Intelligent Design POLL

[InfiniteNow]

infinite now, since UGH has chosen this name himself and has not complained,

why do you consider it is your business to tell others what to do?

i do not yet see a reason to refute evolution upon demand as the most frequent answer given for development of unique appendages. some other examples:

tortoise shells, woodpecker bills, long legs on storks, squid ink, human brain size, ad infinitum. how did animals and other life forms just happen to develop

protective and enabling apppendages which totally differentiates them from other similar sized animals if we all descended from the original single cell, and were lhe same environment?

Perhaps ensuring you are addressing the proper person may be a good start. If something as simple as a name or post can be misunderstood, imagine what happens when one considers the complexity of natural selection...

 

 

Cheers. :confused:

[TheFaithfulStone]

I assume you're talking to me, and not Infinite Now.

 

I didn't realize Ugh was short for ughaibu (apparently.) I thought it was just onomatopoeia. Like you were making the sound "ugh."

 

My apologies.

 

I think Pyrotex explained quite well why your objection to evolution doesn't make any sense, and I'm not sure where to go from here.

 

TFS

[Edella]

infinite now, since UGH has chosen this name himself and has not complained,

why do you consider it is your business to tell others what to do?

I think TheFaithfulStone made that comment questor.

...i do not yet see a reason to refute evolution upon demand as the most frequent answer given for development of unique appendages. some other examples:

tortoise shells, woodpecker bills, long legs on storks, squid ink, human brain size, ad infinitum. how did animals and other life forms just happen to develop

protective and enabling apppendages which totally differentiates them from other similar sized animals if we all descended from the original single cell, and were lhe same environment?

 

You can look up the current theories on how and why these "unique appendages"occurred,and tell us what you think.We could then discuss them individually.Much easier.

 

evolution upon demand...

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.Could you elaborate?

[questor]

Infinite Now, please accept my apology for a misguided missle. i missed my target. questor

[ughaibu]

In any case, this discussion of evolution is irrelevant, an objection to evolutionary theory is not an argument in support of intelligent design. Until there is evidence or logical justification, for the idea of intelligent design, it remains a naive guess with an effectively zero chance of being correct.

[pgrmdave]

I must say, I am often confused when I hear that people feel that ID has absolutely no evidence in its favor. Evidence does not mean proof, nor does it mean that it is likely. There is evidence that the solar system is geocentric - we see the sun travel across the sky along with the stars. However, a different theory, heliocentrism, explains more of the reality better. That doesn't mean that the evidence for geocentrism is gone, merely that it was found lacking, and is false. With ID, there is evidence, it simply cannot fully explain the reality, and evolution does a better job.

 

As for the evidence, it is simple, and is not very scientific. Imagine you were an interplanetary explorer, and you land upon a barren planet. While exploring the surface, you chance upon, of all things, a statue, perfectly formed out of stone, in the exact shape of an oak tree, complete with branches and leaves. How would you first try to understand it? Would you test the wind erosion to see if it formed naturally, or would your first assumption be that some type of intelligent person formed it? I think that most reasonable people would accept that they would first try to find the sculptor of this object, and only if their attempts to find this sculptor, or any other evidence of the sculptor's existance, failed would they try to find a natural explanation of this.

 

Now, assume that the tree is alive, but there is no other plant life on the planet, nor any evidence that there had ever been plant life. There was nothing like it before, it didn't come from away from the planet - it seems there's no explanation for its existance. However, the only difference between the stone version and the wooden version is that one is more complex - with all other explanations gone, perhaps design is once again likely.

 

These ideas make sense - just because they are wrong doesn't mean that they have no merit. I believe that evolution is a type of intelligent system. No single thing is ever intelligent, only systems of things, like neurons and ants. An individual ant is stupid, nothing but a mindless robot really, but a colony of ants acts very intelligently comparitively. Each ant is unaware of the colony's intelligence, just like our neurons are unaware of the brains intelligence. I think that evolution, as a looping system, is intelligent in a sense. That's what has caused such complex organisms to arise, and that is what ID proponents are seeing when they see 'obvious intelligence'.

[ughaibu]

Post 31 on the Why Do You Believe thread claims: "4. evidence means events which can be observed or measured." This is not a definition of 'evidence', it is a definition of 'fact'. The terms 'fact' and 'evidence' are not interchangeable, try swapping them in a few typical sentences.

I will now observe and measure my feet. . . okay, do I now have evidence that NASA faked the moon landings?

Facts are only evidence when a connection between them and the conclusion is established. Lack of imagination and a desire to believe doesn't qualify as a connection.

[IDMclean]

Thank you so Very Much Pgrmdave. I would like to point out that the Geocentrism and Heliocentrism is an interesting correlation as if you look at the Earth and the Sun from the mean point of orbit they will both appear to orbit about that point.

 

Such that it would seem to suggest that each one is equally valid, from different frames of reference.

[sebbysteiny]

Just because you see a few patterns doesn't mean that any 'intelligence' put it there.

 

The problem with intelligent design is that it doesn't really add anything whatsoever to the world. Every since cave men roamed the world and were bewildered by trees growing and rain, they asked themselves 'how does that work'. Unfortunately, they lacked the science to know, so they say 'I don't know: must be god'.

 

It's a cumpulsive human trate that it would rather invent some meaningless concept than admit that there is something that mankind doesn't yet know.

 

ID is no different. If I remember right, it works like this.

 

a) go through every single creature in the world in the desparate hope to find something evolutionists havn't explained yet. There will always be something, because such biologists don't have the resources to prove everything even though asking the question takes very little intelligence at all. Kind of like an annoying kid bugging his parents with meaningless questions until the Parents just get fed up.

 

B) Conclude that science "doesn't know yet".

 

c) Therefore it must be god / intelligent design.

 

So what does it add? Nothing. It's just a different way of phrasing god.

 

'but you've gotta admit, it makes sence that something designed it' I heard someone say.

 

just replace 'something designed it' with 'god designed it' and it makes exactly the same sense.

[IDMclean]

Hey that's rather Sharp.

 

I see it more like this:

All of human understanding is a binary tree, that has grown VERY large. By finding what makes up each node, one can determine that teir of nodes and move on down to analyzing the next set of nodes, and you can keep doing this and keep doing this, and you will through careful analysis find the structure of each little system, while at the same time missing the fact that you are slowly traversing a massive tree.

 

In my view all things arise from one. All patterns result fractically, and all fractials result from a dualism of the one.

 

So perhaps it's an attempt at combinding Metaphysic(the view of the Whole, of the one.) with that of physics(the view of the subsystems of the Whole, of the one.).

 

This is what we view as intelligence, like PgrmDave said:

Each ant is unaware of the colony's intelligence, just like our neurons are unaware of the brains intelligence. I think that evolution, as a looping system, is intelligent in a sense. That's what has caused such complex organisms to arise, and that is what ID proponents are seeing when they see 'obvious intelligence'.

 

My humble opinion and personal perspective, take and leave from it whatever you will.

[Zythryn]

I must say, I am often confused when I hear that people feel that ID has absolutely no evidence in its favor...

 

What you describe might actually fit the definition of a hypothesis.

 

However, take the next step. What tests would you perform to invalidate or support the hypothesis of ID?

[Pyrotex]

What you describe might actually fit the definition of a hypothesis. However, take the next step. What tests would you perform to invalidate or support the hypothesis of ID?

Now there's the rub, isn't it? What test could we perform? What data could we look for? It would have to be evidence that could NOT be explained by any ordinary, natural explanation. Not just difficult or tricky, but impossible to explain in the mundane. So far as I have read, nobody had come up with anything even close. Not even the proponents of ID or Creationism.

[Buffy]

It would have to be evidence that could NOT be explained by any ordinary, natural explanation.

And the scientific response to such an example would be "we don't know" NOT "it must have been designed!" Thus *any* such "evidence" is no evidence at all!

 

That's the point of the derision perceived in this thread: yes, there might be some interesting offshoot questions that are buried in the arguments concerning ID, but the notion that ID is a science--that so far is ONLY based on such "absence of knowledge" arguments--is *patently* false, and *harms science*. That is what raises the ire of me, Richard Dawkins, and many many others. The harm done to the public's understanding of science by such pseudo-science harms our society and makes it possible for serious harm to come to us or our decendents because of this blatant and self-serving ignorance.

 

If you want to complain that I and others are dismissive, that's your right and moreover, I'll *agree*, but there's a darn good reason for that dismissiveness. Many are swayed by the dismissive arguments of ID proponents, and it is necessary to be just as dismissive back for these folks to understand the seriousness of the issue. Its like politics: negative campaigning is ugly and even arguably wrong, but it *works*.

 

Obstinantly insistent,

Buffy

[questor]

I have not seen ID claimed as a science, but instead offered as an explanation of physical phenomenae which cannot be explained by scientific means. there are different levels of approach and intelligence in proponents of ID and creationism which have all been lumped together and marked to be dismissed

by people who wish to do so. i think the basis of this dismissiveness is the problem many have with the concept of God, which has been rejected by many.

if one tries to explain which side of an argument he takes, it is usually because of evidence he observes. if there is no clear answer for either side, the preponderance of evidence is the only thing to rely on. this does not necessarily lead to a true conclusion, but at the time, it is the best that can be done. the most basic particles composing the universe have not yet been found or observed. there is no clear understanding or explanation for the four natural forces. there is no factual explanation of how the universe came to be or how it operates. on the other hand, we can see evidence of order, planning,and intelligence in many easily observable phenomenae. it must be that there is causality for events, else why would they happen?

if there is causality, what can it be? is it intelligence or is it happenstance?

when the day comes that all events are understood and explained, that is the day this argument will disappear. until then, neither side can claim to be

''scientific''.

[ughaibu]

Questor: You say that you will accept the truth, once the truth is known. In lieu of the truth, I can offer an explanation, for your facts, that is infinitely more likely to be correct, than is intelligent design. If I can prove that my explanation is infinitely more likely, will you accept it?

[questor]

Ugh, certainly i will accept truth and i will entertain logic. i would ask that you use dictionary definitions for words such as evidence, since evidence does not necessarily denote a fact.

Wikipedia: ''Evidence...The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses. For example an observer wishing for evidence that the sky is blue need only look at the sky.''

this word is not synonymous with the word fact. i don't want to get into a

semantic argument unless we agree on word meanings.

[ughaibu]

Sure. I'll prove that my explanation is at least not inferior to intelligent design and is infinitely more likely to be correct. As a seeker of truth and a rational person, will you abandon intelligent design and adopt this more likely explanation, if I can provide the proof I've claimed?