Intelligent Design

IQ, Puzzle Solving, and Darwinism

Spread the love

I have an interesting story to tell. When I was in elementary school back in the 1950s a man came into my classroom and talked to the teacher. I was taken into another room by this man. He gave me puzzles to figure out, and timed me with a stop watch. I thought that this was very weird. After these tests I was returned to my classmates with no explanation.

Many years later, upon reflecting about and remembering this event, I asked my mom what this was all about. She told me that as a result of an IQ test I had taken (they did that back in those days) I had scored the highest IQ ever recorded in the local school system at my age level, and my parents were asked to give permission for further testing.

It might be nature, or nurture, or most probably a combination of both, but all my life I’ve had a passion for solving puzzles and figuring stuff out.

The simplest puzzle of all to figure out, based upon what is now known about the nature of living systems, is that Darwinian orthodoxy is completely bankrupt, and that design is evident.

7 Replies to “IQ, Puzzle Solving, and Darwinism

  1. 1
    Blue_Savannah says:

    The simplest puzzle of all to figure out, based upon what is now known about the nature of living systems, is that Darwinian orthodoxy is completely bankrupt, and that design is evident.

    Well said Mr Dodgen!

    It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

    Proverbs 25:2

  2. 2
    GilDodgen says:

    Dear Blue,

    The intellectual contortionism required to deny design is something that, I must admit, continues to mystify me. As a former atheist, I found the pain induced by such contortions to be unbearable.

  3. 3
    Gregory says:

    Gil,

    When you said in another thread that you didn’t understand why people socially … with respect to ‘intelligent design’ … and I answered directly, you made no response. It is said that people with ‘higher’ IQ’s are often socially ‘lower’ or less ‘in tune’.

    It is quite obvious that ‘some design’ is ‘detectable’ or ‘evident’ as you say. I know people currently studying for degrees in ‘design’ fields. Would you not agree, however, that ‘other design,’ as you use the term, is not so ‘detectable’ or ‘evident’ to many, if not to most people?

    I wonder if you’ve thought about which spheres, realms, fields, types of knowledge, the concept of ‘design’ is actually and properly deemed an invalid term? This says nothing about your post-atheist life.

    Are there some instances in which you would be willing to ‘deny design’ yourself or do you elevate the meaning of ‘design’ into being a kind of ‘grand unified theory’? Just curious.

  4. 4

    Gregory,

    Your question made me to think and turn it upside down: can we think of anything in the natural world that does NOT reveal design – when seen in itself and or in its larger context?

    Examples:
    – A grain of sand on a beach. Things to think about: the grain was maybe made from the shell of an aquatic creature; who designed that shell and that creature. The grain is made from Silicon. Why are there 103 chemical elements in the Mendeleev chemical table and how they came to be? Why there are 103? Why so many electrons, neutrons and protons for the atom of Silicon.

    – Why is the sky blue? Why is there a sky?
    – Why is the water such an important ingredient for life?
    Can someone come with any example of anything in the natural world that cannot be RELATED with the idea of design?

  5. 5
    GilDodgen says:

    Dear Gregory,

    I’m sure that you are a very nice fellow, but I find your argumentation difficult to follow.

    As best I can ascertain, you have asked if I think that there are some circumstances in which a design inference is not a slam-dunk logical conclusion.

    My answer to this question is, of course, yes.

    But once one is educated and informed about the sophisticated information-processing technology in the simplest living cell — with such creations as error-detection-and-repair mechanisms and algorithms — to deny a design inference, in my opinion, is to deny not only reality, but to deny and abandon the very goals of the scientific enterprise, which is to find the truth, wherever the evidence might lead.

  6. 6
    Alistotle says:

    Yeah, basically.

    I am so smart, you all should know. The highest iq! And oh yeah, Darwinism is bs.

  7. 7
    Joe says:

    Gil, Is that you trying to deal with smilodon’s retreat?

    He actually sed that I invented blind watchmaker evolution.

Leave a Reply