• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Intelligent Design

There is no scientific proof for evolution, just speculation and theories. I believe science and the intricate functions of life were created by a creator. I also believe the intricate functions of life do not happen via evolution. The cellular functions are extremely complex and many are due to orderly cascades of genes and proteins being activated that lead to a product or response.

Then the question becomes, "Who was the creator?" Maybe the earth and all life on it is the result of terraforming.
 
There is no evidence of intelligent design. The precise balance that exists in the cosmos for all life, planetary rotation, every form of mineral and matter all happened from nothing. See...there was this big...well...bang...for lack of a better word...and then...there it all was...and still is. Tada! Its 'science'!
 
There is no evidence of intelligent design. The precise balance that exists in the cosmos for all life, planetary rotation, every form of mineral and matter all happened from nothing. See...there was this big...well...bang...for lack of a better word...and then...there it all was...and still is. Tada! Its 'science'!

That makes just as much sense as a big invisible sky thing building a universe for entertainment purposes.
 
creationist.png
 
do you believe in the bible literally, dig?
Yes, I do. I believe that the Bible is the literal Words of God.

One might say there is no proof of anything really. However, what does exist is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that supports evolution.

What scientific evidence do you have to support your belief?
There is no evidence that supports evolution. Just phenomena that scientists may attribute to an evolutionary process. I believe the complexity of life and the numerous protein and genetic pathways support my belief.
This is completely wrong. Not only have they transplanted genes, they have been doing it for decades in fruit flies. They reproduce so fast that changes in genetic adaptation are visibly proven.
No, fruit flies still remain fruit flies. They can attempt to "transplant" a gene but it's extremely hard. Regardless, wouldn't mankind manipulating genetics not be an evolutionary process? I've actually worked experimentally with fruit flies that had mutations to study their genetics.

It can't be tested with scientific means, so it is relegated to religion and superstition.

When you figure out a way to put God into laboratory conditions and test his ability to create, let us know. Until then, you are operating on faith and nothing empirical.
Neither can evolution. Evolution cannot be tested or proven, just speculated. You can't test that one creature came from another. You can't prove that a mutation happened at "X" location on a chromosome which led to "X" new gene that created a new species and trait. We know mutations on human chromosomes that cause disease, but we can't go to other species and say that another extinct species's DNA mutated at a specific location to create a new gene.
Can anyone who believes in ID explain how think the genetics and heredity work? Do you deny that genetics mutations exist and are passed to new generations? How do handle obvious examples examples of natural selection like anti-biotic resistance? Why aren't there human fossils as old as dinosaur fossils if we all were put on earth at the same time?
Yeah. Mutations get passed down just like any other gene. That's why we have so many diseases like xeroderma pigmentosum. The presence of mutations does not prove evolution. Natural selection is proven, but that isn't evolution. Natural selection doesn't result in speciation, but rather a simple survival of the fittest because those with the genes fit for an environment get to survive and breed.
 
That makes just as much sense as a big invisible sky thing building a universe for entertainment purposes.

I actually believe there is value in teaching 'intelligent design' in a physics course...not as a religous construct but as a project similar to the bridge building exercise. But I know that since it can be conceived as a religous construct there are those that lose their ****ing minds and insist it must be folly. So...we'll stick with the Big bang...matter...anti-matter...miraculously transformation of genetic codes through a serious of wonderful accidents whereby one law defies another in order for it to work...and teach that as science...until of course 'science disproves tomorrow what we teach as known fact today.

Meh...Honestly...I dont care that much about it. I dont run around pissed off at the world with an axe to grind because people believe one way or the other. I DO marvel at how many people labor under this notion that their 'knowledge' is superior to others...because someone told them it must be so. not that they have ever bothered to actually engage their own brain.

Faith...its funny...it doesnt JUST apply to religous folk.
 
There is no evidence that supports evolution. Just phenomena that scientists may attribute to an evolutionary process. I believe the complexity of life and the numerous protein and genetic pathways support my belief.

You can believe that but you'd be wrong. There's tons of evidence in favor of evolution. It CAN be experimentally shown in fruit flies and bacteria, as their life cycles are fast enough for us to literally watch it happen.
No, fruit flies still remain fruit flies. They can attempt to "transplant" a gene but it's extremely hard. Regardless, wouldn't mankind manipulating genetics not be an evolutionary process? I've actually worked experimentally with fruit flies that had mutations to study their genetics.
They remain fruit flies, but not the same as the previous fruit flies.
Neither can evolution. Evolution cannot be tested or proven, just speculated. You can't test that one creature came from another. You can't prove that a mutation happened at "X" location on a chromosome which led to "X" new gene that created a new species and trait. We know mutations on human chromosomes that cause disease, but we can't go to other species and say that another extinct species's DNA mutated at a specific location to create a new gene.

Yes we can and do it all the time.

Yeah. Mutations get passed down just like any other gene. That's why we have so many diseases like xeroderma pigmentosum. The presence of mutations does not prove evolution. Natural selection is proven, but that isn't evolution. Natural selection doesn't result in speciation, but rather a simple survival of the fittest because those with the genes fit for an environment get to survive and breed.

Uhh. Evolution is the product of mutations and natural selection. You've just described evolution, essentially. I guess you actually do believe in evolution and just didn't realize it!

I actually believe there is value in teaching 'intelligent design' in a physics course...not as a religous construct but as a project similar to the bridge building exercise. But I know that since it can be conceived as a religous construct there are those that lose their ****ing minds and insist it must be folly. So...we'll stick with the Big bang...matter...anti-matter...miraculously transformation of genetic codes through a serious of wonderful accidents whereby one law defies another in order for it to work...and teach that as science...until of course 'science disproves tomorrow what we teach as known fact today.

Meh...Honestly...I dont care that much about it. I dont run around pissed off at the world with an axe to grind because people believe one way or the other. I DO marvel at how many people labor under this notion that their 'knowledge' is superior to others...because someone told them it must be so. not that they have ever bothered to actually engage their own brain.

Faith...its funny...it doesnt JUST apply to religous folk.

Notice how not one person in this thread has actually shown any evidence in favor of ID?

What would you teach in that physics class? What evidence is there for ID? Stop playing the victim card and actually step up and support what you believe. ID isn't kept out of science class because those darn liberals just hate religion, it's kept out of science class because there isn't any scientific evidence in favor of it.
 
Last edited:
That makes just as much sense as a big invisible sky thing building a universe for entertainment purposes.

Actually, it could possibly be that. About 6 months ago, scientists found a graininess to the universe. The holographic theory says that the universe is pixellated, and the proof would be finding that graininess.

Yup, someone is sitting in a chair, eating pop corn, drinking a beer, and watching a show on his big screen TV. Guess what? We are the show. God is a couch potato. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I don't have issues with ID as a theory of origination. I just take issue with it being used as religious justification.

If ID was accurate, it seems much more likely that another race created us rather than a single all powerful being. The idea that earth is some kind of high-school science project makes some sense considering how absurdly imperfect and inherently flawed existence (and life especially) is.
 
Yeah. Mutations get passed down just like any other gene. That's why we have so many diseases like xeroderma pigmentosum. The presence of mutations does not prove evolution. Natural selection is proven, but that isn't evolution. Natural selection doesn't result in speciation, but rather a simple survival of the fittest because those with the genes fit for an environment get to survive and breed.

So we a mechanism that transmits genes from one generation to the next. We have a fossil record that shows old species being replaced by new species. Why exactly is it so hard to accept that the genetic transfer is responsible for the creation of new species? Why do you think there isn't a single example of complex lifeforms like rabbits during the pre-cambrian period? Do you think that god poofed life into existence in a fashion that carefully mirrored the same timeline as if they had evolved?
 
I don't have issues with ID as a theory of origination. I just take issue with it being used as religious justification.

If ID was accurate, it seems much more likely that another race created us rather than a single all powerful being. The idea that earth is some kind of high-school science project makes some sense considering how absurdly imperfect and inherently flawed existence (and life especially) is.

You then have to deal with the problem of who created the creator race.
 
Morons...

Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its unscientific tripe, and to claim that its non-religious is completely disingenuous. To the uneducated who claim there is no evidence for evolution, or that its just a theory: You don't understand what "theory" means in the scientific sense, evolution is as supported as the fact that our planet orbits the sun, a notion which is also "just a theory."
 
You can believe that but you'd be wrong. There's tons of evidence in favor of evolution. It CAN be experimentally shown in fruit flies and bacteria, as their life cycles are fast enough for us to literally watch it happen.

They remain fruit flies, but not the same as the previous fruit flies.


Yes we can and do it all the time.



Uhh. Evolution is the product of mutations and natural selection. You've just described evolution, essentially. I guess you actually do believe in evolution and just didn't realize it!



Notice how not one person in this thread has actually shown any evidence in favor of ID?

What would you teach in that physics class? What evidence is there for ID? Stop playing the victim card and actually step up and support what you believe. ID isn't kept out of science class because those darn liberals just hate religion, it's kept out of science class because there isn't any scientific evidence in favor of it.

Well lets see...what are the physical properties required to sustain orbit given mass of planets X, Y, Z for starters. I gotta be honest with ya...the bridge building class got kind of boring...so did dropping the egg from a building. Now...physical properties of a planet, putting together a computerized model, hitting the 'start' button...and see what kind of damage you could cause...that could be kinda cool.

Maybe Im wrong...not being a 'scientist' and all...but doesnt much of our learning and growth come from experimentation, theory, examination, etc? Why are people like you such prounounced dickheads when it comes to religion but such cosmic chicken****s when it comes to anything that might possibly smack of religion?

And...I gotta be honest...yer funny. Proof. To a scientist? How is that big bang theory working for ya? Hell...lets just stick with the scientific fact of the 9th planet. The reality is we dont know what we know til we play around with it...we have theories...we build models...and invariably what we learn is that while we may not YET know what IS, we find that we were wrong with what we know as what 'was.'
 
Deuce -
Notice how not one person in this thread has actually shown any evidence in favor of ID?

The evidence is all around us. The only thing you disagree with is in how some interpret the evidence, specifically implying a purpose to how we perceive the incoming data.

In the macro, the universe doesn't appear to be intelligent, a rock is not intelligent, a planet, the sun, a galaxy, nothing speaks to me suggesting these things are intelligent, however; we need not think of them as intelligent things in and of themselves in order to come away with an observation that some things are intelligent. An internal combustion engine is made up of various parts that, by themselves are inert, but when put together in a certain arrangement, and provided a fuel source, produce energy. The parts are not intelligent, but the system is. It has only one purpose, you can take this thought process and apply it to virtually everything tangible in the universe. We as humans can only truly know, and define a purpose for systems that we ourselves have created, a "screw" has purpose, a nail, a baby bottle - all intelligent designs that have specific and demonstrably true purpose. We exist in the universe, WE are the universe! Our quantum minds are a direct extension of our quantum beginnings, equally, and directly analogous to the theory of the Big Bang. The only difference is that the theory of the Big Bang speaks in terms of cause and effect. "The universe is expanding, it must have at one time been very, very small".

Our minds (Quantum processes) are expanding, and our collective experience and knowledge is also expanding, so it too suggests that at one time, our intelligence was equally primitive, in fact we can demonstrate this to be true. Even if we go back to the very beginning of life (on Earth) as single celled creatures - unrecognizable intelligence must have existed at the quantum level. Evolution is simply a mechanism by which we measure change. Natural selection is an instrument that selects what changes, but even if we cannot fully fathom why something changes, thus denoting some "purpose" for it, does not in any way invalidate the notion that there is no purpose. We can say that a moth changes its color and the color is similar to the foliage that is in its habitat, and we can say that it did this because it wants to camouflage itself from predators, and prey. We have established a purpose for the change. We can recognize it. We have come to understand our universe in ways that our ancestors could not conceptualize. We infer purpose in the things we observe. We are made from the stuff that is the universe, and I submit that if we are intelligent enough to ask these questions, then even at our rudimentary understanding of our observable universe, our "parts" have been arranged in such a way that demonstrate purpose because purpose as we have come to understand it, must be accompanied by a recognizable use.

A Intelligent Design, (I define in the context of purpose) is recognizable when something new takes shape from the inert, at rest, parts of the universe, creating a new system or mechanism that otherwise would not have existed if not for combining the inert, at rest parts, and this new system, or mechanism can be demonstrated as having an effect that, from its cause, is now predictable.


Tim-
 
There is no proof in evolution, just theory and speculation. They can't take a single gene from one organism, say it mutated at "x" position to create the new gene that is in a new organism.
Off the top of my head, what about those E. Coli that evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, or those bacteria that can digest nylon. They know what mutations occurred in those examples
There is no physical proof that a species has evolved from another species. Just ideas and theories and nothing more.
What is your explanation for the pattern of locations of endogenous retroviruses in the great apes? Also, define "species".
 
Except that you can't hand me the evolution "baseball" anymore than I can hand you the ID "baseball". You have the scrap of leather, maybe a part of the inside and then say "These change and come together to be a baseball", but you don't actually have the final product to prove your assertion, or actually more to the point, you have things that look like they might come from a baseball, and you have the baseball to compare it too, but there is nothing to actually prove that those scraps really came from a baseball and not something similar. ID looks at the baseball and says, "yeah there it is and that might have even come from those scraps, but that is so complicated that it most likely was designed with purpose and inteligence and not occuring by random nature"
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
 
It's illogical to believe everything came from nothing for no reason.

illogical? i will need a bit of a refresher. what great thinker came up with the idea that everything came from nothing... oh yeah... your god, or rather, the creators of your god.

you are misrepresenting the premise. the premise is not that everything came from nothing, the premise is exactly the one that YOU employ for your god... it always existed. matter/energy is constant. it cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, it merely changes form, it merely beomes unusable (entropy).

the problem you have is that to deny the premise of a universe that was not created, you have to deny the premise of a world that was created... that of eternal being.

geo.
 
Well lets see...what are the physical properties required to sustain orbit given mass of planets X, Y, Z for starters. I gotta be honest with ya...the bridge building class got kind of boring...so did dropping the egg from a building. Now...physical properties of a planet, putting together a computerized model, hitting the 'start' button...and see what kind of damage you could cause...that could be kinda cool.

But none of those things are evidence of an intelligent creator. You've just descibed the interaction of mass and velocity on a planetary scale. Where does the intelligence come into play?
Maybe Im wrong...not being a 'scientist' and all...but doesnt much of our learning and growth come from experimentation, theory, examination, etc? Why are people like you such prounounced dickheads when it comes to religion but such cosmic chicken****s when it comes to anything that might possibly smack of religion?

Like just about everyone with your opinion often does, you're trying to deflect the issue to some sort of personal vendetta or ideological difference. I have no problem with ID or creationism being taught in school. They'd go very nicely in a philosophy, comparative religion, or mythology class. Science classrooms, however, teach science, and there just isn't any scientific basis for ID. It's not a theory, it's not even an educated guess.

And...I gotta be honest...yer funny. Proof. To a scientist? How is that big bang theory working for ya? Hell...lets just stick with the scientific fact of the 9th planet. The reality is we dont know what we know til we play around with it...we have theories...we build models...and invariably what we learn is that while we may not YET know what IS, we find that we were wrong with what we know as what 'was.'

Theories, in a scientific context, require a lot of evidence and testing. ID has none at all. What experiment could you perform to provide evidence in favor of an intelligent designer?

Deuce -

The evidence is all around us. The only thing you disagree with is in how some interpret the evidence, specifically implying a purpose to how we perceive the incoming data.

In the macro, the universe doesn't appear to be intelligent, a rock is not intelligent, a planet, the sun, a galaxy, nothing speaks to me suggesting these things are intelligent, however; we need not think of them as intelligent things in and of themselves in order to come away with an observation that some things are intelligent. An internal combustion engine is made up of various parts that, by themselves are inert, but when put together in a certain arrangement, and provided a fuel source, produce energy. The parts are not intelligent, but the system is. It has only one purpose, you can take this thought process and apply it to virtually everything tangible in the universe. We as humans can only truly know, and define a purpose for systems that we ourselves have created, a "screw" has purpose, a nail, a baby bottle - all intelligent designs that have specific and demonstrably true purpose. We exist in the universe, WE are the universe! Our quantum minds are a direct extension of our quantum beginnings, equally, and directly analogous to the theory of the Big Bang. The only difference is that the theory of the Big Bang speaks in terms of cause and effect. "The universe is expanding, it must have at one time been very, very small".

There's a lot more to the Big Bang Theory than that. This is another issue common among ID or creationism backers, a horribly simple understanding of how evolution, abiogenesis, and the BBT even work. Take the typical "evolution is like a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a 747." I mean, everything about that sentence is wrong. It's not even aimed at the right theory, as evolution does not at all address the issue of how life started in the first place. (that's abiogenesis)

Nothing else you wrote is actually evidence of anything. In fact, it's mostly gibberish.

Our minds (Quantum processes) are expanding, and our collective experience and knowledge is also expanding, so it too suggests that at one time, our intelligence was equally primitive, in fact we can demonstrate this to be true. Even if we go back to the very beginning of life (on Earth) as single celled creatures - unrecognizable intelligence must have existed at the quantum level. Evolution is simply a mechanism by which we measure change. Natural selection is an instrument that selects what changes, but even if we cannot fully fathom why something changes, thus denoting some "purpose" for it, does not in any way invalidate the notion that there is no purpose. We can say that a moth changes its color and the color is similar to the foliage that is in its habitat, and we can say that it did this because it wants to camouflage itself from predators, and prey. We have established a purpose for the change. We can recognize it. We have come to understand our universe in ways that our ancestors could not conceptualize. We infer purpose in the things we observe. We are made from the stuff that is the universe, and I submit that if we are intelligent enough to ask these questions, then even at our rudimentary understanding of our observable universe, our "parts" have been arranged in such a way that demonstrate purpose because purpose as we have come to understand it, must be accompanied by a recognizable use.

This is still not scientific evidence of an intelligent designer. Science does not deal with "purpose" in the way you describe it. You're making a leap that our parts were "arranged" or have a "purpose." All we know is that our parts developed to the point we can ask these questions. That is not evidence of intelligent design any more than bacteria adapting to a new species is evidence that the bacteria was designed.


A Intelligent Design, (I define in the context of purpose) is recognizable when something new takes shape from the inert, at rest, parts of the universe, creating a new system or mechanism that otherwise would not have existed if not for combining the inert, at rest parts, and this new system, or mechanism can be demonstrated as having an effect that, from its cause, is now predictable.

If two rocks in space collide to form a new rock, that doesn't provide evidence that intelligence was behind it. You have absolutely no understanding of what "evidence" on a scientific level even is.
 
But none of those things are evidence of an intelligent creator. You've just descibed the interaction of mass and velocity on a planetary scale. Where does the intelligence come into play?


Like just about everyone with your opinion often does, you're trying to deflect the issue to some sort of personal vendetta or ideological difference. I have no problem with ID or creationism being taught in school. They'd go very nicely in a philosophy, comparative religion, or mythology class. Science classrooms, however, teach science, and there just isn't any scientific basis for ID. It's not a theory, it's not even an educated guess.



Theories, in a scientific context, require a lot of evidence and testing. ID has none at all. What experiment could you perform to provide evidence in favor of an intelligent designer?

Who is suggesting that the study of design be used as proof of a designer? Oh...wait...you...thats right...

Why study ANY science if not to develop a greater understanding? Of COURSE thats what I described...thats WHY I described it...to help students learn,. To give them more than the miniature physical application of pounds per square inch on a balsa wood construction set. To get people to think about design and properties and not just regurgitate 'science' as gospel. And like it or not dood, there are just as many of 'your types' out there that are faith based with regard to the origin of the cosmos as there are creationists. Very few could even begin to explain their science based 'belief' without first consulting their wikibrain and then regurgitate it...pretending they know what the **** they are talking about. Like I said earlier...there are LOTS of faith based folks out there...
 
It's amazing how some people get so frustrated with the idea that others may have a firm grasp and understanding of complex processes described and are well supported by scientific enquiry to the point it can be considered as factual as things can be without building a time machine. It's amazing that these people can't understand why people who have worked hard to demonstrate these things, and others who have studied what has been demonstrated, would be more than a little miffed that certain people could say that these ideas are equivalent to lightweight philosophical thinking. Does intelligent design actually posit something clear and definable that we can enquire about using empiricism? No, because it's shackled by the areligious identity it's trying to maintain from making any clear claims. Evolution, of course, makes real claims and predictions that are testable and observable, furthermore it could be falisified if things simply don't fit.

ID may have a place in the classroom, but why should science alone share the burden? Let's teach supernatural interference as being a possible explanation for the operation of markets in economics classes and the course of human events in history class. It really is quite a smooth and easy answer for anything that might require a bit of study and understanding. Who needs hard work when we have ID?
 
Last edited:
deuce -
There's a lot more to the Big Bang Theory than that. This is another issue common among ID or creationism backers, a horribly simple understanding of how evolution, abiogenesis, and the BBT even work. Take the typical "evolution is like a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a 747." I mean, everything about that sentence is wrong. It's not even aimed at the right theory, as evolution does not at all address the issue of how life started in the first place. (that's abiogenesis)

Well, thanks! :)

Firstly, I did not speak about evolution in this context, nor did I touch on abiogenesis. The only hard-evidence for the big bang is an expanding universe. The CMBR could be caused by something else, and it too suffers from interpretive issues. Jeesh, you're putting me in the position of arguing against the BB theory - a theory I happen to embrace, EVEN tho it has missing pieces. Secondly, since you quoted me, I assume you were speaking to me, and essentially accused me of not understanding the distinction between various separate terms we are discussing. If you think I don't have a grasp of the theories being discussed, please illustrate where in any of my posts this can be demonstrated.

Nothing else you wrote is actually evidence of anything. In fact, it's mostly gibberish.

Evidence on this scale is interpretive, and yes, even an expanding universe as being the result of a massive explosion/implosion is interpretive. It relies on our understanding of physics as we currently understand the rules. Science is the pursuit of the objective truth in things. A fish lives in only 3 dimensions, and has no (presumably) concept of space/time, and, or dimension. It lives its whole life in the water, unaware of the reality that exists outside of it, a whole other dimension that follows the same rules as its own reality, but to the fish, unknowable. The theory of ID, for me, is based on the idea that the universe is an intelligent system, in that, it works. Take a single fundamental particle out of the structure of the universe and it all falls apart. A single quark, and it all goes to hell. (Figuratively speaking) In some sense, it defines perfect as a crystal clear unambiguous concept. This is why religious people, I believe embrace ID. The universe is perfect, God is perfect.. You get the picture?

For me, the perfectness of the universe does not define God, it defines intelligence. I perceive human intelligence as an extension of this perfectness we see in the universe. The capacity in humanity to observe the universe's perfect nature, is a characteristic of the universes design, at a quantum level. Humanity, and life for that matter, may be pure random chance (Whatever that means) but even if humans, and life on Earth never happened, the intelligent system we call the universe would still exist. Think of it in terms we can understand. Potential is as equally infinite, as the universe. There appears to be no limit to creativity in the context of conceptualization. Or is there? If the answer is that there is a limit, how does it apply to the question of intelligent design, and, if there is no limit, how to does that affect the theory? Of course these are philosophical questions, but the exercise is not unworthy of our time and energy. Perhaps there is no answer to the question itself, but that too presents us with more avenues of thought and reason.

This is still not scientific evidence of an intelligent designer. Science does not deal with "purpose" in the way you describe it. You're making a leap that our parts were "arranged" or have a "purpose." All we know is that our parts developed to the point we can ask these questions. That is not evidence of intelligent design any more than bacteria adapting to a new species is evidence that the bacteria was designed

Oh.. So, ummm what does science have to say about the bacteria that adapted to the new species? It evolved to adapt to the new species, and the ones that can't evolve, die. Yep got it. So the apparent process of natural selection is non-random to the extent that the ability to adapt is cumulative, and not random. Throw in random mutations and we have a recipe for evolution, however it's worth pointing out that random mutations are only random within the intrinsic material available for the mutations to occur, and are not as such purely random appearing from nowhere. Ok, got the evolutionary mechanism lesson all worked out. Why is the process of evolution not an intelligent system, or mechanism?

If two rocks in space collide to form a new rock, that doesn't provide evidence that intelligence was behind it. You have absolutely no understanding of what "evidence" on a scientific level even is.

This seems to be the standard answer to certain types among this board. "You don't know what you're talking about" is common around here. I also see that my point about inert, at rest objects went way over your head..


Tim-
 
It's amazing how some people get so frustrated with the idea that others may have a firm grasp and understanding of complex processes described and are well supported by scientific enquiry to the point it can be considered as factual as things can be without building a time machine. It's amazing that these people can't understand why people who have worked hard to demonstrate these things, and others who have studied what has been demonstrated, would be more than a little miffed that certain people could say that these ideas are equivalent to lightweight philosophical thinking. Does intelligent design actually posit something clear and definable that we can enquire about using empiricism? No, because it's shackled by the areligious identity it's trying to maintain from making any clear claims. Evolution, of course, makes real claims and predictions that are testable and observable, furthermore it could be falisified if things simply don't fit.

ID may have a place in the classroom, but why should science alone share the burden? Let's teach supernatural interference as being a possible explanation for the operation of markets in economics classes and the course of human events in history class. It really is quite a smooth and easy answer for anything that might require a bit of study and understanding. Who needs hard work when we have ID?

I think you are either too stupid to grasp the concept of ID as a study or are being deliberately stupid...and neither speaks well of you. The concept of ID requires no discussion of God or magic. It is THE study of science and physics as a design construct. In fact...from my perspective it is you types that are the magical thinkers. You use all of our very limited knowns to pretend to 'understand' the origins of the cosmos...of all known matter (and antimatter for that matter)...for every degree of plant life, mineral, and mutated animal form...and you smugly pronounce your superior knowledge because you take on faith what others have theorized and taught...only to revise your 'knowledge' when it turns out to be so completely wrong...because we have revised theory based on new ideas offered by other very smart people...that people then again take completely on faith. Right up until it is again disproved. Want some real fun...read what the science books say about our thinking and understanding a hundred years from now...how primitive and foolish our ideas are, those very ideas people today spout as fact.
 
The universe is perfect, God is perfect.

this begs (in the aristotelian sense) the question of the meaning of perfect. the universe is what it is, could not be otherwise - in fact otherwise has no meaning- and so the comment rings true... but is essentially meaningless.

what does science have to say about the bacteria that adapted to the new species? It evolved to adapt to the new species, and the ones that can't evolve, die.

well, they ALL die, of course, but i suppose you meant that they all die off, go extinct and that would be true, but ...

the bacteria evolved, NOT the bacterium.... evolution operates at the group level. and the bacteria evolved as a matter of random mutation that proved advantageous. "random" here does not mean "without cause" but "without relation to result" - that is it did not mutate for the purpose of adaptation, the cause of its mutation was wholly unconnected with with the circumstance obliging adaptation OR the organism that might benefit from it.
So the apparent process of natural selection is non-random to the extent that the ability to adapt is cumulative, and not random.
well... "apparant"... but no, genetic mutation IS random. natural selection is not random but it IS based on, IS the result of random processes. there is no purpose in NS, there is no causative entity, it is a mechanism, not a mind.

importantly, the selection here is NOT a selecting on the part of the adapted organism, or even of the adaptive process, but on the part of the environment to which the organism adapts - the environment selects by providing what is needed to survive. and... individuals do not evolve, populations do.
Why is the process of evolution not an intelligent system, or mechanism?
because, there is no intent - no "man behind the curtain", no "mind in the machine"; there is no will. adaptation is not the intent of mutation nor is evolution the intent of adaptation, any more than the bounce is the intent of the pear falling from the tree or, as much as it may seem a gift, is a rainbow the intent of sunlight passing through mist.

the perfectness of the universe does not define God, it defines intelligence. I perceive human intelligence as an extension of this perfectness we see in the universe.
as you doubless already know, you would not be alone in this. Einstein suggested much the same sort of thing, though i do not think he would have used the term "intelligence" in the way that we usually use it, as 'sentient'. say.

these are philosophical questions, but the exercise is not unworthy of our time and energy. Perhaps there is no answer to the question itself, but that too presents us with more avenues of thought and reason.

to be sure. i have reservations about making much investment in any conclusions, as the best are likely to be only infinitesmally "right". But, we can (have and do) learn within our limited faculties from such questioning.

nice post.
geo.
 
I think you are either too stupid to grasp the concept of ID as a study or are being deliberately stupid...and neither speaks well of you. The concept of ID requires no discussion of God or magic. It is THE study of science and physics as a design construct.

Sorry mate, intelligent design as a hypothesis requires an intelligent designer (if it is a design contruct than it needs to be constructed by something). It certainly requires something to create a reality, not natural, but supernatural as I called it. Evolution will produce things that look designed, since the organisms in question are at the whims of their environment and are adapted to it. To posit the intelligent part you need to go some way in explaing the intelligence to differenciate it from evolution. If I'm being thick, I'm sure you can easily explain how.

In fact...from my perspective it is you types that are the magical thinkers.

This one never gets old. I'm sorry, but no matter how much you say this, people who rely on and value empiricism aren't magical thinkers. Nor are the propositions that are rigorously tested, make predictions and shown to produce real results equivalent to an idea that is no more testable or falsifiable than when it was when cavemen came up with it.

You use all of our very limited knowns to pretend to 'understand' the origins of the cosmos...of all known matter (and antimatter for that matter)...for every degree of plant life, mineral, and mutated animal form...and you smugly pronounce your superior knowledge because you take on faith what others have theorized and taught...
I don't believe I do know the answers to these questions, and I don't know any scientists that do. In fact, it's completely antithetical to scientific theory to claim to know everything because we can't observe everything all the time. I will defend the hard work of others who delineated these theories that produce vaccines, give us high speed internet connections and send rockets to space whether it's considered smug or not.

only to revise your 'knowledge' when it turns out to be so completely wrong...because we have revised theory based on new ideas offered by other very smart people...that people then again take completely on faith. Right up until it is again disproved. Want some real fun...read what the science books say about our thinking and understanding a hundred years from now...how primitive and foolish our ideas are, those very ideas people today spout as fact.

When evolutionary theory is shown to be wrong I'll take it to be wrong. Until then, it explains what has been, continues to be observed and has applications that benefit mankind daily. I don't expect people to know about it, I don't know much about physics because I haven't studied it, but I certainly wouldn't take out my frustration in being unable to grasp it by putting my own lightweight philosophical musings on a similar footing.
 
Last edited:
[ID} is THE study of science and physics as a design construct.
which is what poses the big problem. there is no evidence to suggest "a design construct" aside from our predisposition to see cause in order.

that predisposition itself, though, is not based on anything more than an NEED to understand. the need to understand and a sense of understanding both have played a far greater role in our history than understanding itself. satisfy the need well enough that our sense of understanding works and you are done. trouble is, our needs always eventuially exceed our sense.

disorder is dangerous - it is difficult to understand and we work hard to overcome it... by FINDING order when we can and fabricating it when we cannot find it. civilization is a fabricated order. THAT order CAN be created informs us that all order IS created. but the conclusion is not really well based. in fact, it is an illusion.

You use all of our very limited knowns to pretend to 'understand' the origins of the cosmos...of all known matter (and antimatter for that matter)...for every degree of plant life, mineral, and mutated animal form...and you smugly pronounce your superior knowledge because you take on faith what others have theorized and taught...only to revise your 'knowledge' when it turns out to be so completely wrong...because we have revised theory based on new ideas offered by other very smart people...that people then again take completely on faith. Right up until it is again disproved.
whew! boy howdy... that is some sorta sentence.... you must be a fan of James Joyce. I admire how well believers can accuse nonbelievers of relying on FAITH.

you might wanna rethink that assertion. you seem to have a difficulty in defining 'faith'. faith is not accepting as true those things which you have not personally qualfied as true, faith is accepting what NO ONE has qualifed as true... because it is not capable of being qualified as true.
Want some real fun...read what the science books say about our thinking and understanding a hundred years from now...
what a COOL idea... can you suggest some titles (i wonder how they know???).

geo.
 
Back
Top Bottom