Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Posted: 10th Apr 2006
While I myself do not advocate ID, I do not think that it has a logical problem any more than any other theory of origin. As was mentioned earlier, one can believe that life on earth was intelligently designed, while the intelligent designer either evolved somewhere besides earth or had always existed.

Even if ID did have "circular" or "infinite" features, I do not quite understand why you would put these issues under the heading of "quantifiability" in the first place. Both a circle and infinity are simple mathematical concepts, and describe many feautures of the universe.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006

 Written by: Patriarch917

That's not real science

Ah, I hadn't realised the difference between 'real' science and all that crappy fake science I've been doing. Silly me.



EDIT: Hey, mabey I could postulate a supernatural explaination to my lab reports! Bet I wouldn't get called an idiot.



All you are doing is futily trying to poke holes in a theory you don't understand. You still no evidence of god Patriarch, so your counter arguement is somewhat lacking.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1144739189)

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
It DOES have an infinite regress logic problem: specifically, if the complexity implies that an intelligent designer designed it that is one step. If intelligence requires an intricate and complex basis, then any intelligence that designed US must also be too complex to have evolved naturally. Now we can continue this ad infinitum, until we either (a) say that there is an undesigned first designer, which I call passing the buck as this same thing can be said of the original subject (ie Us) instead of passing it to something else, or (b) we say that there is an infinite line of designers and there was never a first intelligent designer. I feel this would be a hard position to hold based on scientific means.

The infinity problem is an interesting question... Do true infinites exist? This is a very special problem in philosophy. Mathematical and conceptual infinites exist, but some of the consequences of the existence of a TRUE infinite are interesting (for instance infinite time would have the interesting effect of meaning that all possibilities converge on 1... if the univer were infinite would this imply that we are both right and wrong, depending only on when, under what circumstances, etc. we are asking?). But again this is a Philosophy problem.

I'm questioning whether or not ID belongs in a classroom. Given sciences current limits, let's say the beginning of the universe, I am saying no. This is because it seems currently that science can say nothing about the universe prior to the beginning of the universe, so it must stop at that point and go no further. An infinite regress would imply being able to say through induction or some other means that science CAN make assumptions beyond this point. Simply another reason for me to reject ID as a scientific principle and say it belongs in a Philosophy class room.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006

 Written by: Patriarch917


In order to study the natural, one might have to assume that the natural exists. However, in order to study the natural, one does not have to assume that the supernatural does not exist.

Similarly, science is only capable of examining the things which humans can somehow sense and comprehend. This does not mean that a scientist must assume that things which he cannot sense or comprehend cannot exist.

Which also leads to the idea that to study the supernatural, one must assume it exists, which as i8beefy states in his uberly well argued posts, it not an assumption science makes. Nor will it ever make it, since as soon as science can study some 'supernatural' phenomenon, it becomes part of the natural world. hurrah! (or rather it always was, but we didn't know the cause previously.)

As for your second point: Yeah big deal. Scientists can believe in god too. And many do, so what?

You haven't defended against i8beefy argument (paraphrased) that creationism and ID have nothing to do with the real (natural) world and aren't based on facts and should be treated as philosophy. Whereas evolution is, (on both counts) and should be treated as science.

Which is part of my view as to why ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, because they don't lead to anything. ID as part of a philosophy course - fine, creationism... nah, you might as well teach scientology for all the sense either of them are going to make.

And I'd just like to reiterate my love of i8beefys clear argument style. Beautiful.

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
Given the differences between ID and Creationisim.

Were "they" to teach ID in schools, would the possibility that life originated on another planet and was transplanted here, be classified as natural or supernatural ?

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.


well now your just spreading rumors

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
you evolved from a monkey... deal with it

we were somewhere near barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
An Intelligent Designer is theorized in this case because life is a complex system, and could not have been designed by an unintelligent thing, let's say a rock.

It is not simply because it is a complex system but because of the subtleties and beauty that surround the function. Efficiency is up to grabs if you look at all the left over anatomy, but I would argue relatively efficient.


Intelligence seems to imply a specific method of function: for instance there is a system to intelligence that is based on an inherrent complexity (for instance our intelligence arrises from the incredibly complex system of interconnecting neurons in our brains according to our current best scientific explanations...). Thus we have a bit of a problem.

How is that a problem? it is only a problem if that is the only way intelligence can exist is through increasing complexity. I hold by the fact that of your deductive reasoning while seemingly sound is based on a limitied premise. An author named Bruce Coville wrote that the human mind will never be able to create a true alien because all of what we can create is based on what we know in some shape or form.



That is, complexity implies intelligent design. Intelligence implies complexity.

Hardly, it is an inference made, not an implication.



This is the first cause argument in another form (Some say a Cosmological Argument, though I say that it is such a clear relationship to a Telological Argument that the difference is very slim). Which is why I gave my reasoning for thinking it is better (and more parsimonious) to apply the "uncauses first cause" to the world, or the "undesigned first intelligence" to some natural lifeform than to supply a somewhat less plausible, less explicable, and less parsimonious supernatural explanation.

Still thinking: why?



Which is why it doesn't work as science. Science implies certain things (without which science and all of it's findings are erroneous). One of those things is cause-effect. As this is an evolution / biology thread and not a metaphysics / theoretical physics thread, I hope that we may simply assume this for now without digressing into the cause-effect thread for deeper examination. Anywho, God by definition is "supernatural", meaning beyond the natural world and thus does not necessarily conform to such things as cause-effect, time, logic, etc. Thus as an explanatory force, explains nothing as it is outside of the given system.


There are so many dimensions and scientists “see” particles jump from one to another, string theory-esque. We know more dimensions exist than the ones we live in, but we cannot actually see them.

You're syllogism, further, only demonstrates that the first premise is mistaken, or at least needs to be qualified. This is a DEDUCTIVE argumentand thus form-valid. Whether or not the content is valid is another matter.

You are arguing the content and holding it as true



If you can show me that intelligence does not imply the complexity that IC argues means there is a designer, then you have not only defeated me, but yourself.
That's a problem in the way the ID argument is formed, and why it isn't scientific: it requires that at least one part of itself does NOT conform to principles like cause-effect, logic, etc. And this is why it isn't science.

Because science never looked at something and said “Certainly, I am looking at an effect of something, I wonder what the cause is” Damn those apples falling.
I stand by my syllogism as an example of how things that seems to make sense can be wrong. I just used an absurd example. Science is limited because our understanding is. People knew gravity existed before science “proved” it, you jumped and did not float into space, it was seen as a force that had indelible affect on the world. But if you told scientists that this invisible thing keeps us on the ground or all things in its orbit. Centrifugal forces. Weather patterns. Jet streams. Vector fields. Bacteria. Viruses. Ionospheric Plasma. Unified force theory.
Ah, how sad that miracles do not exist. That things happen that have no natural explination but are not “supernatural” I shall have to tell my mother that it was a freak accident that the cancer she had grew the wrong way and even though it was stage three did not travel through her system but existed in the pocket the cancer created. I shall tell my coworker’s son that he was hearing voices when a woman told him duck when he was in the car alone and had the top ripped off of the car by a semi trailer that he did not see. I shall tell myself that it was coincidence that my perfectly good car stalled right before a car blew a stopsign.
I have more personal examples…I think many other people do too

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
I thought it was unintelligent design. The idiots who decided to make US education Christian should be fired, along with Bush. The problem is, we would have to get rid of Bush and 16 of his next sucessors to get to someone decent.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
Be careful when speaking of complexity. ID does not say that complexity requires intelligent design. Often, the opposite is true.

A stone that has been shaped randomly by the elements can have a great deal of complexity, yet we would not say that it was designed. On the other hand, a stone that was shaped in the form of a perfect cube would be very simple, yet it would be very likely that it was designed.

Irreducible complexity is a concept proposed by Darwin, who suggested that if any feature of life could not be explained by successive gradual modifications his theory would be destroyed. ID has investigated this proposition. I think their attention is misplaced.

A stone in the shape of a perfect cube may have been formed that way with a hammer and chisel through many successive small steps, yet it still would have been intelligently designed.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
Post deleted by Domino

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
It is an inference and not an implication? I disagree completely. You are saying that WE are so complex (or rather, the biological basis of life, so simple bacteria would suffice) that we had to be designed by a more intelligent, and THUS more complex being. Let me explain: a monkey did not intelligently engineer a bacteria's genetic makeup, let alone the much more complex systems for US. Intelligence DOES imply complexity according to our current scientific understanding, because intelligence is a function of underlying complex biological systems. Ie: see cognitive science.

If you want to say intelligence needs no biological complexity, you've just stepped beyond the apparent evidence. You're now in metascience, or more specifically, philosophy.

Once again: why? Because you are positing a THING which can not, and necessarily can not, conform to natural law. Science, as I wrote in the next post, assumes certain axioms: one of which the universe works by certain discoverable laws. As per Berrtrand Russel and the first cause argument, I agree that this sort of infinite regress reasoning is "passing the buck". That is, you are placing a property into a "magical" or "supernatural" thing to explain things when you can just as easily apply a non-supernatural methodology to the original question and it works just as well (or in evolution's case, BETTER, see evidential research, probability of evolution of simple polymers article, etc. etc.). This is why.

Must say I don't have a strong enough background in the scientific methods application in quantum physics. I understand the theories, which I am told are backed by evidential support which arrise from application of the scientific method, which still rests on the cause-effect methodology, but these theories are in large part metaphysics still. You have a lot of people taking stabs at new models and no accepted model is out there yet. It is a paradigm that hasn't quite reached maturity yet, and I will not speculate too much about it as I don't understand the actual math side of it, only the theory side.

As for the syllogysm, yes, I am holding that my content is correct. I was simply pointing out that your argument's content was clearly not restrictive enough to form a valid argument. Just because that one poorly formed argument is incorrect, this does not mean that logic doesn't work. If God is so vastly different from everything else, then it is meaningless to talk about him. Apparently we can say SOME things about him to limit him if its in one view's favor, but not mine. If he is so beyond the natural world as to be incomprehensible, then this is the strongest argument of all to make it off limits to science.

Science is LIMITED because of it's central assumed axioms which are NECESSARY for its method to function. Further, science holds that the laws of the universe are comprehensible. So as a basic axiom, it assumes that we can understand how the universe works. As soon as you posit a thing that is entirely incomprehensible you have stepped out of science and into philosophy.

==

In the end, ID and Iredducable Complexity is a Telelogical Argument for the Existence of God. It is a Philosophical position, and not a science position because it steps outside the bounds of science. I must point out once again that though I am a strong supporter of science, I do NOT believe that everything we experience can be quantified and explained (unless as illusions, but Im skeptical). I'm ONLY SAYING ID IS NOT SCIENCE, not that it isn't a valid philosophical position.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
how sad

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
Ummmm... ok. Not sure what part is sad, but I'm assuming it's my overarching viewpoint. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.

But in terms of discussion that seems rather like a brick wall dead end... So let's backtrack to my evidential arguments. What do you think about my response to the "ID is a better explanation given the evidence" argument? I offered a few clear cut cases where evolution had a ready made explanation for observable things that ID does not have predictable value. I can throw up some other ones if you'd like as well, but as to date no one has challenged any of them... I'm beginning to feel neglected here... Especially since this goes right in the face of the ID argument that it explains things better.

Also there's the teleological nature of the argument which belies its philosophical roots.

And the "passing the buck" problem which I am asserting is not valid for a "scientific" theory.

And the supernatural as a natural theory problem.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
Hmm Well I am not a science wizard, but I do know that this world is to complex and amazing to be created by chance. I do believe in Jesus Christ but even if for some reason I didn't I would still think there was someone or something that created this world we live in.

Stuart

I do not belive in religion but a relationship with Christ. THAT is the only thing that can save you.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
We evolved, it’s very simple. There not one bit of evidence to suggest we were created or intelligently designed.

Take the aids virus. Its so badly designed, in that it replicates poorly, yet this weakness or poor design is it’s success.

stickman, I believe Jesus is the light the way and the truth, but Jesus was a man.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
I believe that there was one original creator, but I consider it hubris to apply completely human concepts such as intelligence and design to something that achieves things that appear miraculous through the interaction of the simplest and most fundamental of things.

Look at how much human society has developed over the past hundred years, and then tell me that that scale of development couldn't have happened over the past million in other systems.

The only thing stopping a person from understanding this is their inability to comprehend what a million years is, or just how many chemical reactions can occur in that time, due to their experience of time being limited to one lifespan, and their experience of space being limited to what they can see with their own eyes.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Posted: 11th Apr 2006
On the logical possibility of an actual infinite existing WITHIN the natural world: https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf

Mr. Craig is most decidedly in the "not possible" camp. For the possible camp, there's a guy by the last name of smith here: https://qsmithwmu.com/

Some of the logical problems and possible solutions are discussed by these two philosophers. An infinite regress would be an "actual infinite" that is existent in the real world. Craig attempts to show why an actual infinite in the real world is logically impossible. It isn't meant to show that infinite sets are not possible outside of the natural world though. So God is still safe, don't worry. In fact, Craig supports God, as his paper is meant to show that an infinite regress of causes is impossible.

Just an interesting side venture for those interested in the logical nature of the arguments involved. This is actually in response to the "It could be an infinite line of intelligent beings designing life over and over again". It is an interesting argument that implies that the universe had a beginning, and that the only possible beginning was God (we call this the Kalam Cosmological Argument in Philosophy). If you buy it, of course, this has the implication of saying that ID necessarily implies God, and is thus necessarily outside the realm of science.

For more on the Kalam argument, and a possible problem with it involving the concept of an afterlife: https://www.infidels.org/library/modern/eric_sotnak/kalam.html

==

Anyway, things seem to have slowed down so I'm off to the bar for a beer. Later gents!

Posted: 12th Apr 2006

 Written by: stickmen


Hmm Well I am not a science wizard, but I do know that this world is to complex and amazing to be created by chance.

Exactly right. This world wasn't formed by chance.

Because, as we've been saying for the last few months over about two dozen pages -

Evolution and natural proscesses aren't chance.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 12th Apr 2006

 Written by: faithinfire



how sad

The counter arguement is as rational and coherent as ever.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 12th Apr 2006

 Written by: polarity


I believe that there was one original creator, but I consider it hubris to apply completely human concepts such as intelligence and design to something that achieves things that appear miraculous through the interaction of the simplest and most fundamental of things.

Look at how much human society has developed over the past hundred years, and then tell me that that scale of development couldn't have happened over the past million in other systems.

The only thing stopping a person from understanding this is their inability to comprehend what a million years is, or just how many chemical reactions can occur in that time, due to their experience of time being limited to one lifespan, and their experience of space being limited to what they can see with their own eyes.

this is sort of where i am coming from but where you see the Creator stepping back, I think the Creator still makes adjustments
I think a Creator set things in motion. A Creator set things in motion with the rules that bind our universe. I think evolution did, does, will occur. But I also think that there is an active invisible hand here and there, aka miracles and supernatural occurrences, see above personal experiences. I probably believe that there is a more active hand than many people.

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 12th Apr 2006
I consider that in the act of creating the single creator ceased to exist in it's original form, and it's original fundamental nature gave rise to a system, and is visible throughout that system, which procedes to develop complexity by combining existing parts in different ways.

I think the adjustments come from within the system.

Science can't explain them because it's method is to seperate what it's studying from the rest of the system, and those adjustments only occur through interaction with the whole system (the whole system being what the creator became).

Religions try to explain them but similarly get it wrong because they're using just one societies language and concepts to describe something that can only be described by a universal language. You'd need to work with the intuitive/sub-consious (non culture specific) language of metaphors/dream-symbols alongside mathematics, as a purely intellectual language like mathematics isn't universal, and cannot be applied to the realm of consciousness and awareness.

The prophets could understand this, but what they said gets taken literally in only one societies frame of reference. There are references to microbiology in genesis, but they can only be seen if you look for scientific concepts, explained using completely non scientific language.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Posted: 12th Apr 2006
very cool theory

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 12th Apr 2006
Now this is interesting (just hit 'Try again' if it complains about cookies).

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Posted: 12th Apr 2006
Very cool news on the structure of the brain...

Posted: 12th Apr 2006

 Written by: Patriarch917


Very cool news on the structure of the brain...

Yeah! The part of the brain where spatial dimension is calculated is bigger amongst taxi drivers.

Why let your body be a temple? When it can be a theme park?

Wii Console Number: 3294 0297 7824 7498

Posted: 12th Apr 2006
For those with a masochistic streak - Complexity: bacterium vs. CPU. I'm staying away from the rest of that site in case my brain implodes.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Posted: 17th Apr 2006
I work at a print shop and someone brought in this book, and asked me to copy it. I cant' remember if they thought it was a joke or were serious, I think they were serious... I have some great land in New Orleans if you believe all of that. (No offence to those who just lost everything)

dont make peoples heads turn, give them whiplash.

Posted: 19th Apr 2006
I disagree - nothing is as complex as the stupidity of men (who invented "faith")! No bacteria, virus, no Pentium IV CPU. "Faith" and stupidity are simply merry go rounds, there is no exit in faith but through your own bowl... there is no exit from stupidity and not even college or university can make one man sane.

Makes me wonder: was stupidity invented and created by the supreme, or did it evolve?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 19th Apr 2006
Stupidity doesn't exist, it is merely an absence of intelligence and rational thought, with an excess of delusion and rash actions. There is a word for it, but I can't remember it. It's like cold and dark in that way. However, this is going wildly off topic.

Human concepts like faith and doubt and so on, don't mean anything as they are purely concepts. They are part of social evolution, and as such belong elsewhere. Social hierachies are an interesting area of psychology and philosophy, but aren't the issue here,

Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...