Comment of the week

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 6, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Science is a method, not a result, nor a being. “Science” doesn’t say anything. With highly politicised topics like this, it is not the data that tells the tale, but rather those flawed humans who may or may not appropriately report the data that tells the tale. There has been enough fraud discovered in academia alone, without systemic bias toward a given result, that to fail to question these results is a major failing on the part of anyone who takes them at face value. – tmosley

Comments

Mapou:
...assteroid orifices. LOL.
Very Intelligent.Carpathian_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Carpy:
Mapou:
All of matter was designed.
Back that up with science.
You mean the way you use science to back up your claim that matter was not designed and that it just created itself into existence out of nothing by its little own self? No thank you. All one needs is simple logic to realize that all matter was designed. Nothing can come out of nothing all by itself in the physical realm. If you have a contrary opinion, back it up with real science as opposed to silly materialist superstition that you people pulled out of your assteroid orifices. LOL.Mapou_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

"There has been enough fraud discovered in academia alone, without systemic bias toward a given result, that to fail to question these results is a major failing on the part of anyone who takes them at face value. – tmosley" Like Piltdown Man for example The news of the Piltdown find, first released in late 1912, caused a sensation and was included in school textbooks for 40 years to promote an atheistic worldview and destroy young people's faith in GOD. Scroll down the linked page for examples of this http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=3cf7cc14dd346d1d47eea13631e16d39&t=100902&page=18reverendspy_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Mapou:
All of matter was designed.
Back that up with science.Carpathian_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Carpy @13, All of matter was designed. Did Monsanto design the electrons, neutrons, protons and photons that constitute the dirt, the plants and everything else? I don't think so. Monsanto is not even a pimple on a chimp's ass when it comes to design.Mapou_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Mapou:
Did you hypnotize yourself into believing your own lies?
This is not a good start to any exchange. Instead of wasting bandwidth on personal insults, try a scientific comment to prove your case.Carpathian_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Mapou:
The very dirt that farmers use to grow crops would not exist without being intelligently designed by superior beings.
Where is your evidence for this? Farmers were growing crops thousands of years before Monsanto came into being.Carpathian_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Carpy:
An intelligent designer could safely be left out when using science in agriculture.
Did you hypnotize yourself into believing your own lies? The very dirt that farmers use to grow crops would not exist without being intelligently designed by superior beings. If the dirt was designed, what can one say about trees, fruits and seeds?Mapou_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

EugeneS:
That is not accurate either. Farming as other kinds of technology or science is based on intelligently using what is called objective reality. That this objective reality is describable by means of the formal language of science (i.e. can be analyzed, reasoned about, systematically predicted and utilized) is a remarkable fact.
This is something I agree with but it leads me to a different conclusion than yours. Without bringing in an intelligent designer, farming methods have been developed which empirically, work quite well. Bringing in an intelligent designer has resulted historically, in methods which were not empirically successful. An intelligent designer could safely be left out when using science in agriculture.Carpathian_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Kudos to tmosely! And science does indeed use ID principles to investigate the material world. For those of you that either judge God or think that your perceptions of injustice obviates the existence of God, consider the following. You all know or should know from basic physics that changing a frame of reference can confuse or clarify what we observe. When things seem odd, consider changing your frame of reference. So, let's assume for a moment that * God actually exists. * That you have an IQ of 100 . . . ok, 180. ;-) * That God has an IQ of a billion. * That through science, we know or think we know 1-5% of what we are capable of knowing (one of the basic assumptions of science is that we are even capable understanding what we observe). If you can let go of your anger and bitterness for just a moment, is it conceivable to you that you might be making a mistake in judging God? Ok, you can have it back, and now comes the flood of questions that start with "If there was a God and he was good, why . . ." Let's change the frame of reference. Instead, start with * If God exists, then God would be be good, very smart, powerful, creative, just, loving, etc. * If we have a sense of justice, God created it, and that God's is more perfect. * We know that everyone dies sooner or later. In the course of 13.8 billion years, adding or subtracting a few years from our lifespans seems trivial. * We now know that it's very likely we live in a simulation of some kind for some reason; that existence seems to be determined by observation, measurement, and probabilistic wave functions that collapse into particles. * We know that humanity seems to have free will, which is manifested in some wonderfully amazing, creative, and good ways, but also mixed with demonically evil behaviors, and everything in between. * Our own sense of justice *demands* that people who exercise their free will in ways that damage or destroy other people and our environment must be stopped and punished commensurate with the severity of their crimes. * That this occurs only occasionally and imperfectly in our lifetimes indicates a future judgment that's conducted by God, and is done in perfect knowledge resulting in open, indisputable justice. There will be people then who will in great sorrow agree that justice demands that they should be destroyed. There is a way out, but I'll release you from our temporary assumptions. Feel free to return to hating God now. -QQuerius_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Carpathian: Whenever a cause of something was claimed to be an act of the gods, science showed that not to be the case. LoL! Not even wrong.Mung_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Carpathian, "Modern farming methods are not based on intelligent designers tweaking laws of physics, they are instead based on material parameters that are separated from the influence of an intelligent designer." That is not accurate either. Farming as other kinds of technology or science is based on intelligently using what is called objective reality. That this objective reality is describable by means of the formal language of science (i.e. can be analyzed, reasoned about, systematically predicted and utilized) is a remarkable fact. You have the right to interpret this fact as a coincidence, if you like. But you have no intellectual right to belittle its importance by saying no other adequate interpretation is possible. I interpret it as no coincidence at all. On the contrary, I believe it is due to formal causally dominating the physical. I maintain this interpretation because I think it is a lot deeper than yours as it attributes a meaning to the existence of the universe itself and to human life.EugeneS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

bornagain77:
...quoting WJM: IOW, no matter how much one insists that science progresses because it only accepts materialist explanations, the fact is that science only came to exist and only advances because it rides on ID assumptions.
That's not accurate at all. Whenever a cause of something was claimed to be an act of the gods, science showed that not to be the case. e.g. Crop production did not go up by sacrificing virgins to the sun god. Modern farming methods are not based on intelligent designers tweaking laws of physics, they are instead based on material parameters that are separated from the influence of an intelligent designer.Carpathian_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Seversky
Is the San Andreas Fault intelligently designed? When The Big One finally hits, will that be just some deity having his little joke – you know, gods will be gods, the little rascals?
There's some hostility evident here. It reveals the agenda that's just barely beneath the surface. You're assuming something about God and when your religious assumptions don't seem to be reflected in nature, you get angry and disappointed. Why not think about God in a different way? You can see something "bad" in an asteriod (and that assessment conflicts with your professed atheism, since there can be nothing "bad" in materialism") but you supposedly can't see the design evident in dinosaurs or life itself?
Were the bubonic plague or influenza epidemics that have killed millions intelligently designed? Are all the other the diseases and disorders that afflict humanity intelligently designed?
"Disorders" assumes an "order" which materialism denies. So, your worldview seems conflicted here. Disease is "good" for the viruses that propagate themselves through it. Why do you think human life is something good? Ok, I realize anti-IDists don't want to think about that. You're angry about God for whatever reason. It's difficult to argue with someone's inner turmoil but why not seek some reconciliation with your theistic assumptions and attitude towards God?
Science proceeds as if there is order and regularity in the Universe because that is what we observe
You just mentioned asteroids, earthquakes and plagues. Now you've explained that these are observations of "order". So, what's your complaint against God again?Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

I agree on WJM's comment - some deep considerations in a very concise format. Anti-IDists don't ever deal with these bigger issues. They prefer to argue over minutiae.Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Seversky said:
Science proceeds as if there is order and regularity in the Universe...
Order and regularity are not explicable under materialism; they are only explicable by reference to abstract forces and laws.
...because that is what we observe and we wouldn’t be here, doing our observing (and designing) if it wasn’t.
That makes no case for any materialist assumptions.
It’s a gap where you can plug in whatever designer you like if that’s you fancy. But we need rather more than just faith to be persuaded that your personal designer exists and is The One.
All of this is just political rhetoric. ID is not plugged into any gap; it is responsible for any knowledge at all. Materialism is hard-pressed to account for any "knowledge" whatsoever in any significant sense of the terml.
And however much WJM and others try to dismiss it, all the benefits of modern science and technology that we all enjoy to some degree are based on materialistic assumptions.
No. Science as we know and practice it was generated from certain specific theistic assumptions. Materialist perspectives have been demonstrated time and again to simply get in the way of translating empirical facts into either practical use or good theory - and, they often stymie new scientific ideas.
They were not prayed into existence, they are the product of a lot of dogged, often plodding, research.
Research predicted upon the very ID principles I outlined, and under the theistic, metaphysical assumptions that undergird any meaningful concept of evidence, inference, inference and reaching sound conclusions, essential to scientific progress.William J Murray_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Was the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and much other life on Earth intelligently designed? Was someone playing billiards with celestial bodies? Is the San Andreas Fault intelligently designed? When The Big One finally hits, will that be just some deity having his little joke - you know, gods will be gods, the little rascals? Were the bubonic plague or influenza epidemics that have killed millions intelligently designed? Are all the other the diseases and disorders that afflict humanity intelligently designed? Science proceeds as if there is order and regularity in the Universe because that is what we observe and we wouldn't be here, doing our observing (and designing) if it wasn't. How and why all that order came about is still an unanswered question. It's a gap where you can plug in whatever designer you like if that's you fancy. But we need rather more than just faith to be persuaded that your personal designer exists and is The One. And however much WJM and others try to dismiss it, all the benefits of modern science and technology that we all enjoy to some degree are based on materialistic assumptions. They were not prayed into existence, they are the product of a lot of dogged, often plodding, research. An aircraft doesn't fly because the designers and engineers that built it had faith that a god, like some celestial Captain Jean-Luc Picard, would "make it so". It flies because a lot of intelligent people took a lot of time and trouble to discover the physical properties of gravity, air, metals, plastics, glass, electricity and magnetism that allow it to fly. Yes, there is intelligent design in the universe (this one, at least). We do it. So far, we haven't discovered anyone else that does it but we've only been at it a relatively short time. There is still an awful lot we don't know so, as the saying goes, watch this space.Seversky_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

I second bornagain77's nomination!Kaz_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Can I nominate WJM's response to wd400 as runner up for comment of the week? WD400 said:
"I want to know why we should care about ID. What scientific finding, methods or predictions has ID made that generated that evolutionary biologists should care about."
WJM responded:
Well, virtually all of science proceeds as if ID is true – it seeks elegant and efficient models; it reverse engineers biological systems; it describes evolution in teleological terms; it refers to natural forces and laws as if there is some kind of prescriptive agency guiding matter and energy; it assumes that the nature of the universe and human comprehensive capacity have some sort of truthful, factual correspondence. IOW, no matter how much one insists that science progresses because it only accepts materialist explanations, the fact is that science only came to exist and only advances because it rides on ID assumptions. Take away those assumptions and all science can be is personal feelings and politics. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/timaeus-exposes-larry-moran/#comment-567738
bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply