Is Intelligent Design dead?

[Century 25]

Almost 500 years ago Copernicus knocked one leg out from under the dark-agers, aka: deists. Then came Galileo with his little telescope.. and he floored the dark-agers.. no legs at all to stand on. Renaissance men. And they were hated beyond ones imagination. Why..? Because they showed how wrong the deists had been.. preaching the perfection of 'the heavens' They were scared crapless.

But.. what are a couple of smart ass scientifically minded guys vs the raging hordes of dark age bible thumpers..? Fortunately the prining press happened to be coming into ever increasing use. Of course, as we know the god industry wasn't gonna step aside. The renaissance was in full force.. and the human minds were like sponges..!! Man.. what a change.. the lights were on..!! People began to deepthink.. bad scene for the deists

So these turkeys keep hammering away at scientific gains.. as we see - even today. And having a moron that was masquerading as a 'president' for 8 years.. plus he did what he could to subtract away the gains and up and coming technology. The dark-agers abhor stem cell research. Numb nuts Bush axed the shuttle.. could have cared less if Hubble went into the drink.

There have been scientifically brilliant people for centuries. Think of renaissance men like da Vinci. The first mechanical computer - over 2,000 years ago.. with movements as good as a 19th century Swiss watch: World’s First Computer Rebuilt, Rebooted After 2,000 Years | Gadget Lab | Wired.com - but then the science to calculate the intricacy of movements to replicate the celestial movements.. look how long it was lost. That is how we have had to live. Forever being dragged down by these dark agers.

We can see right here at Volconvo.. and innumerable other websites around the world.. this sickening dark age crap occupies, likely, millions of people - on.. nothing. Just because of the brainwashing of the populace.. by ignorant dogma cultists.. beginning at the youngest age they can get away with.

I'd say 'intelligent design' & 'creationism' are both sides of the same counterfeit coin.. We have the 'penny' & 'nickel' etc,etc.. I'll 'coin' this slug the 'wafwot'

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar It's a tangential expression of a provisional viewpoint. My argument about ID is based on evidence and logical inference. ID doesn't make any claims about "what is doing the designing" (other than in cases of human and animal ID), so my view on that is entirely irrelevant to any debate about ID.

Your argument about ID is based on the existence of a "designer". There is nothing logical about that. That you and other IDists refuse to discuss the designer is a political decision not a scientific or logical one. You refuse to discuss the designer because you know it would expose the fact that ID is Creationism.

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar And I think it is not. So? Argue the merits of the theory, not the motivations of those who have presented it.

ID has has been shown in this thread to have no merit. Not one assertion you've made about ID has been sustained. Indeed, you're entire thesis for ID relies on the deliberate misuse of faulty math that evolution by natural selection is improbable. You've been shown how that isn't true. More generally, you can't demonstrate the validity of a theory by showing another is inconsistent with evidence. I repeat, you've not made one valid claim about ID. You've not discussed any of its supposed merits.

Nor have you discussed the designer. Nor have you applied the math you claim disproves evolution by natural selection to ID.

I repeat this merely for the record, not to disturb your faith in the Creator.

[tengers]

Quote by: Meleagar And I think it is not. So? Argue the merits of the theory, not the motivations of those who have presented it. The theory is above. Familiarize yourself with it. You might also read the faq I linked to to avoid long-since answered questions and misconceptions.

As to your first point, one of your links is Uncommon Descent, that is on the Blog Role for Campus Crusade for Christ. You get there for a reason.

Partnerships - Thinking Christian

I will take you at your word that you do not believe that ID is a Christian machination. Most everyone else does. To most of the world, it is sort of like when the Communist Party is claiming that they are holding free elections and they had a 99.9% turnout, and everyone voted for the Party leadership.

But all that aside, how do you suppose that all of this intelligent design works? What power is capable of moving all of this stuff at distances of 15 Billion light years? I guess it could all be an illusion planted in our heads, sort of like a movie, but when a rock hits us in the head, we do bleed. I have asked several times, I don't understand what the main idea behind ID is. Just what is this intelligent Prime Mover in your opinion?
If your idea is that you have no idea, but you believe there must be intelligence behind it all, well I suppose that's valid enough, but its not strong enough to discount the possibility that the "rock people" are right or are at least on a path that is worth exploring.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: tengers But all that aside, how do you suppose that all of this intelligent design works? What power is capable of moving all of this stuff at distances of 15 Billion light years? I guess it could all be an illusion planted in our heads, sort of like a movie, but when a rock hits us in the head, we do bleed. I have asked several times, I don't understand what the main idea behind ID is. Just what is this intelligent Prime Mover in your opinion?

I've offered links to both the theory and a faq about it. If you cannot be bothered to read those, then I have no reason to begin to think that you have any intention of debating or discussing in good faith. If you have an interest in learning about the theory, read the links. If you are simply interested in regurgitating what other non-ID sources have told you, I'm not interested in being your foil for that purpose.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Jack Just to be clear, you don't make such claims, but the classic presentation of ID by Behe, Dembski and the Discovery Institute have made it clear that their idea of a designer is the Christian god.

No, just to be clear, the theory itself makes no such claims; individuals involved in the research or advancement of ID make all kinds of claims, just as individuals involved in Darwinian Evolution made and make all kinds of claims. The claims and motivations of those involved in and around ID as a social phenomena has no bearing whatsoever on the explanatory power of the theory.

Those who insist on such motive-mongering and personality-bashing are the ones who are attempting to generate a diversion from discussion about the theory itself on its own scientific and logical merits.

Once could similarly argue that the use of evolutionary theory to advance or promote certain beliefs and agendas (eugenics, social darwinism, racism, etc.) somehow invalidates Darwinism as a legitimate scientific theory, and could use such arguments to divert from a discussion of Darwinism on its merits.

If believing that the Christian god employs one's scientific model to do work in the world invalidated a theory from being scientific, then we'd have to dispatch everything Newton discovered. Discuss the theory on its scientific and logical merits, not on the motives, personal beliefs and character of those who offer or promote it.

[Angry Citizen]

Quote by: Century 25 Almost 500 years ago Copernicus knocked one leg out from under the dark-agers, aka: deists. Then came Galileo with his little telescope.. and he floored the dark-agers.. no legs at all to stand on. Renaissance men. And they were hated beyond ones imagination. Why..? Because they showed how wrong the deists had been.. preaching the perfection of 'the heavens' They were scared crapless. But.. what are a couple of smart ass scientifically minded guys vs the raging hordes of dark age bible thumpers..? Fortunately the prining press happened to be coming into ever increasing use. Of course, as we know the god industry wasn't gonna step aside. The renaissance was in full force.. and the human minds were like sponges..!! Man.. what a change.. the lights were on..!! People began to deepthink.. bad scene for the deists So these turkeys keep hammering away at scientific gains.. as we see - even today. And having a moron that was masquerading as a 'president' for 8 years.. plus he did what he could to subtract away the gains and up and coming technology. The dark-agers abhor stem cell research. Numb nuts Bush axed the shuttle.. could have cared less if Hubble went into the drink. There have been scientifically brilliant people for centuries. Think of renaissance men like da Vinci. The first mechanical computer - over 2,000 years ago.. with movements as good as a 19th century Swiss watch: World’s First Computer Rebuilt, Rebooted After 2,000 Years | Gadget Lab | Wired.com - but then the science to calculate the intricacy of movements to replicate the celestial movements.. look how long it was lost. That is how we have had to live. Forever being dragged down by these dark agers. We can see right here at Volconvo.. and innumerable other websites around the world.. this sickening dark age crap occupies, likely, millions of people - on.. nothing. Just because of the brainwashing of the populace.. by ignorant dogma cultists.. beginning at the youngest age they can get away with. I'd say 'intelligent design' & 'creationism' are both sides of the same counterfeit coin.. We have the 'penny' & 'nickel' etc,etc.. I'll 'coin' this slug the 'wafwot'

I'd like to correct you here. "Deists" and Deism is the belief in a non-interfering God who may or may not have any knowledge of us whatsoever. According to Deism, God made the universal laws of nature, and this reality is the direct result of it. It's the only creator-religion with an ounce of self-respect, and has numerous famous adherents (many of America's Founding Fathers were Deists or Closet-Deists).

On the other hand, Theists believe in an interfering, petty little prick God who'll send you to an eternity in either flaming pits of despair ruled by His arch-nemesis, or to an eternity of non-existence just because you calculate he doesn't exist. Or because your culture reached an entirely different spiritual conclusion. They are the "ignorant dark-agers" to which you are referring; not Deists.

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar No, just to be clear, the theory itself makes no such claims;

For the record, there is no Intelligent Design Theory in any scientific sense. It is merely a wishful thought which leads nowhere. It has no utility in terms of making discoveries, explaining or understanding phenomena, making predictions, or suggesting experiments to test it.

[tengers]

Quote by: Meleagar I've offered links to both the theory and a faq about it. If you cannot be bothered to read those, then I have no reason to begin to think that you have any intention of debating or discussing in good faith. If you have an interest in learning about the theory, read the links. If you are simply interested in regurgitating what other non-ID sources have told you, I'm not interested in being your foil for that purpose.

I have read your links. They seem to circle back to Christianity using euphemisms, but ignoring that for a moment, what is your main idea?. Surely, after hundreds of posts on this subject, there is some idea that you can state succinctly that explains what you believe to be true.

I can understand that you believe this, 70% of people believe this in one form or another, but is it your idea that this intelligence is human, alien or what and how do you theorize that it works, since we are talking about an ID Theory?

I read your response on the other thread and posted something there on this subject.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: tengers I can understand that you believe this, 70% of people believe this in one form or another, but is it your idea that this intelligence is human, alien or what and how do you theorize that it works, since we are talking about an ID Theory?

The identity of the designer is irrelevant. It works by manipulating outcomes (making choices) to direct physical materials and forces into achieving a goal. Humans do this all the time when they plan, design, and build things.

[Jack]

The identity of the designer is irrelevant.

No, it's really not. Why does the iPod sell better than the Zune? Because of who designed it. The talents and objectives of the designer are integral to their designs. If you were going to buy a painting of clowns, would it matter to your decision if one were painted by Red Skelton and the other Wayne Gacy?

The identity of the designer imparts just as much information about the design as the design does about the designer.

By knowing the talents and aspirations of the designer we can more easily detect their hand in designs we encounter.

If there is intelligent design, the identity of the designing agent is vitally important to the concept. The only reason to avoid any consideration of the identity of the designer is the discomfort with discussing the obvious implications of that consideration. Every proposed process requires consideration of the mechanism that causes that process.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Jack No, it's really not. Why does the iPod sell better than the Zune? Because of who designed it. The talents and objectives of the designer are integral to their designs. If you were going to buy a painting of clowns, would it matter to your decision if one were painted by Red Skelton and the other Wayne Gacy?

No, the identity of the designer wouldn't matter. What matters is what is on the canvas, and how the machine is designed. Knowing the designer doesn't impact the facts in the field one bit.

The identity of the designer imparts just as much information about the design as the design does about the designer.

The theory of ID doesn't refer to any designer, so this is irrelevant.

If there is intelligent design, the identity of the designing agent is vitally important to the concept.

It's not important at all. For instance, when we find paintings on the wall in some cave, it's not vitally important to know the identity of the person that did the paintings. Similarly, when we find arrowheads or other artifacts, it's not vitally important that we know the name of the person that constructed them.

The only reason to avoid any consideration of the identity of the designer is the discomfort with discussing the obvious implications of that consideration.

The only reason to insist on consideration of the identity of the designer is the discomfort with discussing the theory of ID as stated on its actual merits.

Every proposed process requires consideration of the mechanism that causes that process.

No, it doesn't One doesn't have to consider "what generated gravity" in order to research the effects of gravity on other phenomena.

[Jack]

Similarly, when we find arrowheads or other artifacts, it's not vitally important that we know the name of the person that constructed them.

Not the name, no. But it does matter to know the nature of the creator. Were they made by ancient people or some dude in his garage last Thursday? In other words, are they authentic artifacts or forgeries? You can't answer that without some knowledge of who made them.

No, it doesn't One doesn't have to consider "what generated gravity" in order to research the effects of gravity on other phenomena.

Yet to develop a complete theory of gravity there is a need to determine the fundamentals of gravitation. We can study the effects, but that doesn't lead to a full understanding of the mechanics of gravity.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Jack Not the name, no. But it does matter to know the nature of the creator. Were they made by ancient people or some dude in his garage last Thursday? In other words, are they authentic artifacts or forgeries? You can't answer that without some knowledge of who made them.

Sure you can. Forgeries of all kinds of items are discovered without knowing who created them. While the fundamental ID theory doesn't make any claims about any designer, other kinds of investigations - forensics, detective work, archaelogy, paleontology, etc. - can be used to determine facts about designers in any particular case.

Yet to develop a complete theory of gravity there is a need to determine the fundamentals of gravitation. We can study the effects, but that doesn't lead to a full understanding of the mechanics of gravity.

So? I can match your obsession with "who is the designer" with "what created gravity", and it would be as irrelevent when it comes to using either as explanations for any particular phenomena. If we can't say that gravity caused something without first saying what caused gravity, we'd have to throw out all science that uses gravity, because we don't know what caused it.

"Who the designer is" is a red herring, nothing more, that anti-ID advocates use to derail or avoid discussion about the actual theory and the actual science and logic involved.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: Meleagar "Who the designer is" is a red herring, nothing more, that anti-ID advocates use to derail or avoid discussion about the actual theory and the actual science and logic involved.

Oh that's just ironic beyond belief. I started in this forum asking you some very basic questions about the theory statement itself, without ever once mentioning anything about the nature or identity of the designer. Basic questions like what in the biological realm is "best explained by intelligence", how that was determined to be so, what exactly is ID's "best explanation", what mechanism does ID propose for phenomena, is there any ongoing research into ID, and so on and so forth

Your response? You referred to such questions as "red herrings, straw men and fishing expeditions".

It's absolutely fascinating to me how people can be so shockingly blind to their own behaviors. You are an excellent example. You keep asking, almost pleading, for people to talk about the actual ID theory statement, yet when someone does just that, you wave it away. You also keep asking for examples of evolutionary mechanisms generating "FSCI", yet when you're provided with published examples of it, you wave it away as a "straw man" because "no one is arguing that evolution doesn't happen".

The level of cognitive dissonance on display here is through the roof. It also serves as a very, very good demonstration of just how vacuous ID creationism is, and that the only way it can exist is by denying enormous amounts of data and waving away questions about its core concepts.

It's just fascinating to observe.

[tengers]

Quote by: Meleagar The identity of the designer is irrelevant. It works by manipulating outcomes (making choices) to direct physical materials and forces into achieving a goal. Humans do this all the time when they plan, design, and build things.

Well then this is simple, for we are both looking for "it". In your case, you believe "it" is "alive", so to speak, and is somehow manipulating an entire universe over distances of perhaps 90 or so billion light years, moving maybe 60 to 100 Billion galaxies with about 40 or 50 sextillion stars. That is an impressive feat. Of course, "it" would not necessarily need to be a single "it" . There could be a variety of "its", but that would not play well in the Baptist sector.

I see this as a tall order for any kind of "it", especially when you have to do this non-stop for at least 14 Billion years. On the other hand, maybe it could be like a bowling ball and once set in motion, the outcome is determined, but that would clash with the idea of free-will and that would not make a lot of Christians happy, but it would more or less support believers in pre-destination.

And in fairness, in my case, I have no idea what makes "it" work, but I don't think "it" has quite that amount of reach or power.

[Meleagar]

One wonders why, if ID is dead and Behe fully discredited,research is still being done and current papers published and news releases offeredclaiming that his challenge has just now been refuted.

Why are they spending so much time and effort researching, rebutting and publically refuting a dead theory that wasn't even scientific in the first place?

Heh.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: tengers Well then this is simple, for we are both looking for "it". In your case, you believe "it" is "alive", so to speak, and is somehow manipulating an entire universe over distances of perhaps 90 or so billion light years, moving maybe 60 to 100 Billion galaxies with about 40 or 50 sextillion stars. That is an impressive feat.

I never claimed any of that as part of my argument for ID. Red herring.

[tengers]

Quote by: Meleagar I never claimed any of that as part of my argument for ID. Red herring.

I honestly don't believe that anyone on this thread understands your argument. So I will ask a simple question. In your ID world, where do stars come from? Do the 50 sextillion stars come from some type of intelligence in your ID Theory?

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: Meleagar One wonders why, if ID is dead and Behe fully discredited,research is still being done and current papers published and news releases offeredclaiming that his challenge has just now been refuted. Why are they spending so much time and effort researching, rebutting and publically refuting a dead theory that wasn't even scientific in the first place?

Huh? Scientists research the evolution of organelles, publish a paper on it, and a media outlet makes a vague reference to ID creationism and somehow that means ID is alive and well?

Reaching a bit, are we?