What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2013, 02:04 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
"Gravity doesn't need guardian angels."
"You can't prove that angels don't hold everything down on the earth. You haven't proved that angels are not needed."

This is who you're trying to rationally talk with. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:47 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(08-03-2013 02:04 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  "Gravity doesn't need guardian angels."
"You can't prove that angels don't hold everything down on the earth. You haven't proved that angels are not needed."

This is who you're trying to rationally talk with. Drinking Beverage
You are comparing a fundamental force with a process. This process can not be replicated sans intellect. It is perfectly acceptable to question if it can come into existence at all sans intellect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:59 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Beep! Beep! Unsupported assertion alert! Beep!

Quote:This process can not be replicated sans intellect.


Saying it over and over doesn't make it so.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 05:00 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 07:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 07:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, Dawkins is correct; evolution is entirely blind. You misunderstand what convergent evolution is.

This is hardly a compelling counter argument. You should start by explaining how it is that I am misunderstanding what convergent evolution is.
I'll tell you why you're wrong. Convergent evolution describes the end result. Evolution is the entire process.

To clarify, those species that survive natural selection tend to show aspects that tend towards the "practical" where practical is defined by the circumstances surrounding that particular species (limited to both environment and even planet).

Animals can still evolve useless functions, it's just more likely that the practical ones endure.

So evolution is blind - in the way that Dawkins means it. One could argue that everything follows the laws of physics so it's not entirely blind, but that's not what Dawkins means.

Science, logic and how they destroy religious arguments @ http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sceptical Prophet's post
08-03-2013, 06:55 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 08:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(08-03-2013 01:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 01:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Occam's Razor and proving a negative.

We can't prove that no intelligence was involved, it's just that everything works perfectly well without positing any intelligent agent. Intelligence is not needed, nor is their any evidence to support that position. So if you want to ADD the element of intelligence to the theory, the burden of proof is upon you to show evidence in support of your positive claim.

Come on, this is Logic 101 here...
The bolded part has never been demonstrated. It is an assumption that is also your conclusion. In Logic 101 this called begging the question.

No. If intelligence WAS NEEDED, it would already be an integral part of the theory.


Why would we assume an intelligent agent for this part, and only this part, in lieu of the rest of the theory? There is no evidence to support the positive claim that an intelligent agent is required, so it is assumed to be a natural (i.e. unguided or blind) process, UNTIL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANOTHER CONCLUSION CAN BE VALIDATED. You have yet to come even remotely close to owning your burden of proof, and so we don't lend any validity to your claims. Claims presented without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.


Once again, this is Logic 101. Get with he program...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
08-03-2013, 07:48 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(08-03-2013 02:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 02:04 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  "Gravity doesn't need guardian angels."
"You can't prove that angels don't hold everything down on the earth. You haven't proved that angels are not needed."

This is who you're trying to rationally talk with. Drinking Beverage
You are comparing a fundamental force with a process. This process can not be replicated sans intellect. It is perfectly acceptable to question if it can come into existence at all sans intellect.
What does the underlined statement mean?

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
08-03-2013, 03:01 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(08-03-2013 05:00 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  To clarify, those species that survive natural selection tend to show aspects that tend towards the "practical" where practical is defined by the circumstances surrounding that particular species (limited to both environment and even planet).

So you're saying natural selection guides the evolution of a species towards shapes, forms, traits which are "practical"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 03:04 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(08-03-2013 03:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 05:00 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  To clarify, those species that survive natural selection tend to show aspects that tend towards the "practical" where practical is defined by the circumstances surrounding that particular species (limited to both environment and even planet).

So you're saying natural selection guides the evolution of a species towards shapes, forms, traits which are "practical"?


No. There is no guidance.

Here, practical merely means functional.

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
08-03-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(08-03-2013 03:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 03:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So you're saying natural selection guides the evolution of a species towards shapes, forms, traits which are "practical"?


No. There is no guidance.

Here, practical merely means functional.

What about his use of "tend towards"? How does an alledgedly blind process that has no goals tend towards anything? If it is tending towards "practical" and/or "functional" then aren't those things goals?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(08-03-2013 03:12 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 03:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  No. There is no guidance.

Here, practical merely means functional.

What about his use of "tend towards"? How does an alledgedly blind process that has no goals tend towards anything? If it is tending towards "practical" and/or "functional" then aren't those things goals?

No, no 'tends toward' either. Differential survival alters the allele frequency in the gene pool.

It's a totally algorithmic, mechanistic process. No goals, no guidance, no direction, no intelligence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: