Critique of Intelligent Design

Tormod · 09-24-2005

Here is an interesting article from LiveScience (from the publishers of Space.com):

Intelligent Design: 'The Death of Science'

In his highly influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," science philosopher Thomas Kuhn presented the idea that science is not a gradual progression toward truth, but a series of insurgencies, with scientific theories constantly usurping one another.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews...D_science.html

Don't be fooled by the intro - it is a rebuttal of ID.

Turtle · 09-24-2005

___Nice article Tormod! You may have noticed I stay away from this argument in the forum; I don't bathe often enough as it is. But...but I found a math reference in the article & well... dirty or not I have to poke it with my stick. To whit, a quote from the article:

Quote:

"The second major argument for intelligent design comes from William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based Christian think tank that serves as the nerve center for the ID movement.

Dembski argues that nature is rife with examples of non-random patterns of information that he calls "complex specified information," or CSI for short."

___It still hasn't come to this guys attention ( or many scientists for that matter) that with the advent of chaos theory the concept of randomness is void; yes I said void. Is it still employed in all areas of business & science? Yes. Is it true? No. It is void. Everything is non-random when viewed through the correct lens, whether we know of the lens or not. Any argument based on the concept of randomness is weak at best & dangerous at worst.
___Well, now that I have that said I have to go shower in a spray of non-random water drops. Any more typing & I may get dirtyer with the words.

goku · 09-24-2005

thomas kuhn, is he the one that builds the hay equipment? i've got a kuhn hay cutter my self, nice peice of machinary.
sorry, just had to get that out.

went to the site, sounded like the same old argument
as for the chaos theory.....

Quote:

hear i am by my self talking to my self, that's the chaos theory
Malcom, Jurrasic Park

goku · 09-24-2005

who was i calling a name?

blazer2000x · 09-24-2005

May I dutifully point out that lack of evidence is not evidence against? Just because Intelligent Design has no specific proof, dosn't mean it can't be true. You have to admit, if you had the odds of creating life by chance on your side, you probably wouldn't be doing too much gambling.
I just find it extremely difficult to believe that something so amazing could form by accident. Every atom in our body had no "life" so to speak. They're just little particles, leaping about in an endless dance. How is it that they somehow, for no reason, happened to each one "fall" in place with the billions of other lifeless particles just like them, in just the right way, where any mistake would lead to the whole thing crumbling before it shaped, and in which natural selection could take no part, and create something with the ability to move, transform matter into energy, grow, reproduce, to live. It is astounding to fathom how infinitely complex our univerese is. You have made the excuse that it became complex over time. But that will never be the case. No matter how much time you give it, no matter how far back you trace, those little particles are always moving, the universe always changing (without change time does not exist) those impossibly unbreakable laws always present and active. That immense energy that now fuels and drives every atom in all that is, it cannot be destroyed, the laws by which we all are bound dictate it to be so. Why is it there? Is it truly intelligent to believe that it simply is? The universe is grinding to a halt. That energy is still there, but it is being converted to a form from in which it cannot benefit any. It will not last forever, and someday it will all be exhausted. It cannot have been deteriorating forever, so it must have had a begining. Since these laws say unchangeably that that cannot be, only one who is above those laws, one who yes, created those laws, that is the only explanation I can see.
You can choose not to believe this if you wish, but I know. I have seen Him in others, I have spoken to Him, I have heard Him, I have seen His love for me, I have turned from Him, and know what that is as well, and every time he has welcomed me with open arms when I returned. He has never denied me, why should I deny Him? If you believe He does not exist, I pray for you. If you try to convince me He does not exist, you might as well try to convince a dead man that there is no such thing as death.

C1ay · 09-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

May I dutifully point out that lack of evidence is not evidence against? Just because Intelligent Design has no specific proof, dosn't mean it can't be true.

Yes, that's quite true. There's actually no specific evidence against a variety of theories. Surely you'd agree that any of them might possibly be true, even the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, huh?

GAHD · 09-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

...You have to admit, if you had the odds of creating life by chance on your side, you probably wouldn't be doing too much gambling....

To be quite frank, if I had that amount of luck on my side I'd hit & be banned from every casino in Vegas.

Tormod · 09-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

You can choose not to believe this if you wish, but I know. I have seen Him in others, I have spoken to Him, I have heard Him, I have seen His love for me, I have turned from Him, and know what that is as well, and every time he has welcomed me with open arms when I returned. He has never denied me, why should I deny Him? If you believe He does not exist, I pray for you. If you try to convince me He does not exist, you might as well try to convince a dead man that there is no such thing as death.

Please - this is not the place to preach.