How would you "prove" Intelligent Design ?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Just wondering what the evidence is for Intelligent Design ? And if it is actually specific to a religious view ? After all if the building blocks of life were seeded by an alien race who then buggered off, would that qualify as ID ?

[Kaftan Barlast]

It is specific to Christianity in that it is a not very cleverly hidden attempt by fundamentalist Christians to force the teaching of children that the world and everything in it was created by a higher, intelligent power(god).

 

 

And there is no empirical evidence whatsoever. Just rethorics.

[kumquatq3]

Just wondering what the evidence is for Intelligent Design ? And if it is actually specific to a religious view ? After all if the building blocks of life were seeded by an alien race who then buggered off, would that qualify as ID ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No

 

People who support ID point to things like the eye as things that are to complex to come from evolution.

 

Aliens who dropped bacteria wouldn't have created eyes, they still would have come via evolution

[Child of Flame]

It really can't be proved. Also, there's a lot more 'evidence' for Evolution, even when following along with the biblical creation order.

 

Hence my simultaneous belief in religion and evolution.

 

ID has no place in secular schools though.

[WITHTEETH]

It seems Intelligents only "positive proof" is how obviously complex everything is. I believe its called specified Complexity. Its so complicated and complex how could it have happened naturally? It has to be done with an intelligent being backing it.

 

Webpage

Specified complexity consists of two important components, both of which are essential for making reliable design inferences. The first component is the criterion of complexity or improbability. In order for an event to meet the standards of Dembski's theoretical notion of specified complexity, the probability of its happening must be lower than the Universal Probability Bound which Dembski sets at one chance in 10^150 possibilities.

 

The second component in the notion of specified complexity is the criterion of specificity. The idea behind specificity is that not only must an event be unlikely (complex), it must also conform to an independently given, detachable pattern. Specification is like drawing a target on a wall and then shooting the arrow. Without the specification criterion, we'd be shooting the arrow and then drawing the target around it after the fact.

 

Specified Complexity doesn't point to a designer still. It just points out we are complex. I disagree with it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It seems Intelligents only "positive proof" is how obviously complex everything is. I believe its called specified Complexity. Its so complicated and complex how could it have happened naturally? It has to be done with an intelligent being backing it.

 

Webpage

Specified complexity consists of two important components, both of which are essential for making reliable design inferences. The first component is the criterion of complexity or improbability. In order for an event to meet the standards of Dembski's theoretical notion of specified complexity, the probability of its happening must be lower than the Universal Probability Bound which Dembski sets at one chance in 10^150 possibilities.

 

The second component in the notion of specified complexity is the criterion of specificity. The idea behind specificity is that not only must an event be unlikely (complex), it must also conform to an independently given, detachable pattern. Specification is like drawing a target on a wall and then shooting the arrow. Without the specification criterion, we'd be shooting the arrow and then drawing the target around it after the fact.

 

Specified Complexity doesn't point to a designer still. It just points out we are complex. I disagree with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The thing that gets me , is if it were that intelligent then there wouldnt be a need for evolution would there ? By intelligent I mean created by an infallible being.

 

Given enough time any odds can come up I think.

[Cantousent]

It's a red herring. You can't prove intelligent design. Even in antiquity, there was a lot of argument for and against some sort of overarching intelligence guiding creation. Plato was pretty much set against intelligent design, although he did believe in divinity. There's more to intelligent design than the current religion v science debates allow.

[WITHTEETH]

I believe Christianity can only be based on faith because it is a paradox. we can't believe by virtue of reason. I think you have to suspend reason for something higher in christianities case.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

People who support ID point to things like the eye as things that are to complex to come from evolution.

 

Aliens who dropped bacteria wouldn't have created eyes, they still would have come via evolution

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've heard that one. But you can trace back the evolution of eyes as well (things with non functioning eyes that live in caves etc as well as eyeless fish that live in the parts of the ocean that are pitch black (those things freak me out and should be called Fsh anyway).

 

I think some people have a problem with evolution because they cant comprehend the time scale.

[WITHTEETH]

I think some people have a problem with evolution because they cant comprehend the time scale.

Perhaps, Or they believe we don't understand Christianity/faith.

[Plano Skywalker]

I remember, not too long ago, when there were 2 types of people: Evolutionists and people who believed in God. That, of course, is a false dilemma. I think Intelligent Design is really nothing more than a desire to find a way to avoid the religion vs science false dilemma.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Perhaps, Or they believe we don't understand Christianity/faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I recall something like that last boxing day after the Tsunami.

 

On one hand you had people who just couldnt accept that god would do that sort of thing. And on the other you had people saying, well god dosnt actually make the weather he just created the weather system.

 

Both of which are kind of lose/lose.

 

I dont see any reason to buy into a religion thats only been around for 2000 years. Thats a speck of dust. I'd rather buy into the Viking mythos, at least you could have a beer with Odin

Edited November 14, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Plano Skywalker]

on a somewhat related note, the biggest "evidence" that the universe is the result of a higher power is the scientific impossibility of an "uncaused first cause".

 

without a higher power involved, the big bang would have violated one of the fundamental underpinnings of science: matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one form to the other.

[Moose]

That's not entirely correct. In no way does E=MC^2 violate the conservation of matter and energy.

 

It's a common mistake and I see it all the time.

 

 

Secondly, I don't see why you need a god for the universe and the big bang to come into existance. It could simply just be there, as a fact, constantly just looping around from the big bang to the big crunch, over and over and over...

 

 

As for intelligent design... I would strongly urge any intellectuals to never dignify it by giving in to debate.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Moose

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Secondly, I don't see why the you need a god for the universe and the big bang to come into existance. It could simply just be there, as a fact, constantly just looping around from the big bang to the big crunch, over and over and over...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've always liked that one.

[Cantousent]

...And that is going to be the bell for the first round of a long fight. I'll just sit in the sidelines until it gets ugly and then pull out a flamethrower! hahaha

 

No, seriously, I have to respond to this on a couple of levels. In the first instance this is entirely true. The first cause idea has been around since before Christianity. This is another argument from antiquity. It's a solid argument.

 

Science does not have an answer right now, but I can accept the retort that science is looking for an answer and that to create a god to satisfy the need for a first cause is fallacy. Fair enough.

 

What I cannot accept is the retort, and I've read it on these boards, that science doesn't care. Science very much cares. ...Or, should I say, scientists care. They want to know the origin as much as anyone else.

 

So, first cause arguments don't carry the day for religion, but they also remain unanswered by the scientific community, let alone what passes for one in our little corner of the world.

[Lyric Suite]

How would you "prove" Intelligent Design ?

 

Superstition...

[Plano Skywalker]

That's not entirely correct. In no way does E=MC^2 violate the conservation of matter and energy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do not pretend to be a scientist (even an amateur one) but please enlighten me here....how does your invocation of the Theory of Relativity have anything to do with the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy?

[Cantousent]

Secondly, I don't see why the you need a god for the universe and the big bang to come into existance. It could simply just be there, as a fact, constantly just looping around from the big bang to the big crunch, over and over and over...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ERRRRNNNN

 

Wrong answer. "That's just the way it is!" is a sound scientific principal? Wrong. Putting aside all the mumbo jumbo, you can refute a need for a supernatural cause while still conceding that this issue is still very much at the heart of scientific efforts. In the eagerness to attack religious folks, "scientists" forget that one of the most controversial areas of science right now is the beginings of the universe. The origins of matter and the universe is still very much a matter for concern. Throwing up your hands and saying, "it just is!" doesn't seem any different than some religious fellow's statement that "the bible tells me so."

[Plano Skywalker]

No, seriously, I have to respond to this on a couple of levels.  In the first instance this is entirely true.  The first cause idea has been around since before Christianity.  This is another argument from antiquity.  It's a solid argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

thank you for admitting that you don't have a response to that very solid argument. thank you for not throwing out a red herring.

 

for the purposes of the "first cause" thing, I admit that it is an argument that is not in any way dependent on a certain religious tradition such as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It just "is".

 

Right? Whatever is is.

[Moose]

That's not entirely correct. In no way does E=MC^2 violate the conservation of matter and energy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do not pretend to be a scientist (even an amateur one) but please enlighten me here....how does your invocation of the Theory of Relativity have anything to do with the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People interpret the equation as being an equivalance. This is wrong.

[Moose]

Secondly, I don't see why the you need a god for the universe and the big bang to come into existance. It could simply just be there, as a fact, constantly just looping around from the big bang to the big crunch, over and over and over...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ERRRRNNNN

 

Wrong answer. "That's just the way it is!" is a sound scientific principal? Wrong. Putting aside all the mumbo jumbo, you can refute a need for a supernatural cause while still conceding that this issue is still very much at the heart of scientific efforts. In the eagerness to attack religious folks, "scientists" forget that one of the most controversial areas of science right now is the beginings of the universe. The origins of matter and the universe is still very much a matter for concern. Throwing up your hands and saying, "it just is!" doesn't seem any different than some religious fellow's statement that "the bible tells me so."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Could... COULD simply just be. I chose my wording carefully so people like you wouldn't respond as you did.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The origins of matter and the universe is still very much a matter for concern.  Throwing up your hands and saying, "it just is!" doesn't seem any different than some religious fellow's statement that "the bible tells me so."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Isnt the bible factually incorrect on so many levels.

 

Even if something did kickstart the big bang. Thats a million miles aways from the tenets of religion and actually worshping. Heck it could have been a turd from the arse of a giant space slug :D Bet thats no ones idea of a supreme being

[Plano Skywalker]

People interpret the equation as being an equivalance. This is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

as was stated earlier, this argument is much older than modern theories such as relativity. it is actually a very scientific argument and one that demands empirical evidence from those who purport to live by empirical evidence.

[Cantousent]

I don't get you, Plano, but I'll throw out red herrings, eat one, maybe even throw one on a pizza if the desire strikes me. I hope you don't choke on a red herring, but I'm probably going to throw out a few anyhow.