Hey all, while we're talking, what are your thoughts on intelligent design. Most people I speak with that are as well read as y'all seem to at least recognize there was intelligence behind the created order. Even Richard Dawkins admitted it was a possibility.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Congostic (from previous thread) "Possibility needs to be possible"
What negates the possibility of Intelligent Design? One of the basic inferences of creation is the possibility of intelligent design is it not- even if you disprove that inference (where we obviously differ)
Lance: "What negates the possibility of intelligent design." A possibility needs to be demonstrated. You do not get to claim something is possible because it can not be proved impossible. If that is your standard, blue universe creating bunnies are every bit as possible as an intelligent designer. All you are doing is presenting a God of the gaps fallacy.
RE: "One of the basic inferences of creation is the possibility of intelligent design." And when you "Assume" you make an "ASS" out of "U" and "ME." All you have done is make an assumption with nothing backing it up. A "POSSIBILITY" must be an actual possibility. You must demonstrate that it is a possibility before it can be a possibility. You do not get to imagine possibilities into existence. There is no reason at all to assume intelligent design. Indeed, the fallacy begins with the idea of "Creation." There is no reason at all to assume "Creation." There is only.... We don't know.
BOTTOM LINE
The fact that you can not prove something does not exist, does not mean it does exist. There is no reason to assume existence without evidence. No one has to disprove intelligent design. The burden of proof is on you. Natural causes appear to account for everything and they are natural, observable. and measurable. No one needs leap to a magical universe creating designer when natural causes account for all you are calling designed.
@ Lance
ID is a discredited part of creationism. It has been debunked everywhere except in the dark recesses of the Creationist bunkers.
If you want evidence of accidental or evolutionary design look at your own body and think about what you would have done better.
Either we evolved like every other animal on this earth or your creator (Intelligent Designer) is as dumb as fuck.
For detailed refutations of this ID shite I suggest you go to Callissea's profile and read some of the posts he has made in the past.
@Cognostic, I would defer to those that are much more intelligent than I on this discussion. But I believe you ignore probability in relation to possibility. While "blue universe creating bunnies" are possible, the probability rules them out as a cause. Intelligence has an increased probability when examining the structuring of creation (universe to molecules). I believe this is what Dawkins was referring to when he said he could not rule out the possibility of intelligence. The possibility is increased due to the probability based on scientific observation. That is far from "God of the gaps" fallacy.
OK, if we alter his statement to "Intelligent blue universe creating bunnies" then probability no longer rules them out, as they are intelligent.
The problem is that when theists say "intelligence" it never means a general intelligence. It means a being, a creator. And it's never a general creator or being, it's always a god. And it's never a general god, it's always a specific god, and that god is always Yahweh/Jehovah.
Ananke and Chronos (or maybe Chaos if you're so inclined) were just as intelligent as Jehovah. Why does the creation of the universe never lead to one of them instead? It's because you're starting with the presumption that Jehovah already exists and just working back from there.
@Cog and Old Man Re: Lance - "While "blue universe creating bunnies" are possible, the probability rules them out as a cause."
...*warning sirens sounding in the background*.... *yelling over the siren sounds*.... HEY! HAVE EITHER OF YOU MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE BLUE UNIVERSE CREATING BUNNY (Carrots Be Unto Him) TO OUR NEW MEMBER HERE?.... *sirens finally stop*... *twisting fingers in ears to help stop the ringing*.... Dammit, I hate those alarms... Anyway, I just find it interesting that our dear friend Lance here mentioned our revered Blue Bunny, because it has been awhile since we have spoken of him on the open forums. Probably nothing, but just very curious, is all. Would be curious to hear Lance's excuse for his potential slip-up, because now I am starting to wonder who might have a hand up his ass.
@ TM
Good point.
@Lance: No one is ignoring anything. The fact that something can not be disprove does not mean it is possible or probable. To get to probable you have to demonstrate it is possible first. YOU my friend, simply have no idea at all of what you are talking about. You should have left it to those more intelligent before starting the thread.
Blue Universe Creating Bunnies are not possible. To assert something is possible it must first be demonstrated. They are only possible in the mind of a fool that has no means to distinguishing that which is real from fantasy. Nothing is possible until it has been demonstrated to be possible.
Probability rules them out? This is insane. How in the fuck are blue universe creating bunnies probable? How is probability going to rule them out. Probability is the likelihood or chance of an event occurring. Probability = the number of ways of achieving success. the total number of possible outcomes. Blue Universe Creating Bunnies have not been deemed possible. Until they are possible there can be no probable.
RE: "Intelligence has an increased probability when examining the structuring of creation (universe to molecules). " WTF? Are you just copying words out of a text someplace? The structuring of creation?? You have not demonstrated creation. Please do so. Universe to molecules? WTF drugs are you on. This is bumbling nonsense.
@ANYONE??? SOMEONE ELSE MAKE SENSE OUT OF THIS STRING OF UTTER AND COMPLETE BULLOCKS.
I believe this is what Dawkins was referring to when he said he could not rule out the possibility of intelligence. The possibility is increased due to the probability based on scientific observation. That is far from "God of the gaps" fallacy.
Your biggest mistake in whatever you think that nonsense (above) supports is "I BELIEVE." You should have just stopped there.
@Lance
"But I believe you ignore probability in relation to possibility."
And what is the probability that an entity that is invisible to all methods of detection decided to construct this little planet and us, out of a universe filled with over two hundred billion galaxies each populated by between one and two hundred billion stars?
Re: OP (Before reading any other replies.)
I can't speak for anybody else, but my personal opinion is that if some life form/being/entity INTENTIONALLY designed this universe, this planet, the planet's environment/geography/weather systems, and all the life forms on this planet (ESPECIALLY the biology of humans), then I find it difficult to determine that life form/being/entity to be intelligent in any way, shape, or form. Even if some type of creator was actually true, our universe and home planet looks more like a half-ass science fair project put together by a mediocre junior high school student. About the most credit I could give that "designer" would be a D+ or (if I were being generous) a C-. Intelligent design, huh?... *shaking head in amusement*... Now THAT'S funny... *chuckle*...
(Now to go see what others have said...)
@Lance:
"Most people I speak with that are as well read as y'all seem to at least recognize there was intelligence behind the created order."
So what? Logical fallacy; argument by consensus. IE that a lot of/most people believe a thing to be true makes it so. Incorrect.
"Even Richard Dawkins admitted it was a possibility." So what? That is simply another claim , not supported by evidence. Also another logical fallacy; "appeal to authority. " That a claim ought to be believed based on who says it, rather than being true on its own merits.
Intelligent design/irreducible complexity/ teleological argument is a very old, failed argument used by evangelicals especially to argue the existence of god.
As far as i'm aware, god cannot be argued into or out of existence.The existence of god is an unfalsifiable claim. (look it up) Hence I demand proof before I am able to believe.
I can't understand why you people keep insisting on using this claim when you know you will be ridiculed . (martyr complex?)
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3] Other authors consider it a fallacy in general to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
@Lance: "Most people I speak with that are as well read as y'all seem to at least recognize there was intelligence behind the created order."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....... ****FALLING OVER***** HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA **** GRIPPING MY SIDE, ROLLING INTO A BALL***** HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA **** WETTING MYSELF ONCE AGAIN***** This has got to be the winner of the Atheist Flying Fucking Finger of Faith award this week!!
@Lance: Most people I speak with that are as well read as y'all seem to at least recognize there was intelligence behind the created order.
Human beings have evolved to see patterns everywhere. It was vital to our survival as hunter-gatherers, but it has also left us with a tendency to see patterns where none exist, such as shapes in clouds, pictures of Jesus and Mother Teresa in toast and oil stains, and order and design in nature.
Intelligent design also appeals to our vanity and self-importance. A deity created the universe and the Earth just for us, right? Well if that were the case, why is that we can survive only on a small part of one planet, while most of this planet and the universe are deadly for us? Why are there so many compromises and design flaws in the human body? If we were created in god's image as his ultimate masterpiece, why aren't we the dominant species on this planet?
If you play the intelligent design card, you are left with the burden of proof of evidencing the claim.... theists therefore are still up shit creek without a paddle I'm afraid.
And even if we hypothetically accept that 'something' designed the universe and its contents, you have to ask, what was it?
Why stop at a bearded, invisible wizard?!
Why not a purple unicorn called Derek?!
Both claims would have a similar amount of evidence to support them.
@AND - You can not claim everything has a designer and then magically stop at a god for no good reason. You are left with, what designed the god? Now you have to evidence a god and a reason the god can violate the law of creation.
@everyone thanks for the input- I was simply looking for your thoughts.
Lance, you threw out a proposition with absolutely nothing to back it up. Nothing, a big fat zero.
ID is the propaganda name for creationism, it is not supported by a shred of objective evidence, and as far as current religious creation mythologies, they're laughable nonsense that direct;y contradict known scientific facts from Physics and biology.
@sheldon- not sure what "facts" are contradicted. I think that would be highly debatable
@Cognostic- doesn't ruling out the possibility of ID lead you down the same errors that you accuse the IDers of? And at what point does life experience play into the role of proof?
Then you're wrong, humans like all living things evolved slowly over billions of years, all the evidence shows this. The biblical creation myth also get the basic chronology of the formation of the universe and our solar system wrong. None of these facts are debatable unless one is prepared to deny overwhelming scientific evidence, ironically in favour of completely unevidenced superstition.
As an atheist Cognostic doesn't need to claim creationist mythology is impossible, you as an adherent have to show that it is possible, and demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for it. At its core creationism makes claims for supernatural cause, and this is not only unfalsifiable, and totally unevidenced, it also has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Here's a very good site that has an enormous amount of the evidence for evolution, and debunks a great deal of creationist myths, lies and propaganda.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
@Lance: RE: doesn't ruling out the possibility of ID lead you down the same errors that you accuse the IDers of?
Wow! I can not believe how dense you are. "I have not made an assertion. What in the hell error have I made?" You have argued for an Intelligent designer and we have shown you a hundred ways how that is just a completely absurd position to take. All you are is making an ignorant assertion.
Now, with that said, where do you see the fallacy?
So what? It is a possibility the universe was created 5 minutes ago with false age by a Yellow Mutant Space Llama named George.
I'm not particularly interested in what is possible; I'm interested in what can be tested. Creationism (in the forms that I've seen it at least) and the Space Llama story do not make testable predictions. So even if they were somehow true, there would be no way to demonstrate that. They are useless ideas.
Spot on @Nyar.
Intelligent design simply plays the god of the gaps fallacy and offers no evidence of predictions, you cannot even make a scientific working cosmological model.
It's simply, I don't know what caused A, therefore X did it.
It is literally the most intellectually dishonest position a person can take.
I doubt that, it's more likely he recognised he could not say it was impossible, and his response has been deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented. Without any objective evidence for the claim everything was created, no one can say if it is possible. This is true of all unfalsifiable claims of course.
@everyone- Looks like everyone is calling BS on ID. If that's the case how do you explain the existence of flagellar motors? The process of Natural Selection states only mutations which are advantageous for survival are preserved. However the flagellar motor does not function unless all parts are present- negating the ability to evolve through natural selection. Wouldn't the most likely (or most probable) reason for existence point toward intelligence? I think Dembski's work falls along the same line which would lead to the conclusion of ID not randomization.
Lance, you wrote, “The process of Natural Selection states only mutations which are advantageous for survival are preserved.”
Where does it state this?
@Lance
WHAT THE FUCK IS A FLAGELLAR MOTOR??? And what does it have to do with my being an atheist???
@Tin-Man: WHAT THE FUCK IS A FLAGELLAR MOTOR???
It's a device used by religious fanatics to flagellate themselves without the risk of RSI.
@Algebe Re: "It's a device used by religious fanatics to flagellate themselves without the risk of RSI."
Ohhhhhhhh.... Okay. I see now. Gotchya. Perfectly clear... So, uh, what the hell is RSI??? Now I'm confused again.... *sudden look of realization*... Wait... You mean to tell me some religious "genius" actually built a device for people to use to voluntarily flog themselves???... *perplexed look*... What the hell??? A flogging machine??? Geeez... Ain't automation a bitch? Taking all the humanity out of everything more and more each day... *shaking head in sadness*... Personally, I just get my wife to-.... Um... Er.... Uh... Well, uh, just, um, never mind that. Uh, anyway....
Back to Lance: What the hell does a man-made machine have to do with my being an atheist???
Tin-Man:
RSI = repetitive strain injury. You get by repeating the same movement over and over again, so it's a particular risk for trainee priests in semen-aries.
Pages