Arguing Against Intelligent Design

[The D.S.]

Recently, a friend of mine (a devout christian) started making various analogies and examples for Intelligent Design that I found insightful, intriguing, and down-right...dare I say adventurous.

They went like this-

1. All buildings have a builder.
2. All cars have a maker.
3. All paintings have a painter.

So, all humans must have a designer, and so must the world?

This was my friends arguement. At first I told him/her that they were using artificial objects as comparison, therefore, of course they are man-made and designed. I then referred to nature and animals, the way grass grows, and how animals adapt through evolution to sustain life and continue the process.

I seek an arguement to refute the above statements of so-called "intelligent design". My friend thought it necessary to point out that humans are just as likely to be as artificial as the objects we make nowadays and that this very world could be the product of some masters design. Anyone got a good arguement against this?

p.s. I am non-religious to the utmost, I'm merely trying to seek further ammo for my arguements against those who claim religious "creationism". Please indulge me with all your thoughts

[InfiniteNow]

Have him watch this:

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS



Also, adding a mysterious and unprovable creator does nothing to further our understanding.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by The D.S.

Recently, a friend of mine (a devout christian) started making various analogies and examples for Intelligent Design that I found insightful, intriguing, and down-right...dare I say adventurous.

They went like this-

1. All buildings have a builder.
2. All cars have a maker.
3. All paintings have a painter.

So, all humans must have a designer, and so must the world?

This was my friends arguement.

Here's my take on this.

Comets.

Yep, comets.

They are the seeds that spread life giving elements throughout the galaxy (presumably the universe). Evolution runs it's course from there, giving us humans. That's the answer. Comets created humans (this is not necessarily true of course, but neither is his claim).

An obvious question he might pose could be "What created the comets?".
This is where you've got him.
Explain to him that it's a turtle problem.

It probably will not change his mind, but it will get him thinking at least.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by The D.S.

Recently, a friend of mine (a devout christian) started making various analogies and examples for Intelligent Design that I found insightful, intriguing, and down-right...dare I say adventurous.

They went like this-

1. All buildings have a builder.
2. All cars have a maker.
3. All paintings have a painter.

So, all humans must have a designer, and so must the world?

This was my friends arguement. At first I told him/her that they were using artificial objects as comparison, therefore, of course they are man-made and designed. I then referred to nature and animals, the way grass grows, and how animals adapt through evolution to sustain life and continue the process.

I seek an arguement to refute the above statements of so-called "intelligent design". My friend thought it necessary to point out that humans are just as likely to be as artificial as the objects we make nowadays and that this very world could be the product of some masters design. Anyone got a good arguement against this?

p.s. I am non-religious to the utmost, I'm merely trying to seek further ammo for my arguements against those who claim religious "creationism". Please indulge me with all your thoughts

There is no way to argue against intelligent design, no more than you can argue against the existence of God, first I would like to say I don't believe in intelligent design but trying to convince someone who doesn't have a grasp of evolution and how it works is unlikely to give up his belief. Intelligent design cannot be proven, on the other hand it cannot be disproved either. Very few things can be proven not to exist. For instance I keep an invisible demon in a box, prove I don't! You can't! All I can say there is absolutely no evidence to suggest intelligent design. For that matter evolution cannot be proved beyond all doubt but so far there is quite a bit of evidence to support evolution, none to support creation science or it's brother intelligent design. The real difference is that the mechanisms of evolution can change as new evidence comes in. Creation science and intelligent design cannot.

[REASON]

Just for fun, use their own stupid analogies against them to demonstrate evolution. It won't convince them but it will make their analogies look foolish.

How you say?

First of all, get them to be more specific about what they believe such as:

"So you believe god created life?" Did you believe he created just the building blocks of life and evolution took hold, or do you believe he created plants and animals whole?"

Now in many instances, they won't understand the distinction, so you'll have to explain it to them:

"Well, evolution, as described by Charles Darwin, is intended to explain how animal species change over time, and how animal traits are affected by environmental factors. It isn't really trying to explain the initial chemistry involved in the original formation life. What do you think evolution means?"

At this point you are likely to get some sort of reply that includes the word "monkeys". Which, just for fun, you can point out that they "must have meant apes, right? Monkeys have tails." This is nothing more than a passing jab at their ignorance. Typically, they'll scoff and say, "whatever".

Now in order to stay consistent with their initial argument, they're going to realize that they have to agree that god made the animals whole. Otherwise, they're agreeing with the evolutionary process from god's initial creation, or, they're going to have to provide an alternate method for how the animals came about. The easy answer typically wins out with these people. "God created the animals whole." Plus, this is what they've been told from Genesis, so they typically follow suit.

Once they've stated that god created the animals whole, ask them to point to a building, or a car, or a painting that was materialized whole. Ask them to explain why you or they were not materialized whole, but rather evolved in their mother's womb from a single zygote to a complete being. Point out that the development of a fertilized ovum to fully developed fetus in the womb is a microcosm of the evolutionary process, happening before their eyes. Point out that none of the other plants and animals on this planet are materialized whole.

They may say that the buildings, cars, and paintings were still designed. But remind them that there was a process of development that brought them into existance. Liken it more to why buildings have steep roofs where there is a lot of snowfall, or lots of outdoor patio space in warm climates. Trucks are better for hauling than four cylinder economy cars. But with living organisms, these things happened naturally through Natural Selection and environmental conditions.

Point out that buildings, cars, and paintings, if you will, are not only designed but assembled. Ask them if they believe god is doing the assembling too. Explain that we can observe mitosis and have a fairly complete understanding of growth.

By this point, they'll get bored of the discussion and usually just scoff out of their own ignorance. Just tell them, "Hey, you know what, you can believe whatever you want, but so can I. The point is, who is making an informed choice of what to believe."

[The D.S.]

Reason, your post below is a magnificent display of science at its best kudos my friend.

On a side note...

I fully believe in Evolution and its process....but I have very little knowledge concerning how life ever came to be on the planet in the first place. Can anyone ellaborate?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by The D.S.

On a side note...

I fully believe in Evolution and its process....but I have very little knowledge concerning how life ever came to be on the planet in the first place. Can anyone ellaborate?

Comets.

[The D.S.]

Comets...either I'm missing the big joke or I seriously don't understand how comets could start life. Please go into further detail

[InfiniteNow]

Look into the term abiogenesis. Abiogenesis today consists of many different theories. Protocells are one. RNA World is another. They are all based on chemistry. When you come across a person who tries to make evolution equal abiogenesis, they are not really talking about evolution, no matter how vehemently they scream that they are. Instead, they are arguing atheism vs. theism... they are using what is known as god-of-the-gaps theology.


Here's a good overview:

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment: Scientific American



Also, this is a must for anyone truly interested:

The Harbinger. My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists


You can also make life in your own kitchen.

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/fo...n/M5550for.pdf). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15-60 minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution.


Here is more on one type of protocell:

SpringerLink - Journal Article


As per irreducible complexity, that is supposed to be a falsification of natural selection according to ID, but it has been shown that Behe used a strawman version of natural selection and that natural selection can produce any complex biological structure

A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution.


Another funny thing that has been shown over the past several years is that natural selection itself is pretty good at getting design. Here is a very quality example of that:

genetic-programming.com-Home-Page


I could go on. You'll also notice that I support my assertions with citations, and I am not arguing against their position to prove mine. My position proves itself.

[The D.S.]

Wonderous, thanks Infinite, your quite the gold-mine finder