Stargazer Posted November 14, 2004 Report Posted November 14, 2004 When I'm in a debate with IDers (or any kind of creationist) they often say they see design everywhere, and that they cannot comprehend how things are the way they are without their favourite god. As for the design issue, I hope there are some who believe in intelligent design who could show me exactly what gives away design by an intelligent entity. When is an object designed by an intelligent designer? What are the characteristics? Some of them say that the entire universe is designed. Interesting. Add to this that we design things too, and all you have is a universe where everything is designed, and nothing else - ever. So, how is it then possible to see the difference between design and non-design, when the former is the only thing that exists? (Except for the designer/creator itself, of course, since that would cause uncomfortable problems with the whole concept.) The part where they say they can't comprehend a universe that is so finetuned without being designed is of course not an argument to begin with. I have no problem with a universe that is not proven to be designed by a creator. If that's how it is, then that's how it is regardless of what I can understand.
Freethinker Posted November 15, 2004 Report Posted November 15, 2004 I'm WAY on the other side of the issue from IDer's. But what I find most interesting when they give examples of obvious "design", is they are actually describing SIMPLICITY, not COMPLEXITY. e.g. on the local NPR station this AM an IDer was using Stonehenge as an example. What was being promoted was how obvious it is that it was an intentional intellegent effort. And from this they state complexity in design as a connection with organic life. But Stonehenge is a ORGANIZED presentation of rocks. the otherwise highly complex random arrangement of material is organized into a much SIMPLER form. One with limited parameters. The complexity of randomness is removed by the intellectual effort. Not enhanced. So they want to claim Complexity as the cornerstone to prove what is actually a SIMPLIFYING process of intellectual involvement.
BlameTheEx Posted November 15, 2004 Report Posted November 15, 2004 Stargazer Well, now, that begs the question: how intelligent? I could think of lots of things wrong with my design from the dodgy disks to the now mercifully removed appendix. I suppose you can't rule out the idea that we were created by an incompetent God, or one with a rather sick sense of humour. In his defence it could be argued that god was an artist. We may not be well constructed but, hey, that's Expressionism. Then again, perhaps God just doesn't have his eye on the job. Maybe he let off a firecracker, and once the Big Bang fizzled out he lost interest.
Stargazer Posted November 16, 2004 Author Report Posted November 16, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerI'm WAY on the other side of the issue from IDer's. But what I find most interesting when they give examples of obvious "design", is they are actually describing SIMPLICITY, not COMPLEXITY. e.g. on the local NPR station this AM an IDer was using Stonehenge as an example. What was being promoted was how obvious it is that it was an intentional intellegent effort. And from this they state complexity in design as a connection with organic life. But Stonehenge is a ORGANIZED presentation of rocks. the otherwise highly complex random arrangement of material is organized into a much SIMPLER form. One with limited parameters. The complexity of randomness is removed by the intellectual effort. Not enhanced. So they want to claim Complexity as the cornerstone to prove what is actually a SIMPLIFYING process of intellectual involvement. Very good point. A design is often aimed at a relatively narrow purpose. Design is reduction of randomness, that is, the complexity is reduced. I didn't think of it that way.
Stargazer Posted November 16, 2004 Author Report Posted November 16, 2004 Originally posted by: BlameTheExStargazer Well, now, that begs the question: how intelligent? I could think of lots of things wrong with my design from the dodgy disks to the now mercifully removed appendix. I suppose you can't rule out the idea that we were created by an incompetent God, or one with a rather sick sense of humour.Or we could try to find answers. Then again, perhaps God just doesn't have his eye on the job. Maybe he let off a firecracker, and once the Big Bang fizzled out he lost interest.Yes, or the entire universe is an apple in a tree in a superverse. Or maybe we're just a dream in a sleeping giant's head.
lindagarrette Posted November 16, 2004 Report Posted November 16, 2004 Seems to me it's irrelevant whether there is anything "intelligent" anywhere if we have no interaction with it and no evidence of it. Again it's just a religious ploy so people support church leaders.
infamous Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 Our designer was the Big Bang, every thing that we are and ever hope to be was determined at that one point and instant of our past. The greater question is; from what and where did the Big Bang originate? Any ideas?
Freethinker Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 From immediately north of the north pole.
infamous Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 Would you like to prove that last statement?
Freethinker Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 Would you like to prove that last statement?Wouldn't want you to be tainted by proofs.No claim of proof from this quarter!
infamous Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 I'll accept an answer based on the law of probability.
Aquagem Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 But Stonehenge is a ORGANIZED presentation of rocks. the otherwise highly complex random arrangement of material is organized into a much SIMPLER form. One with limited parameters. The complexity of randomness is removed by the intellectual effort. Not enhanced. So they want to claim Complexity as the cornerstone to prove what is actually a SIMPLIFYING process of intellectual involvement. It sounds like you're saying that an automobile is a great simplification over the highly organized structure of unrefined ore in twelve countries, chemicals from crude oil to make plastic, and so forth. Rather than just using "simple" and "complex", how about "separated", "refined", "distilled", or other terms that better fit human activities, which actually move material and energy sources away from thermodynamic equilibrium. The more a thing can decay from a highly ordered state, the more physical WORK has to be put into it to get it there. Whether you think Stonehenge is simpler or more complex, intention and work are behind the order we observe. And that is more like what the ID folk are pushing. Pressed on the issue, and educated about thermo equilibrium, they would probably be able to accept that the solar system, say, represents an ordered system that is far from equilibrium, perking along with electromagnetic energy, gravitation, and the usual stuff of physics 101. But then we come to the eye, or the brain, and they insist there has to be a DESIGNER, exercising INTENTION, and using INTELLIGENCE to make one. But in saying this, they are following the oldest of human traits: putting a human face on anything you don't understand. It's hard to use the word "design" without the implication of a "designer". That's one of the hard-core anthropocentric terms in our language. They can't get beyond the semantics, and are enmired in the metaphor of human design. Since their god is mainly a big GUY, HE has to act like we do, and since things like watches almost never happen without a designer in nature, by extension, neither can anything like life. That, by the way, is the entire motivation behind Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. The dangerous idea is that the unique environment of Earth is such that it is especially conducive to the development of self-organizing, evolving systems. That is, the eye isn't designed by an intelligent designer, but, rather, acquires design by virtue of the evolutionary process. ID creationists love to shout that complexity can't increase through natural action -- it has to be designed and built intentionally. Dennett calls of a wealth of modern research and thought to make a strong case for the production of complexity in the absence of intention -- it's the nature of evolution, which is the nature of the Earth system.
Aquagem Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 Our designer was the Big Bang, every thing that we are and ever hope to be was determined at that one point and instant of our past. The greater question is; from what and where did the Big Bang originate? Any ideas? All ideas on the answer to that question are pure speculation. Maybe we should take the path of least resistance, like we have in every prior age and situation and just say, "God (that is, MY GOD) did it." And that settles it. Anything we don't understand is an Act of God, and when we find out there's no need to invoke that reason because there's a natural explanation that holds up to scrutiny, we just quit mentioning it. Simple.
Tormod Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 we just quit mentioning it. Simple. No need for Hypography, then!
infamous Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 Hello Aquagen; I'm not really ready to give up the search so easily, maybe we'll learn some new facts in the near future that will give us a better understanding of pre-Big Bang events. I admit that the forcast for such information looks slim, but lets not through in the towel just yet. Thanks Aquagen.
IrishEyes Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 No need for Hypography, then! Finally!! YOu admit it. I've been waiting MONTHS for somebody to say that!! Wait a second though... If there is no need for Hypography, then what are we all still doing, sitting at our desks (or on our couch :) ) typing away, hitting enter, checking to see what's new, wondering what Freethinker will post next, trying to figure out how Aquagem got so darn smart, wishing GAHD posted more often, hoping alex adds another list or poll, waiting for Aki to log on BEFORE midnight my time, praying that Tinny made it through the tsunami, being amazed by Tim's math skills and Bo's all-around skills, and thinking Tormod is nuts to put up with all of us! Who did I forget? I'm sure a bunch of you. Know that my heart is in the right place, even if my brain temporarily forgot your names...
Aquagem Posted January 5, 2005 Report Posted January 5, 2005 Hello Aquagen; I'm not really ready to give up the search so easily, maybe we'll learn some new facts in the near future that will give us a better understanding of pre-Big Bang events. I admit that the forcast for such information looks slim, but lets not through in the towel just yet. Thanks Aquagen. Maybe I didn't get the tongue-in-cheek font working correctly... I'm with you all the way. I just think this could be another in the string of "explanations" that fall into the category of "the God of the Gaps" in our knowledge. I'm not giving up the search, either!!:)
Recommended Posts