Theory of Intelligent Design

In no way do I deny natural selection. There was a so-called sub-species, Merriam Elk, in the Southwest. They were considered extinct. Yellowstone elk were brought in to replace them in the early 20th century. It seems these Yellowstone elk have taken on the characteristics of the Merriam Elk. Now, I want to know how an octopus became an eagle.

 

I said that God cannot be proved, or disproved, and since science rejects anything that cannot be proved or disproved, God is not science.

 

See, your problem is you are arguing against something you don't even know about. Evolution NEVER said an octopus became an eagle, is says that the octopus and eagle have a common (albeit, distant) ancestor.

 

I feel you are inappropriately reducing this to "simplistic"...but perhaps I am wrong.

A couple of questions, if I may:

How does "science" reject something that "cannot be proved or disproved"...without proving that it cannot be proved or disproved?

"Science" certainly deals with problems that look very much like the answers are not going to be found. In fact, until "science" actually "deals" with some unknowns...it has no idea about the probability of answers being found.

Why would "science" reject as being unable to be proved or disproved...without first considering them at length?

The "true nature of the REALITY of existence," for example, certainly is an appropriate subject for scientific inquiry...despite any theories one might have about being able to prove or disprove its essential nature.

 

You haven't given but a few names of people making claims of a metaphysical nature, so I don't know how numerous they are. You, like others who are into religiosity, mysticism and metaphysics assert the superiority of your open mined views. I don't know how old you are. But I've been around a long time. I've looked into many claims for religiosity, mysticism and metaphysics. They aren't anything new. They have been around for ages. Here is a library of articles written in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000534624
​

If you take the time to review some of the articles, you'll find similarities between Campbell's thoughts and what was written a Century ago.

There is no need for me or anyone to check out every new basis, fad, interpretation or claim. That's not being close minded.

​

I don't detest these people. I certainly don't think anyone should stop thinking. I might suggest thinking with a skeptical mindset. When you say "These were great minds. I tend to listen to some of them.", I wonder if you listen with an equally open mind to those on the other side of the argument.

I have come to realize over the years is that there is no direct correlation between intelligence and a tendency for belief in the mystical. The same holds true for any subjective beliefs. Many rational, clear thinking, intelligent people believe in woo. Many rational, clear thinking, intelligent people reject it.

 

It does matter what the creator is. ID can ONLY be used in conjunction with aliens, as soon as it is associated with a god, it fails to be science. Even if ID is only used for aliens, it still leaves to many questions unanswered to be a useful theory.

 

Two actual theories exist. One that the Merriam elk was not, in fact, extinct when other elk were introduced and crossbreeding produces the effect you think exists and, the second, the elk living in the area since 1913 have adapted via evolutionary processes and, since the Merriam elk's features were suited to success in that area, their offspring showing those traits have the better change of reproduction.

Octopi do not become eagles. The question is nonsensical.

 

Spacific gaol is evolution to change.

 

Basic logic says that God cannot be proved or disproved (if you have a way to prove God's existence, please let us know what it is). The reason why science rejects things that are unable to be proved or disproved is so science isn't wasting its time with trying to disprove the existence of invisible, magical unicorns that can control minds, teapots in orbit between the Earth and Mars, flying spaghetti monsters, and other crap like that.

 

N O N S E N S E !

Just a little background. Some members on the board in the Dover School District introduced a book, Of Pandas and People, into the curriculum. Opponents sued on the basis that it was an attempt to teach Creationism. The Supreme Court had already ruled that Creationism could not be taught in public schools.

It was conclusively proved during the trial that Pandas was virtually identical to an earlier Creationist book.

Excerpts from the Judges ruling (my emphases)
https://web.archive.org/web/2005122...md.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

 

IF any gods exist...one could prove it by having a god reveal itself in an unambiguous way. I think this is a vsery long shot, but for you to suggest "logic" does the job...is itself illogical. A person asserting that at least one god exists is almost certainly just making a blind guess.

I can think of NO way to prove that no gods exist. A person asserting that no gods exist DEFINITELY is just making a blind guess.

So...what you think "science" does is to arbitrarily decide that some questions cannot be proved or disproved...and simply avoid those questions.

Interesting!

I cannot imagine that is the way things actually work. Frankly I think almost all of what modern science does is to explore questions that may or may not be solvable...and give it its best.

I suspect your stance comes primarily from a position of a guess you have that gods do not exist.


I may be wrong.

 

A paper written by a Creationist is not a textbook. But let's see who your author is...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture

Now let's look at your specific arguments as stated by Mr. Luskin...

How are these evidence for the necessity of a Designer?

ToE accepts that "Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information)."
The eye being an example.

Luskin's article was written after science had already come to understand that some "junk DNA" has or had uses.

So, yes they are "testable predictions". But they do not provide evidence for a "Designer".

 

Let's get this out of the way. I am an apathetic agnostic, which means I don't know if any gods exist or not, and frankly, I couldn't care less. No god has ever shown any evidence of its existence and I doubt any could. Even if a being came down from the heavens and performed miracles and had knowledge of things that we did not, how do we know it is not just an alien with advanced technology? After all, as Arthur C. Clarke said (and I'm paraphrasing here), a significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Even the Bible says that there will be false prophets, so how does one know the "true" god?

Science does not arbitrarily decide that some question cannot be proved or disproved. It uses logic. Bertrand Russel and Carl Sagan both came up with though exercises to illustrate this. Russel had a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars that was too small to be seen by even the most powerful telescope. Sagan had and invisible, intangible, non-heat emitting dragon, living in his garage. In both cases, they could not be disproved, thus were not relevant to science. The same goes for an omnipotent god. A being that can literally do anything, could never be disproved since it could hide its existence from every experiment and test humans could devise. Thus it is no better than the teapot or the dragon, or even the flying spaghetti monster.

As I am reading this back to myself, I realized that I have made an error. It is not about not being able to prove something, since it is almost impossible to 100% prove anything, but rather the inability to disprove something beyond a reasonable doubt that makes the difference.

 

I already responded to your point.

 

Yeah...like you responded to it again with nothing.

I've asked you to cite one thing in nature or the universe that can BEST be explained by an intelligent cause. (Which is to say I have asked you to substantiate an assertion you made which I consider just a gratuitous bit self-serving fluff.)

You have never done that...and I even know why. Because there is no such thing that can be cited.

 

The activity of a system, like the movements and reproduction of a living system or the water contributing to a larger or specific source of water. I think you already know what "function" means. We can examine the overall systematic output (what the system is contributing to) and determine if the goal (the contribution of the output) requires high levels of CSI. For example, if the path led to a cliff that poured into a tunnel like system that curved into another drop off that goes into a another tunnel like system that flows down a path on the edge of a mountain, turning towards a hole in a cave where it pours into a specific low level area and collects, that would require several parts to fulfill its path, the couple of tunnel systems that carry the water while preventing it from pouring down the mountain side, and fulfills the goal of pouring into an area in a cave in the mountain. There is some CSI here, actually pretty high amounts, depending on the parts needed to keep the systems that carry the water up.

Yes, if there was a significant amount of superfluous parts of a system, it would work as a potential falsification of design.

It will depend on the necessary features to get it to that path, if we examine it and realize that the water overflows nearby, eroding paths in its way, we can determine whether or not the water may have a natural tendency to do this. If it doesn't, and the parts required to get it going into that path require a specific sequence that requires a specific patter

We observe intelligent phenomena all around us, there isn't a need to compare other systems. I used the comparing the designed paths with non designed paths as an example since it provides a clear point on how we can apply the observed features of intelligent phenomena to systems like the one you brought up. We can examine intelligent phenomena and derive the output of these systems, we can make predictions about other systems to determine if design is the best explanation.

 

I will quote what I said:

Now read it.

 

I did read it.

Maresy dotes and doesy dotes and little lamsy divey.

Still waiting for ANY example of one thing in nature or the universe that can BEST be explained by an intelligent cause.

Or...and this would be unique: You saying, "I cannot do it."

 

I will zoom in for you (since you refuse to for yourself):

I never really come across someone using this strategy often, the strategy of trying to pretend someone is not responding to your question so you can discredit them.

 

Remember, we don't need an explanation of an explanation. If we found a pile of machinery on Mars, we can conclude it is designed without knowing who the designer is or their motives to determine that it is designed. We can determine whether something is designed because we observe intelligent phenomena in our everyday world, and can be used as an explanation for certain features of systems, but of course, we need to test the systems to determine if they contain the features of intelligent phenomena.

 

This is a good point. And going further...let's get an example of a future outcome that can be predicted BETTER by ID than by any other currently accepted theory.

 

You dare to suggest that "intelligent design" is the best explanation for DNA and the genetic code?

Why didn't you pick "red lights" or "apples?"

There is nothing to indicate DNA or the genetic code is in any way a function of "intelligent design" let alone "the best possible explanation" for it

If there are no gods...ONE OF THE TWO POSSIBLE REALITIES...then DNA and the genetic code naturally occurred without guidance of any intelligent design.

Your suggestion is purely gratuitous. As gratuitous as one would be if the assertion was, "It is the result of natural causes without any guidance."

So...actually come up with something that we can show to be...not just assert...show to be best explained by intelligent design.

(HINT: Stop looking for it. It does not exist. Thoughts in both directions on this are self-serving pap.)

 

I guess it depends on how you are defining faith. If by faith you mean assertion based acceptance (without verification of any sort, just acceptance based on assertion), then no, science uses experimental methods to determine explanations, not just blind acceptance. If by faith you mean acceptance without 100% certainty, then I would agree with you. However, that would also mean that me sitting in front of my computer is a matter of faith since I don't know for absolute certainty if I am really typing posts on this site, I could be a brain creating subjective experiences in a science lab.

 

Not in this case, I am explaining certain features as designed, I don't need to explain my explanation for it to be an explanation.

 

No, natural selection operates on environmental pressures, genes, and reproduction, it doesn't have any goal, change only happens because of the response to the environment.