4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2014, 07:02 PM
4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
The truth about science vs. religion: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat:

4 Reasons Why intelligent Design Falls flat

Enjoyed this article I came across, thought I would share.

The tree of delusion is nourished by the vague promises and skewed perception of prayer. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
04-08-2014, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2014 07:33 PM by bobsyeruncle.)
RE: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
MyBB messed the link up. Try this tinyurl link:

http://tinyurl.com/kf84wrw

Intelligent Design seems to focus a lot of energy on why evolution is apparently wrong, but there isn't much to say about why it must be right. People are somehow supposed to reason that Intelligent Design must be true without any direct evidence for it. It's an argument from ignorance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
(04-08-2014 07:28 PM)bobsyeruncle Wrote:  MyBB messed the link up. Try this tinyurl link:

http://tinyurl.com/kf84wrw

Intelligent Design seems to focus a lot of energy on why evolution is apparently wrong, but there isn't much to say about why it must be right. People are somehow supposed to reason that Intelligent Design must be true without any direct evidence for it. It's an argument from ignorance.

Ugh, thanks for that!

The tree of delusion is nourished by the vague promises and skewed perception of prayer. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 12:21 PM
RE: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
Well, no. 1 sort of begs the question. Dodgy
It should have led off with a one-two punch of 3 and 4. Smile

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
Um...it missed the most obvious reason.

There's no fucking designer.

[Image: Atheismreality_zps62a2c96a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 05:50 PM
Re: RE: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
(05-08-2014 12:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, no. 1 sort of begs the question. Dodgy
It should have led off with a one-two punch of 3 and 4. Smile

I haven't looked at the list... But the way I think of a one two punch to the #1 reason against unintelligent design is very painful.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 06:06 PM
RE: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
The 4th reason alludes to what I think is the most compelling reason against it.
An omnipotent god wouldn't need "design". It could just make life happen without any sort of "design". Why would it make it appear that it could and probably did, (as Dr. Szostak at Harvard has demonstrated) arise from the extant conditions.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 02:09 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 03:25 AM by phil.a.)
RE: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat
I think the Salon article is rather flawed. Here's an argument which is shorter but which I feel nevertheless goes much deeper in refuting Intelligent Design.

Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically that it's impossible to define a system in terms of itself. And yet, this is exactly what ID does, when looking to define proof of the "creator" in terms of the "created". ID is a circular argument, it uses as an axiom the conclusion it attempts to reach, since a pre-existing belief in god is a requirement to find the type of evidence offered for the existence of god to be convincing evidence. In short, the ID people are just seeing their pre-existing beliefs about "god" projected into their experience of the cosmos. ID is an idiot argument, I feel I cannot engage with it on it's own terms (e.g. debate the "evidence") without becoming an idiot myself.

Sadly, and this is rather tragic - the Salon article points 2, 3 and 4 make the exact same mistake as the ID people!, in that Godel's incompleteness theorem refutes the validity of their argument too. The Salon article makes the unfortunate mistake of debating against ID on it's own terms.

Which leaves just one truth claim in the article, point 1 - evolution is "directionless".

From the perspective of natural selection, this assertion is true, yet from the perspective of emergent complexity it is not true. In terms of the dimension of complexity, evolution has a very clear direction. In terms of behavioural (and cognitive) complexity, things thus far have only gone in one single overall direction since the appearance of life on earth.

I think the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" in evolution is meaningful, in a nutshell the idea is that things just drift along for periods of time through random natural selection, but then systems reach tipping points and a sudden discontinuity happens in the form of a new emergence of some sort of increased process complexity. I'd place the boundaries of some of the stages in this process of emergent complexity thusly:

1. Prokaryotes (simple single-celled life)
2. Eukaryotes (complex single-celled life)
3. Multicellular non-neuronal (e.g. a sponge)
4. Neuronal organisms without a brain (e.g. a jellyfish)
5. Rudimentary brain (reptilian stem in triune brain theory)
6. Mammalian brain (limbic system in triune brain theory)
7. Primate brain (neocortex in triune brain theory)

So - from the perspective of complexity, evolution has a direction.

I find the idea that it has a direction interesting, because I think if you can see the function clearly enough then you can extrapolate it into the future and get an idea of where it's all going!

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes phil.a's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: