Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If intelligent design doesn’t succeed…

arroba Email

… it’s because we didn’t take advantage of the incredible resources available to us:

“Predictions at that by 2049 a $1000 computer will exceed the computational capabilites of the entire human species” The answer will still be 42 duhh plus $1000 will probably not buy it then, lets say $100000 due to inflation fc etc. (fc fiscal crisis) Who wants to be FC HAMMER? I am sorry for blurping into the 4 exabytes! sxussd13
Good point Platonist. William Wallace
“Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time is come.” Victor Hugo
Nice quote man, very nice quote! Platonist, Remember too though, that when Gallileo came out with his hypothesis about the Earth revolving around the sun he was put under house arrest. Everybody may have listened to the Catholic Church and other scientists (those who believed the Earth was at the center of the universe) at the time, but the truth eventually prevailed. ID, if it is indeed true, which I believe it is, will prevail in the end, no matter what. Domoman
Dr Dembski states one possible reason for a hypothetical future failure of ID. But in the event that Intelligent Design does not succeed, I can see at least two possible reasons: Not taking advantage of the incredible resources available to us. ID being wrong. Others might exist which have not yet occurred to me. Any analysis of the relative probabilities of these options would be welcome. Reg
You see I'm a guy with no particular talents but I do have an interest in religion and the ID/Darwinism debate. The thing is and this may be lost on some people, that many of us were raised in a culture that places high value upon what scientists say. They are the priests of this secular - Faustian civilization. When they dismiss Irreducible Complexity and show how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved, many of us cannot tell who is telling the truth about it. Yet, many will ussually go with the mainstream Darwinian scientist, because we have been taught that they are the ones who posses the truth. This can be very confusing. Platonist
Hmm. Maybe ID will fail because the Darwinists have claimed to have scuttled Irreducible Complexity, among other things. Hope we prove them wrong in the end. Platonist
@StuartHarris: just a thought: So in our intellectual world natural selection doesn't work? We need intelligent selection to select from inonvations in stead of natural selection to select from mutations? BTW: a very bad choice of music! critiacrof
"Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time is come." Victor Hugo alaninnont
WD, thanks for the uplifting video. I agree with most of it. I have to admit that I met a four or five women online in the early 90s using VMS's phone utility, back when internet privacy wasn't much on the radar. But I met my wife the good old fashioned way, through a mutual friend. To throw cold water on one point in the video...
There are over 540,000 words in the English Language. ... About 5x as many as during Shakespeare's time.
"By 2013 a supercomputer will be built that exceeds the computational abilities of the human brain" Yes, in what limited capacity is that? My bet is that in 2013 someone will be writing: "By 2023 a supercomputer will be built that exceeds..." with just as much chance of succeeding. SCheesman
Borne, there is a big difference between seeing the obvious and not wanting to see it. Atheists do not seem to want there to be a God they are responsible to. They are in denial and facts are not going to change that. At least I haven't seen any proof that it will. IRQ Conflict
ID (or some other form of it) cannot fail. The truth always comes out in the end.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer We're still in phase 2. ID started at phase 3 (way back in the beginning), then men invented materialism. Then materialists realized what ID meant and moved into phase 1 and so on... Nothing is more self-evident than design in the cosmos and life. That's why Crick felt obliged to say,
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
And that's why Dawkins invented designoids. One needs totally opaque mind blinders not to see it. Borne
What does it all mean? It means there is an incredible market for filtering mechanisms to sift out the very little important information that's inside all the exebytes of garbage that's being created! StuartHarris

Leave a Reply