Intelligent design

[questor]

Paultrr, you are correct. we will not be able to answer the questions until our technology
enables us to probe down to the elemental level where the answers lie. that will probably not occur in our lifetime. until then, science will have to content itself with conjecture. scientists need to divorce themselves of the notion that all the answers are known, and realize there are many examples that point toward INTELLIGENT DESIGN. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

I agree completely. Let's throw evolution out!!

Even that evolution we know to be true? What else do you want to throw out, gravity perhaps?

Sure, there are some theories based on that theory of evolution that should be questioned. The evidence certainly does not exist that a claim that whales evolved from bears can be supported as truth. Do you really think though that the crocodiles of the cambrian period did not evolve into the present day species of crocodiles? There is plenty of evidence that evolution is at least one mechanism of speciation. It is not a theory of the origin of life. It does not claim any particular beginning for any of the species we think it is responsible for. Species with long records like the crocodile go back to a point before we know. Just because we do not know the origin of a species does not mean we should ignore the evolution we know has occured within that species line.

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

Well, I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else (can't remember who) on this forum. I think everyone should believe what's true and reject what's false. Whoever I was responding to told me that nobody here was telling me I shouldn't believe in I.D. Well, sorry, but that's a load of bull. If you think I.D. is false, and you have any respect at all for the truth, then you should convince me to reject it!! I think I should be free to believe what I want, but I don't want to believe in what's not true. Do any of you? We should be free to believe as we see fit, but we should all realize that something is true and it's up to us to figure out what.

Are you stating that you have undoubtable proof that ID is an unquestionable fact? Just because it's a possibilitiy and you believe it is true doesn't make it true. Yes, you should be completely free to believe whatever you want but that doesn't make you right and someone else wrong unless you can prove their theory to be absolutely false. Just because there are some theories based on evolution that should be questioned does not prove the whole theory to be absolutely false. You've provided no evidence in this forum thus far that all of evolution is absolutely false or that ID is absolutely true.

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

So to be totally honest, I'm telling you that you should reject evolution. That doesn't mean I think you should be forced to reject it, and it doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to accept evolution even though it is false. It simply means that I'm convinced it's false and that I have enough respect for the truth and enough respect for people (not wanting them to be misled) that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I don't want people to feel threatened at all, but I don't want people to accept what is false. If people insist on doing just that, then fine… that's their business.

If you are going to make blanket claims that theory A or theory B is absolutely false, period, because you say so, etc.. then you need to provide absolute proof, period. The house rules clearly state, "Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted." You are wrong to tell people that they should flat out reject evolution just because you say so. Remember, to absolutely disprove all of evolution you would have to prove that no species that has ever existed is related to any previous species. Can you do that?

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

With respect to religious beliefs, seems to me we all ought to be adult enough to realize that either one religion is true, or all of them are false; just our own personal fairy tales. If it's the latter, then we're all lying to ourselves and we ought to stop. If it's the former, then we all ought to be prepared to deal with the possibility that we're wrong, because if only one religion is true, then all others are necessarily false.

I hope you catch the nuances here. I'm as much in support of freedom of religion as anyone. Believe what you want, ultimately it's your business. But I'm not going to blow smoke up peoples' posteriors and say that I'm not telling them they shouldn't believe in evolution. Not only am I telling you you shouldn't believe in evolution, but I'm telling you why.

Just 2 options, huh? Either one religion is the right one or none of them are. All black and white with no gray in between? Religion is not that absolute. Religion is just a system of beliefs some of which are know to be fact and others that are taken on faith alone. You cannot say that there is only one true system of beliefs, completely free from falsehood itself, and all other belief systems are therefore false. That in itself is simply a point of view that would be based on faith alone, thereby a religious view at that.

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

I've raised several key problems regarding evolution and particularly methological naturalism to several of you numerous times, and I have not heard one answer to explain those problems away. My comments are essentially ignored or I'm simply told I'm wrong.

So you've raised a few questions. That doesn't make a theory hogwash just because no one answered your questions. I dare you to disprove only one of my questions above, i.e. "Can you prove that no species that has ever existed is related to any previous species?" So you have some questions about this or that, no one's obligated to answer them. It's quite easy to come up with questions that have no answer but that proves nothing. Try answering the questions it would take to disprove any theory and your work will never end.

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

I'll ask you, and anybody else: If, in the name of science, we restrict our explanations of natural phenomena to those that are "natural", when will we ever get to the "first cause"? If we do find a "first cause" that is "natural", then don't we have to find a natural explanation for it as well? And if that's true, then it's not really the "first cause", is it? How would you answer this? Does this not call into serious question methodological naturalism's validity as (an alleged) governing philosophy of science? Is it really me being illogical here?

Explanations are not restricted, explore any that you want. If your crowd wants to explore the possibility that life as we know it was originally designed by some force that we cannot understand then have at it, just don't expect others to join your search that have their own searches that they choose to follow. Seems to me we all ought to be adult enough to realize that any "first cause" is unknown and may never be known, period. For all we know the first cause of life on this planet may be a transference of life from someplace distant in the universe by some means we are incapaple of understanding, that began billions of years or more before our solar system even formed. A complete, untraceable history to your first cause. To my knowledge no one has claimed that naturalism is absolutely the only explanation for everything. A majority choose to follow that vein in their search and that should be their choice to do so as it is yours in your search.

One thing to think about with your theory, if there was an intelligent designer, would the ability required to learn that require that the designer provide that very ability in the design to begin with? If not, how could you ever find out?

[questor]

Clay, suppose the theory of evolution is correct. how does that eliminate the possibility of a creator of the universe?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by questor

Clay, suppose the theory of evolution is correct. how does that eliminate the possibility of a creator of the universe?

It's not my claim that it does. I do not see evolution as an explanation for any first cause, I only see it as one possible mechanism of speciation. It is not a theory of first cause itself and it is not a theory that excludes any possibility of a first cause. Theories of first cause are just that and we can't prove any of them. Pick any that you want, ID, biblical creation, even evolution is your view of evolution is different than mine, we have no evidence to prove or disprove any of them or use any of them to exclude any other theories. They are just theories and our interpretation of what is observable evidence to support any of them is just that, our interpretation. One thing keeps catching my attention though, there are those whom freely admit that we just don't know and everyone else seems to be religious in their belief of a first cause.

[questor]

Then you can simply say that you don't know if evolution is correct or if there was intelligent creation of the universe?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by questor

Then you can simply say that you don't know if evolution is correct or if there was intelligent creation of the universe?

No, I do know that some evolution is correct, ring species prove that for instance. I do not know what the origin of the universe is or if there even was one. My view of evolution does not exclude any possibilities of any first cause though and I do not claim to believe any particular cause of origin because that would require me to know and I don't. I freely admit what I don't know and question others that cannot do the same.

[questor]

i haven't seen evidence here of people who say they KNOW. there are many who say they
BELIEVE. since no one claims to know first cause, we cannot reach any conclusion at this time. any beliefs posited lack scientific proof. this goes for ID and the possibility of a creator. you believe in evolution, but admit this does not preclude a creator of the universe. if there was a creator, i would think there was enough intelligence there to create the conditions for evolution. do you agree with this?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by questor

i haven't seen evidence here of people who say they KNOW. there are many who say they
BELIEVE. since no one claims to know first cause, we cannot reach any conclusion at this time. any beliefs posited lack scientific proof. this goes for ID and the possibility of a creator. you believe in evolution, but admit this does not preclude a creator of the universe. if there was a creator, i would think there was enough intelligence there to create the conditions for evolution. do you agree with this?

What's your point? You can keep saying "if this" or "if that" forever. There is no evidence for or against a creator and that has nothing to do with evolution. Why keep dragging evolution into it? If you want to believe there's a creator then go and search for one. I've seen nothing to make me believe in any origin of the universe so I don't.

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Even that evolution we know to be true? What else do you want to throw out, gravity perhaps?

Once again I must remind you (collectively) that the only form of evolution that is in dispute here is macro-evolution.

Originally Posted by C1ay

Are you stating that you have undoubtable proof that ID is an unquestionable fact? Just because it's a possibilitiy and you believe it is true doesn't make it true.

Virtually, yes. You would laugh me out of the room if I told you that the topiary at the edge of town here which spells out the word "BEND" was NOT the result of intelligent design. You would howl and snicker and quite rightly conclude that I was completely nuts.

Originally Posted by C1ay

If you are going to make blanket claims that theory A or theory B is absolutely false, period, because you say so, etc.. then you need to provide absolute proof, period. The house rules clearly state, "Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted." You are wrong to tell people that they should flat out reject evolution just because you say so.

I haven't said that theory A or theory B is false "because I say so." My belief in something doesn't MAKE it true. Truth exists indepent of what I might or might not believe. I have not based anything on "I just know that this is the way it is". I've given examples and shown quite logically how the reasoning by which I.D. operates is quite well accepted and relied upon by other fields of study within science.

Originally Posted by C1ay

Remember, to absolutely disprove all of evolution you would have to prove that no species that has ever existed is related to any previous species. Can you do that?

First of all, refer again to the beginning of this post. Micro-evolution is not in dispute, therefore I do not intend to disprove "all of evolution". Secondly, Darwin disagrees with you. He said that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This has already been demonstrated by Michael Behe. End of story.

Originally Posted by C1ay

Just 2 options, huh? Either one religion is the right one or none of them are. All black and white with no gray in between? Religion is not that absolute. Religion is just a system of beliefs some of which are know to be fact and others that are taken on faith alone. You cannot say that there is only one true system of beliefs, completely free from falsehood itself, and all other belief systems are therefore false. That in itself is simply a point of view that would be based on faith alone, thereby a religious view at that.

If you asked 20 people how old I was, and you got twenty different answers, what would you conclude? Wouldn't you conclude that either all the answers were false, or one was true? Certainly, you wouldn't conclude that MORE than one was true, right? I can't be 26 and 14 at the same time, can I? If I'm actually 29 years old but none of the twenty people you asked gave that answer, then that means all the answers you got were false, right? There are lots of religious systems, lots of religious ideas (such as, the idea that the "truth" lies within some combination of all religions). Therefore, I say that all religious ideas cannot simultaneously be true. Either one religion is true (perhaps that one religion is the magic "combo" religion… who knows?) or they're all false. It's really very simple logic… there aren't any other possibilities.

If you say that all religions ARE true, then you're either saying that faith creates truth, (and a different truth for everyone) or that all religions are false and that we just like to believe in our personal little fairy tale and play head games with ourselves.

Furthermore, if you say I'm free to believe in my religion of choice, but that I'm wrong to conclude that anyone else's religion is wrong, you're really saying that I can believe whatever I want as long as I don't actually think it's true. Obviously, if I can't come to the conclusion that other religions are false, then I must not really believe my religion, right?

Originally Posted by C1ay

Explanations are not restricted, explore any that you want.

I've been told repeatedly by others on this forum that in order for something to "scientific" it has to explain natural phenomena by reference to natural explanations. In fact, this is what Dr. Robert Pennock testified to in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. That is what's called a "restriction".

Originally Posted by C1ay

One thing to think about with your theory, if there was an intelligent designer, would the ability required to learn that require that the designer provide that very ability in the design to begin with? If not, how could you ever find out?

Great question. It appears that's exactly what this Intelligent Designer has done… provided us with the means, ability, intellect, ingenuity, creativity to discover evidence of the existence of the Intelligent Designer.

[Boerseun]

Nowhere in science is it stated that an Intelligent Designer did not set the whole shebang in motion. Science has, however, said that all things being equal, Intelligent Design is less likely to be the Truth. Science is an asymptotic approach to the Truth. Intelligent Design, as an answer, fits the bill perfectly - 300 years ago when we were further away from that unattainable Final Answer that we are asymptotically approaching.

And using the searh for Extraterrestrial Intelligence as a counterargument for science's discounting of an Intelligent Designer is irrelevant. We are searching for ET, because chances are very good that ET is out there. If we said we're looking for the very same ET you're implying with ID, then I agree with you - that is kinda stupid. But nobody involved in the search for ET ever claimed that what we're looking for is the same guy who designed us. At best, if ID is true, then the same intelligence must have designed both us and ET. And seeing as how Earthlife shows remarkable similar design features throughout the animal world (that we Wise Ones ascribe to [shudder]Evolution[/shudder]), chances are 110% that your designer ran out of blueprints long ago, and alien life will look almost exactly like Earthlife. Which is unlilkely.

Here's my opinion:

ID is utter, unadulterated, unashamed ignorant hogwash. Why do I say so? It's a testament towards basic human superstition, basic human fears that we're built blindly and dumbly for no purpose at all. The one basic fear of death, that there's nothing on the 'other side'.

ID's argument that the coding of DNA testifies to an intelligence who must have designed it because it works like a computer program, information etc, being read and executed in the proper way to form either a human or a slug, is hogwash, once again. Hydrogen combines with Oxygen in order to form water. It happens every time, predictably, and in the same order. It happens like this because basic chemical laws orders it to do so. Every time. Electric charges force the H2O molecule to take on a certain shape, with the two H atoms dangling off-set from the fat Oxygen atom. There's no intelligence there, although a casual observer might be hard-pressed to see it in such a heathenly light. It looks programmed. It's not. It's electric.

Now - the shape of a H2O molecule causes havoc. That specific shape is the reason why solid H2O takes up more space than liquid H2O, bursting water pipes all over Earth, and any other planet where ET is suffering to pipe his H2O run through cold climes. It's a universal occurence.

Carbon, in all its wonderful manifestations, is so complicated, that it's forced science to dedicate a whole field of study to carbon alone. Organic Chemistry is complicated, weird, strange, and the bedrock of life. Because of its weirdness. Regardless of you being in Boston or the other end of the universe, carbon acts in weird and wonderful ways. Organic Chemistry is also a universal oddity and occurence.

Organic Chemistry might create a DNA molecule, following the same laws that created the petrol you chuck in your car, that might look to you as if it's an intentionally programmed piece of software. It's not. It's electric. Carbon's just plain weird. Because of the shape of these complex molecules, life arises out of the muck. On Earth, as it is in Heaven. But it wasn't planned. It wasn't designed. It's just what Hydrogen and Carbon and a host of other elements does when left alone for long enough, with sufficient energy input. But swinging a fundamentally superstitious religiously inclined human being around to see it from that point of view, is kinda hard. But according to science, its simply more probable than Intelligent Design, and in my personal opinion, closer to that unreachable vertical axis of Truth that we are asymptotically approaching.

Going back to the middle ages is not the smartest of ideas, regardless of what any politician out there tells you.