/whosimag.htm)

[KingMerv00]

It's because they were designed in God's image. (http://mike-combs.com/writings/whosimag.htm)

May Sobek smile upon you.

http://www.egyptartsite.com/myth/sobek.JPG

[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

:Dfls, 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.

:DImaginalDisc, 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]

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

:DLogic, 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]

:DImaginalDisc, 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 c