Intelligent design

[GAHD]

...So, we see the analogy is entirely valid and thus the conclusion of I.D. is extremely well supported by evidence...Of course analogies are not evidence. I never claimed they were.

I really don't see how you can say this together in the same post and claim to be logical. This is where we dont see eye-to-eye: I can't make this connection in my brain for some reason, it just keeps spitting out a big fat ERROR message at me.

[TRoutMac]

Lie.

 

Damocles, assertion is not proof, remember? You're calling me a liar and I do not appreciate it. The questions were asked and I answered them. If you're not mature enough to handle the answers, that's your problem, not mine.

 

Its evidence that the human being on the island needs help.

 

Yes, it certainly is evidence that the intelligent designer (human being in this case) needs help. It's also evidence that this human is somewhat literate. But before you reach either of those conclusions, you have to first reach the conclusion that it's a human being. How did you reach that conclusion? Simple… you know that this kind of information requires intelligence, and you know that humans possess the required intelligence. Therefore, the intelligent designer on the island is human. From there you can make conclusions about what the human needs. For example, maybe the message says "Buy a Macintosh". In that case, you still know there is an intelligent designer, but they're apparently not in need of help. Your statement above focuses on the content of the message and therefore is really rather irrelevant. What the message says not nearly as important as the fact that it is a message.

 

You see, you guys are trapped.

 

And the more you try to deny it, the more it appears I.D. is right on the money. It's kinda funny, actually. Funnier still to watch you all try so desperately to find ways to deny it. Logical gymnastics doesn't begin to describe it. Sort of like watching "Candid Camera".

[pgrmdave]

I came to this thread with an open mind, even though I have always felt that the theory of evolution holds true. Well, I have been convinced of one thing, there is evidence of intelligence inherent within life, however, I don't think that leads to a designer. Evolution is a feedback system - the species interact with their environment. This environment consists of themselves, other living species, and the natural world. As other living species and the natural world change, the original species has a few choices - it can adapt, so that it is able to live in different situations (i.e. the different races adapted to live in different climates), it can change, which over time may lead to new species, or it can die. Where does intelligence come in? The system of evolution, the interaction of species over time produces the effects of intelligence. Each individual living organism is like an individual neuron in a gigantic intelligence. It is all of the interactions that the organisms have which produces an 'intelligent' system. Thus, I think that yes, there IS evidence for Intelligent Design, but that does not make it true. The same evidence, without looking for either a designer or ignoring a design, makes more sense supporting this idea than it does supporting either strict Intelligent Design or Darwinian Evolution.

[TRoutMac]

I came to this thread with an open mind, even though I have always felt that the theory of evolution holds true. Well, I have been convinced of one thing, there is evidence of intelligence inherent within life, however, I don't think that leads to a designer.

 

I appreciate your open-mindedness. I would simply point out that a "process" does not and cannot possess intelligence. And if I've understood you correctly, you are, in effect, saying the evolution is an intelligent process. With no "mind" behind it, there is no possibility for intelligence. So, I must insist that there are two choices here: Intelligent design, and blind, undirected evolution.

 

Now, be careful, because even though I don't personally believe in evolution (in the macro sense) I'm actually not arguing right here and now against evolution that is directed and "designed in" by the Intelligent Designer. Please understand that. I don't personally believe that's what happened, but for right now I'm not arguing that.

 

I'm simply saying that either there is an Intelligent Designer, meaning an intelligent, "personal" entity of some sort, or there is simply a blind, undirected process. The process itself cannot possess intelligence. You just can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

 

Now, regarding what I said about not believing in designed evolution… again, I'm speaking of macroevolution. I most certainly do firmly believe and accept that random genetic variations over time within a given population (one species or 'kind') can account for changes in appearance to some degree, even to a large degree. A good example of this is the selective breeding of dogs and what that has given us in terms of dog breeds. From Pomeranians to Great Danes… quite a range of possibilities within one 'kind'. (of course, this form of microevolution is actually directed by intelligence, but it still illustrates the point) Not only do I believe in this "brand" of evolution, but I think it's obvious that the Intelligent Designer did, in fact, design that capability into the system.

 

I hope I've made myself clear, here. The macro-micro thing can be awfully blurry.

[pgrmdave]

I would simply point out that a "process" does not and cannot possess intelligence. And if I've understood you correctly, you are, in effect, saying the evolution is an intelligent process. With no "mind" behind it, there is no possibility for intelligence.

 

It is here that we will disagree - what do you consider the mind? It is nothing but a byproduct of the interaction of neurons and chemicals with constant feedback from both itself and its outside environment. A neuron is not intelligent. However, when you put them togeather, they display intelligence, and only through the pattern is the intelligence noticable. I simply think that the pattern itself IS the intelligence.

[TRoutMac]

It is here that we will disagree - what do you consider the mind? It is nothing but a byproduct of the interaction of neurons and chemicals with constant feedback from both itself and its outside environment. A neuron is not intelligent. However, when you put them togeather, they display intelligence, and only through the pattern is the intelligence noticable. I simply think that the pattern itself IS the intelligence.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I realize we're getting awfully close to the question that questor has been asking… how to you account for "life" at the smallest level? Rather than go down that road, because I don't think we can answer it anyway, just substitute any other "process" in place of evolution and ask yourself if that "process" has intelligence. Does the process of osmosis possess intelligence? Does the process which we call the hydrologic cycle possess intelligence? Does the process of oxidation possess intelligence? If not, why not?

 

It seems to me that with regard to I.D. and where it may or may not be compatible with macro-evolution, we ought to start with the question of whether there is an Intelligent Designer or not. From there, we can ask ourselves whether that Intelligent Designer, (assuming for the moment that is the conclusion reached) employed macroevolution in order to create the diversity of life we see today.

 

For that answer, I suggest you visit the following website and listen to the answers Michael Behe gives to some key questions. In particular, number 11, in which he explains why natural selection actually inhibits gradual evolution of, for example, the bacterial flagellum. Weigh his detailed answers to some of the tough questions and decide for yourself. I think he makes an incredibly powerful case against Darwinian (macro)evolution.

 

http://www.id.ucsb.edu/detche/video/biology/behe/interview/behe.html

[TRoutMac]

I really don't see how you can say this together in the same post and claim to be logical. This is where we dont see eye-to-eye: I can't make this connection in my brain for some reason, it just keeps spitting out a big fat ERROR message at me.

 

I am not offering the analogy as evidence in itself. Rather, I'm using the analogy to show you why the evidence I have presented (information in DNA) does qualify as scientific evidence to which supports I.D. The analogy isn't the evidence.

 

Lemme put it this way… DNA consists of organic elements (microscopic, of course) which are arranged in such a way as to have a specific meaning. It carries a 'message', in other words. Instructions.

 

The grains of sand on the beach are organic elements, and when you drag a stick through them to write letters, you are arranging the grains of sand in a particular fashion which conveys a specific meaning. (Save Our Souls) If the message in the sand necessarily indicates an intelligent author, then the message in DNA does as well. It indicates a different intelligent author, but an intelligent author nonetheless. Simple as that, case closed. That it may not be immediately obvious who the intelligent author might be does not change the fact that the message indicates an intelligent author.

 

I'm sorry if you don't understand this, but I can't imagine how I could make it any more clear.

[damocles]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by damocles

Lie.

 

You question this?

 

 

Posted by Troutmac

Damocles, assertion is not proof, remember? You're calling me a liar and I do not appreciate it. The questions were asked and I answered them. If you're not mature enough to handle the answers, that's your problem, not mine.

 

Proof again restated;

 

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

Absolute nonsense, sorry to say. Absolute, unadulterated nonsense. First of all, you didn't address the salient points of my post, and precisely because you couldn't and so instead you chose to use my post to make an entirely different, and equally mistaken, point. You asked specific questions, I answered them.

 

To wit you claimed to answer this

 

Lie. Questions asked.

-----------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

And to these add...

 

Did the designer make any mistakes?

Is cancer by design?

Are virii by design?

Are birth defects by design?

Are attractions to the same gender by design?

Are diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's etc.. by design?

Are idiot savants by design?

-------------------------------------------------

 

And I definitely posted the evidence in the same post body;

 

Posted by damocles

Alleged answer.

 

so that there would be no doubt as to the exact claim made;

 

-------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Posted By Trotmac

 

The answers to your questions, according to I.D. theory, could be summed up as follows:

 

We couldn't possibly know whether the designer has made mistakes, because we cannot know on any scientific basis what the designer's overall objective was. It's entirely possible that the susceptibility to diseases of various kinds, either viral or degenerative or genetic WAS designed in to some extent. In the abstract, it's also possible that these were not designed in. The answer depends on what the objective of the designer may have been, and obviously there's no way for us to assess that on a scientific basis.

 

Regardless, there are millions of products designed by intelligent designers that have design deficiencies of one sort or another or are otherwise subject to malfunctions at some point in time. And designers are known to design certain parts with the knowledge that they WILL fail at some point. Intelligent designers do not always design products that perform perfectly in every respect, in fact I would say that they never do. Design is always a trade off, maximizing benefit while minimizing other factors such as weight, size, etc.

 

So, these questions do nothing whatsoever to challenge the theory of I.D., and in fact, they could easily be said to reinforce it. So thank you.

----------------------------------------

 

The error pointed out by Damocles(me)-deliberate evasion of the questions and the presentation of a duplicitous answer that EVADES the questions asked.

 

By Damocles;

The problem with the alleged answer is that it evades the specific questions asked, by saying that we cannot know-which is the same standard answer that the ID crowd always uses when confronted headon with the concrete objections to their lack of testable evidence.

 

The statement that an allegation was made without proof is disproved as the error in your answer was plainly addressed and identified SPECIFICALLY by point in rebuttal: in that you did not address specific questions; for example, as to how idiot savants exist by intelligent design. Elsewhere I used cave lobsters and human beings as specific examples of questions asked previously that you evaded that I could answer.

 

Here I can write that idiot savants are statistical replication errors that you would expect in normal human CHON/DNA replication chemistry. And like that example; when confronted with such direct questions; you do not address with on point answers; to either the specific question, or to the general issue raised by this specific question set: of why do systems exist that defy the principle of irreducible complexity? Instead you said we cannot know ID intent, which is an EVASION.

 

The label "lie" I applied to it, the statement; as in "the false statement made " in that you claimed to answer the questions posed to you; stands as proved, to be accurate.

[TRoutMac]

The label "lie" I applied to it, the statement; as in "the false statement made " in that you claimed to answer the questions posed to you; stands as proved to be accurate.

 

Damocles, that you don't particularly like the answers I gave does not disqualify them as answers. My answers were straight, honest answers that applied universally to all of the questions C1ay posed. Deal with it, and please do not call me a liar.

 

Here, again, is a summary of my answer to C1ay's questions, which you claim I did not answer:

 

Point 1) "Intelligent Designer" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect designer", ergo it's possible that design flaws are present.

 

Point 2) However, To assess whether a design is flawed you must know what the designer's intent was, what the design goals were. We cannot know this, ergo we cannot know whether the points C1ay raised qualify as "design flaws". The might, but they might not. It all depends on what the intent of the designer was.

 

Now, you don't like these answers because it robs you of what you thought was a solid argument against I.D. Now you realize it's not so solid and so you've no choice, apparently, but to make accusations.

[damocles]

Error #27

1. You think this is personal?

2. You think this is opinion based?

3. You think this is subjective?

 

Stay on topic, address the question asked, and do not evade the point of this discussion(Intelligent design).

 

Those are debate etiquete principles not to mention logic you consistently violate in this discussion.

 

Restating evasions is not the same as answering the questions raised to this point.

 

Assertion; we can't know how because we can't know how(Your answer) is NOT an answer.

 

Answer; we can't know how. There is a barrier that makes it impossible to observe information distribution at the boundary between the intelligent designer and his creation.(If I was answering the question set you evaded with your circular reasoning)

That is a general answer on point to the questions posed..

 

You would be immediately challenged by me to describe what this barrier looked like.

 

You would fail.

 

If you dig back, I showed you one possible answer about thirty posts ago.

 

So let me summarize again.

 

You look for a limit, a boundary. We have one, we speculate, called tau zero. The big bang.

 

Then you look for an event beyond the limit. (LIGO experiment looking for pre-big bang influence on gravitational background wave propogation-leftover gravity ripples from the act of creation-if there was one.)

 

That sets up a two boundary information distribution condition doesn't it?

 

Its what you would need for a deist type model intelligent designer.

 

Now given this you could argue that we cannot see information transfer past the first boundary into the second boundary.

 

You would be wrong and I would show you the error, but you could try.

 

That approach would be on point to the questions raised and it supplies evidence that can be tested.

[C1ay]

The answers to your questions, according to I.D. theory, could be summed up as follows:

 

We couldn't possibly know whether the designer has made mistakes, because we cannot know on any scientific basis what the designer's overall objective was. It's entirely possible that the susceptibility to diseases of various kinds, either viral or degenerative or genetic WAS designed in to some extent. In the abstract, it's also possible that these were not designed in. The answer depends on what the objective of the designer may have been, and obviously there's no way for us to assess that on a scientific basis.

 

Regardless, there are millions of products designed by intelligent designers that have design deficiencies of one sort or another or are otherwise subject to malfunctions at some point in time. And designers are known to design certain parts with the knowledge that they WILL fail at some point. Intelligent designers do not always design products that perform perfectly in every respect, in fact I would say that they never do. Design is always a trade off, maximizing benefit while minimizing other factors such as weight, size, etc.

 

So, these questions do nothing whatsoever to challenge the theory of I.D., and in fact, they could easily be said to reinforce it. So thank you.

Reinforce it? Design flaws reinforce the concept of intelligence? That part about susceptibility being designed in is really rich. The summary of all of this, "things are all so perfect that there must have been an intelligent designer and he/she was so good that they intentionally designed in flaws so it would look like unitelligent design".

 

Thank you! It's clear that ID is philosophy, not biology since we cannot verify it scientifically.

Absolute nonsense, sorry to say. Absolute, unadulterated nonsense. First of all, you didn't address the salient points of my post, and precisely because you couldn't and so instead you chose to use my post to make an entirely different, and equally mistaken, point.

What's nonsense is leaping to the conclusion that there must be a designer from being too impatient to wait on science to find the answers of life and then calling that impatient leap of faith science.

[pgrmdave]

Rather than go down that road, because I don't think we can answer it anyway, just substitute any other "process" in place of evolution and ask yourself if that "process" has intelligence. Does the process of osmosis possess intelligence? Does the process which we call the hydrologic cycle possess intelligence? Does the process of oxidation possess intelligence? If not, why not?

 

Only processes which involve self modifying loops, where the information absorbed by the process changes the process which then changes itself and its environment. This is the important part. If our brains only received information and processed it, but never changed and never changed its environment, then we would not be intelligent. It needs to have a 'strange loop'. I think that evolution qualifies as a strange loop, just like an anthill, or a brain. The idea is that unintelligent, highly predictible individual parts of a system (like an ant, or a neuron), when they are used as part of a self-modifying system (like an anthill or a brain), are able to display intelligence. While an atom displays complexity, it is not self-modifying, and will never really change in response to its environment (short of a chemical modification). There may be a way to test this with computers, but I'm not sure how. It should be possible - a system comprised of very simple, unintelligent programs that can modify their connections to something that favors a given situation, should be able to learn, and display intelligence. If this is true, then we can try to show not only that it is possible for evolution to produce organisms that seem intelligently designed, but that evolution will always produce organisms that seem intelligently designed.

[TRoutMac]

Reinforce it? Design flaws reinforce the concept of intelligence?

 

Well, why should I be surprised that some of you might totally distort and misinterpret what I said?

 

You ever had your car break down? Do you realize that the hard drive in your computer has an accepted point at which it fail, called "Mean Time Between Failures"? Do you not understand that there are parts on airplanes that need to be replaced frequently because they can only be reliable for a short period of time due to the loads they endure and that this is a known compromise in the design?

 

Are you then saying that airplanes, cars and computers are not the result of Intelligent Design?

 

THAT would truly be an idiotic argument.

 

So, without commenting on whether nature has design flaws in it, (because I really don't know) it should be obvious to the casual observer that intelligent design does not necessarily imply "infallable" design.

 

That's what I'm saying, and that's all I'm saying. If you'd like to challenge that, bring it on. It is undeniable.

[GAHD]

Damocles, assertion is not proof, remember?...And the more you try to deny it, the more it appears I.D. is right on the money. It's kinda funny, actually. Funnier still to watch you all try so desperately to find ways to deny it. Logical gymnastics doesn't begin to describe it. Sort of like watching "Candid Camera".

You're either lieing or simply ignoring facts. Not a wise move, especially here.

 

This thread is getting a little too heated. You can either keep jumping down each other's throats and have it closed down, keep jumping down each other's throats and be banned for a while, or stop the jumping and have a rational discussion.

 

TRout, you really need to learn to stop being hippocritical. Before you say *I* have no evidence, read back a few posts to where I told you about the big fat ERROR; all the evidence I need is right there. The burden of proof has been satisfied in that respect.

[Erasmus00]

Lemme put it this way… DNA consists of organic elements (microscopic, of course) which are arranged in such a way as to have a specific meaning. It carries a 'message', in other words. Instructions.

 

The wood in a tree is made of organic elements, but if you cut into a tree, its arranged in such a way as to have rings. A code that can tell you how old the tree is. Did an intelligence put it there? Or is it an environmental feedback system?

-Will

[Boerseun]

You ever had your car break down? Do you realize that the hard drive in your computer has an accepted point at which it fail, called "Mean Time Between Failures"? Do you not understand that there are parts on airplanes that need to be replaced frequently because they can only be reliable for a short period of time due to the loads they endure and that this is a known compromise in the design?

 

Are you then saying that airplanes, cars and computers are not the result of Intelligent Design?

TRoutMac, this is one of my biggest gripes with ID. You are presuming that the universe is the result of ID. Therefore, the above analogy is valid, in your view. How can you presume something before you test for it, and be objective at the same time?

THAT would truly be an idiotic argument.

What you are saying, is that the reason we know that cars, computers, airplanes etc. are made by an intelligent designer is because they break every now and then. That's just plain stupid. And if that's your criteria for ID, show me a star that seizes bearings.

That's what I'm saying, and that's all I'm saying. If you'd like to challenge that, bring it on. It is undeniable.

The possibilities so far:

1) The Universe came forth from a Big Bang

2) This event was intended.

3) This event was not intended.

4) The Universe is the result of a big vulture that crapped all over the sky

5) The Universe is actually just a dream

6) ... etc.

 

Evidence exists for 1.

No evidence exists for either 2 or 3

No evidence exists for 5 or 6 or whatever follows, either.

 

Nobody can say that ID is true, just as much as nobody can say ID is not true. So, you're wrong. It's not *undeniable*. We simply don't know, and no experiments exist either, to test for 2 or 3. Come up with an experiment, and then we'll talk. Keep in mind, though - the evidence for 3 is slowly coming in from colliders world-wide. Quantum theory also says that the universe can be completely unpredictable and random at the atomic scale without breaking any known physical laws. So, at the BB, the whole universe was just one small dot on the map ruled by quantum mechanics. Totally random. No intelligence. I guess a few years from now, 3 might be completely proven, and then you'll have to apologise for the above presumptious statement.

[TRoutMac]

TRoutMac, this is one of my biggest gripes with ID. You are presuming that the universe is the result of ID. Therefore, the above analogy is valid, in your view. How can you presume something before you test for it, and be objective at the same time?

 

It's inexplicable to me how you can have this so backwards. You folks, with your adherance to methodological naturalism, are the ones presuming there's not. Supporters of I.D. do not "presume" there is an Intelligent Designer. We simply approach the entire question with the objective view that there might be. Then, we look at the evidence and we see whether there is evidence to support I.D. By virtue of the fact that we're not restricted by any philosophical presuppositions such as MN means we're able to weigh more options than the MN crowd. And yet here you are telling me that I'm the one "presuming" things.

 

What you are saying, is that the reason we know that cars, computers, airplanes etc. are made by an intelligent designer is because they break every now and then. That's just plain stupid.

 

This is a gross distortion of what I said, Boerseun. In fact, it isn't what I said at all. It amazes me that I have to state this seventeen times before you all catch on. The term "Intelligent Design" does not exclude perfect design, but it doesn't require it, either. Cars, airplanes and computers are designed by intelligent designers, and those examples do have design limitations, flaws, inadequacies of various kinds. From this we know that even designs which are not perfect can still be said to come from an intelligent designer.

 

This does not mean that design flaws are a "hallmark" of I.D., it only means that, in the abstract, the presence of design flaws in no way precludes Intelligent Design.

 

And if that's your criteria for ID, show me a star that seizes bearings.

 

Again, what you described (and attributed to me) is not anyone's criteria for I.D. And now you're asking me to provide evidence of a design flaw in nature. Well, C1ay already listed several things which apparently he views as some sort of design flaw. And that's possible… maybe the things he listed are design flaws. I can certainly understand why someone would think they could be. But again, since we don't know what the designer's overall intent was, we cannot say for sure that they are really design flaws. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. We don't know, we can only speculate.

 

I would kindly suggest that before any of you reply to what I write, please read my post through a few times and make sure you're representing what I've said accurately. There seems to be a tendency for you all to misconstrue what I say, have knee-jerk reactions, or whatever. But you guys are getting things from my messages that simply are not there. I guess you'd like for them to be there, but they're not.

 

I never said that design flaws are an indicator of I.D.. NEVER.