On Gritting Your Teeth and Sticking to a Narrative

_{Barry Arrington

June 26, 2016

Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News}

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

An anti-ID commenter who goes by MatSpirit has been active in these pages for well over a year, during which time he has posted scores of comments in the comboxes of dozens of OPs. This particular statement in one of his comments caught my eye:

If I understand correctly, the ID story is that some unidentified, undetectable supernatural agent acting at a time and place unknown arranged matter into patterns that are living creatures.

*palm forehead*

It is just staggering to me that someone can spend so much time and effort debating ID and still not have the first idea about the fundamentals of the theory.

I understand what is going on here, of course. Like many of our opponents MatSpirit had a pre-conceived idea of what ID is about before he came to these pages, and nothing — not facts, not logic, not reason –will ever shake that idea. You can explain the fundamentals of ID to a brick wall 1,000 times, and you can explain the fundamentals of ID to someone like MatSpirit 1,000 times, and it will have an identical effect – that is to say, none at all.

You see, MatSpirit has a narrative. And the narrative must be maintained at all costs.

UPDATE

I invite readers to skip down to comment 30. You will see that MatSpirit continues to grit his teeth and stick to his narrative even after it has been pointed out that is what he is doing. It is really quite amazing.

Comments

MatSpirit
On the other hand, if the Designer is an unintelligent natural process then its like an earthquake or typhoon. There’s literally no one to blame.
While this may be appealing philosophically, it is not what the evidence inside our cells and at the basic core of matter is telling us. The idea that random processes selected for fitness can create functional sequences is almost certainly the worst scientific idea anyone has ever had.bill cole_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

This may come as a surprise to many of the ID commenters here but I am actually a skeptic of the so-called scientific theory of ID. Let’s be honest even some of ID’s main proponents don’t think ID is ready for prime-time. The Discovery Institute, for example, as a matter of official policy is not pushing to get ID taught in the public schools, because ID is not yet sufficiently established as a theory. On the other hand, I am not opposed to ID proponents trying to develop ID as a scientific theory. Furthermore, as a theist I certainly accept small letter i small letter d, id as a basis for natural theology. However, that is all a discussion for another time. The point I’d like to make here, as a friendly critic, is that (like a hypothetical fair minded non-theist) I have to begin by sorting out the differences between the tentative scientific theory of ID and the arguments for design from a philosophical/ theological perspective of design. It’s not that difficult! It amazes me that the atheist trolls and drive-bys that show up here are apparently incapable of making that distinction. Is it because they are that stupid or is it because there is something else?john_a_designer_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @60
Oh well, perhaps atheists should take up basket weaving instead of science and Theology?
Either that or navel gazing.harry_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Tim at 58, nice response! The 'argument from evil', that atheists are so fond of using, is amazing to me because it is as if the atheist who uses it is completely ignorant of Christianity's primary claim that we live in a fallen world. It is as if atheists are, Theologically, presupposing that we should be in heaven already and that any thing that goes against that presupposition of perfection, like say the fact that there is death in the world, is to be considered an argument against God. That is just bizarre! Christianity is built on the fact that we live in a fallen world where death exists. If no death existed, how in blue blazes could Christ ever defeat death? Christ's resurrection from the dead as an atonement for our sin, i.e. Christ's victory over death and sin, is the central doctrine of Christianity. Since Christian theology is certainly not the atheist's strong suit, perhaps the atheist should move on to empirical science? Oh wait, never mind, science is built upon Theistic, even Christian, presuppositions about the rationality of the universe and our ability to comprehend it. Oh well, perhaps atheists should take up basket weaving instead of science and Theology?bornagain77_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

Matspirit,
MS: No claim!? Are you saying that ID doesn’t claim that the Intelligent Designer designed life?
ID only claims that certain aspects of reality are best explained by intelligent design. That’s all. ID doesn’t provide us with a coherent creation story.
MS: Then what’s He doing with his time, watching TV?
ID does not claim that the designer is still alive or even that the designer is a person. Like I said, ID makes no claim about the designer.
MS: If your Designer didn’t create life then why do you study life looking for patterns that would indicate intelligent design?
Well, maybe life came about mindlessly and the designer only created certain aspects of life. Like I said, ID does not provide us with a coherent creation story.
MS: I think you’d better fess up and admit that your Designer designed life and then face up to the problems that result.
The moral problems? ID does not concern itself with moral problems.
MS: If any intelligent entity really designed life as we see it then there are a heck of a lot of questions to be answered, both moral and general “What the … why did He do THAT!?”
That’s not a question that ID can answer. Eric Anderson put it eloquently:
ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself.
Origenes_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit:
My point is that whatever the Designer turns out to be, if He’s intelligent and made life like this deliberately then he makes ISIS look like pikers. On the other hand, if the Designer is an unintelligent natural process then its like an earthquake or typhoon. There’s literally no one to blame.
MS, I have read this thread with some care and although I rarely get drawn into these discussions your comments are such unblushingly examples of, well what?, bad faith? I simply couldn't help it. So, Allow me: First, although the intelligent designer may be consonant with the God of Biblical Christianity that doesn't mean that any such claim is being made as a part of ID theory. The question is simply left open. Try to understand that. Second, supposing that the designer is the God of Biblical Christianity (see that? "supposing"), your next move seems to be a rather odd biological argument from evil. This is why I mentioned bad faith on your part. For if we are "supposing", then we are in the realm of philosophy, not biology. The false dilemma you have set up goes like this: God, as designer of all life (including plasmodium falciparum), is responsible for all pain suffering and death. Anyone with even a partial understanding of basic logic can tell you that such an "argument", (technically, I suppose it is not more than an assertion), is laughable. Try to understand that. If you are having any trouble, I direct your attention to an unhappy little happenstance called The Fall. Third and finally, it does no good to argue against my invocation of the Fall just because it is a religious idea as if religious ideas couldn't have actual biological implications. Try to understand that. To recap: 1. ID theory makes no religious claims even though many who support ID theory are theists. 2. Living things die. The fact that we suffer death does not mean that God designed us to merely die. In other words, our current suffering is not necessarily God's fault even if He is the designer. 3. Other explanations for death in the world exist that do not abrogate the existence of God. Until you demonstrate authentic engagement with these three truths, you will make no progress. It is no excuse that a strictly naturalistic approach to dealing with these facts is a nonstarter. Deal with it.Tim_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit @49
ID ignores evolution when it says only intelligent agency can generate functional complexity. The main reason for doing so seems to be that they don’t see how evolution could do that.
Your remark is begging the question -- a logical fallacy. Whether the origin of life and evolution could have come about mindlessly and accidentally is the question under consideration.
Science regularly includes human intelligence as a causal factor when humans are present, but humans certainly werent around at any time from 4 billion BC ’till maybe 30,000 years ago. They certaibly didn’t make life on earth!
True science has the objectivity to consider intelligence as a reality in itself. There may be instances of rational intelligence outside of humanity. (If not, what was the purpose of SETI?) If intelligent agency was clearly a causal factor in a phenomenon coming about because it exhibits significant functional complexity, then true, objective science admits that fact, regardless of its religious/philosophical implications in a given instance.
If you want science to consider your Designer as the cause of life four billion years ago, then give us some good reasons to think He exists and was around back then.
The identity of the intelligent agent is a separate question. The fact remains that there are no instances of significant functional complexity emerging mindlessly and accidentally. This appears to be the case with law-like certainty and consistency. Life exhibits functional complexity light years beyond our own technology. Intelligent agency must have been a causal factor in life coming about. There is no evidence to support any other conclusion.harry_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

john-a-designer, I'm going to put you in the column headed, "No defense, but thinks his opponent is a poopie head." If you come up with any kind of defense, I'll answer it, but I have no time for childish name calling.MatSpirit_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Bill Cole @53: "Origenes very articulately explained what the inference of ID is." Actually, I just went over all his messages and all he said about the inference of ID is that the Designer could be an intelligent alien. I don't dispute that. What I said was not about who or what the Designer is. My point is that whatever the Designer is, if He is responsible for life on earth, then He created an inordinate number of beetles, a system where half the organisms kill and eat the other half and an especially nasty microorganism that kills about a million children a year. Again, the point is not about who or what the Designer is. That doesn't matter. God, space alien, no matter. My point is that whatever the Designer turns out to be, if He's intelligent and made life like this deliberately then he makes ISIS look like pikers. On the other hand, if the Designer is an unintelligent natural process then its like an earthquake or typhoon. There's literally no one to blame.MatSpirit_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Having participated in on-line discussions like these for ten years I have decided that trying to interact with interlocutors like MatSpirit serves more to enable bad behavior than to effect any kind of honest or meaningful dialogue. Nevertheless, for what it is worth, I suppose his presence here does demonstrate the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the typical on-line atheist. It’s tragic that people like him are either too frightened or too contemptuous to engage in an honest exchange of ideas. Someone grasping at straws to create caricatures and straw-men is not my idea of honest dialogue or debate.john_a_designer_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit
No claim!? Are you saying that ID doesn’t claim that the Intelligent Designer designed life? Then what’s He doing with his time, watching TV? If your Designer didn’t create life then why do you study life looking for patterns that would indicate intelligent design? I think you’d better fess up and admit that your Designer designed life and then face up to the problems that result. If any intelligent entity really designed life as we see it then there are a heck of a lot of questions to be answered, both moral and general “What the … why did He do THAT!?”
Origenes very articulately explained what the inference of ID is. You proceed to create a straw man argument. There is a political ID movement as there is a political evolutionists movement both have desire to influence world views. This is not ID the scientific inference. If you separate the politics in your mind I think you will understand the scientific inference. Turns out Barry was absolutely right to call out you're misunderstanding.bill cole_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 7
Seversky, Will Provine wrote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent
According to your logic, since one prominent evolutionist cashed out some possible religious implications of naturalistic evolution, naturalistic evolution is an inherently religious enterprise. Right?
Johnson clearly stated that ID, as he conceived it, has a religious purpose. Darwin made no such claim for the theory of evolution. Provine's claims concerning the religious implications of the theory don't change that.Seversky_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

mohammadnursyamsu @ 46 I don't think anything real stops us from having free will. I know some people do, but I'm not one of them. Explaining why will take a while and I'll probably publish it on the Gobsmackingly-stupid-things-atheists-say-example thread because it came up there first.MatSpirit_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 5
Waaay off base (and again, please simply scroll up for starters on say the Dembski snippet as a first example).
Are you repudiating Johnson's characterization of the purpose of the ID movement?
There is a philosophical issue at stake, the de facto imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism on science and its methods illustrated by ever so many cases in point.
Yes, there is a philosophical issue at stake. Should religious beliefs be imposed on science?
But the pivotal issue is quite simple: demonstrate a credible, empirically observed case where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity create functionally specific complex organisation and associated information beyond 500 – 1,000 bits and the key inductive premise of design theory collapses. That’s the key test.
No, even if what you suggest were demonstrated, it would not necessarily rule out a designer.
On a trillion cases in point, the empirically observed, analytically plausible source of such organisation and complex information is design.
The only designers for which we have good evidence are human beings. But we are not capable at this time of designing most of what we observe. If there is some much more advanced designer and he/she/it want to remain hidden, you're going to have a very hard time proving it.
Absent such, cherry picked cites and the like are little more than strawman caricature arguments.
Yes, they are cherry-picked quotes, following in the fine tradition of your very own BA77. Once again, are you saying they no longer represent what ID is all about?
The design inference is so patently an empirical matter up against an entrenched ideology, that turnabout tactics to make it seem otherwise are perhaps inevitable.
The design inference is just that, an inference with little empirical support. It's also an inference to a 'who' not the 'how' you are criticizing biology for failing to provide in sufficient detail.Seversky_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Harry: "ID rightly acknowledges a fact scientific observation only confirms: that phenomena exhibiting significant functional complexity only come about via intelligent agency." ID ignores evolution when it says only intelligent agency can generate functional complexity. The main reason for doing so seems to be that they don't see how evolution could do that. Science regularly includes human intelligence as a causal factor when humans are present, but humans certainly werent around at any time from 4 billion BC 'till maybe 30,000 years ago. They certaibly didn't make life on earth! If you want science to consider your Designer as the cause of life four billion years ago, then give us some good reasons to think He exists and was around back then.MatSpirit_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Origenes @ 45
What part of “ID makes no claim about the designer” — except for intelligence — do you not understand? ‘No claim’ is incompatible with “unidentified”, “undetectable” and “supernatural”.
No claim!? Are you saying that ID doesn't claim that the Intelligent Designer designed life? Then what's He doing with his time, watching TV? If your Designer didn't create life then why do you study life looking for patterns that would indicate intelligent design? I think you'd better fess up and admit that your Designer designed life and then face up to the problems that result. If any intelligent entity really designed life as we see it then there are a heck of a lot of questions to be answered, both moral and general "What the ... why did He do THAT!?"
ID does not refer to the designer as “He” and does not make such grand claims about what the designer has done.
Well it certainly should. It's painfully obvious glancing through the articles on this site that you believe the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God and it is the convention to capitalize He, Him and His when speaking of Him. Failure to do so when writing to a Christian is insulting, if nOT actually blasphemous. Likewise, convention says references to Him should be masculine. I know ID insists the Designer is not God, but we know that this was just to help ID sneak into the schools. It never fooled anyone and it certainly didn't fool Conservative Republican Church-Going Judge Jones in Dover. The cat's out of the bag now, so why don't you just admit it and get on with your arguing? It would help your cause because saying "The Designer's not God" is so obviously not what you believe that it hurts your credibility.
Are you referring to the countless transitional organisms, assumed by evolutionary theory, whose fossils have never been actually found?
I know this is received wisdom in YEC and ID circles, but when I go to http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils which is run by the Smithsonium, I see over a hundred human fossils, mostly skulls, and most of them sure look intermediate between apes and modern humans to me. The rest of paleontology seems to agree, but perhaps you just know more than they do. Mrs. O'Leary seems to think those academic toffs are all part of a grand conspiracy, living high off the tax payer's money and telling systematic lies to hurt Christianity while snickering into their effete tea cups at the good people of this world, but others think she's off her meds.
MS: About half of the organisms He made, including the malaria organism which preys mainly on children, make their living by killing and eating the other half of the organisms He made. Even if true, this is theological and not an argument against ID.
Theological? I thought the ID line was that the designer was NOT God! If so, where do you get Theological from? Either way, if your Intelligent Designer made the malaria organism, He's got a lot of explaining to do.MatSpirit_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit, ID rightly acknowledges a fact scientific observation only confirms: that phenomena exhibiting significant functional complexity only come about via intelligent agency. Intelligence is a known reality. Therefore true science includes it among the considered causal factors in a given phenomenon coming into being when that phenomenon exhibits significant functional complexity. On the other hand, science perverted by atheism refuses to acknowledge the obvious in order to protect blind-faith-based atheism. It abandons true science's relentless objectivity and religious/philosophical neutrality. It is afraid to simply admit that the only plausible explanation for the most functionally complex phenomenon known to us -- life -- is currently intelligent agency. It inserts silly religious arguments like the ones your posts are filled with instead of discussing the origin of life in strictly scientific terms.harry_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

@Matspirit or any atheist Can you explain to me how you can be so intellectually dead so as to ignore the reality and relevance of freedom in the universe? It is very clear that economy, society, politics, is all about the logic of freedom, that things can turn out several different ways. How can you be disinterested in what feedom in the universe is actually doing, how things are decided? Is the freedom in the universe only like tossing salad, jostling the atoms about here and there? Or would there also be more sophisticated ways of deciding than that? The organisms look designed.....so.....why wouldn't there be more sophisticated ways of deciding? What about the freedom at the start of the universe? Would it be much, or little? If you look and think, you can get insight into the issue. Again, what's with atheists being completely intellectually dead?mohammadnursyamsu_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Matspirit,
MS: If I understand correctly, the ID story is that some unidentified, undetectable supernatural agent acting at a time and place unknown arranged matter into patterns that are living creatures.
What part of “ID makes no claim about the designer” — except for intelligence — do you not understand? ‘No claim’ is incompatible with “unidentified”, “undetectable” and “supernatural”.
MS: For some reason, He made an inordinately large percentage of the animals that are big enough to be seen with the naked eye beetles.
ID does not refer to the designer as “He” and does not make such grand claims about what the designer has done. Rather ID holds that “there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause” — Bill Cole mentions some of them in #41.
MS: Every organism he originally made is extinct now, but new ones (also made by Him) have replaced them.
Are you referring to the countless transitional organisms, assumed by evolutionary theory, whose fossils have never been actually found?
MS: About half of the organisms He made, including the malaria organism which preys mainly on children, make their living by killing and eating the other half of the organisms He made.
Even if true, this is theological and not an argument against ID.
MS: Most curious of all, this supernatural being did His work in such a way as to make it look like evolution did it.”
Nope, it looks overwhelmingly designed. See Dawkins #31.
MS: Now what part of that do you disagree with?
All of it.Origenes_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Eric: “Well, that is quite a story – from the alleged, hypothetical, never-before-seen self-replicating molecule, to the claim that extrinsic information would just “evolve” naturally.” Mat: “If I understand correctly, the ID story is that some unidentified, undetectable supernatural agent acting at a time and place unknown arranged matter into patterns that are living creatures. For some reason, He made an inordinately large percentage of the animals that are big enough to be seen with the naked eye beetles. Every organism he originally made is extinct now, but new ones (also made by Him) have replaced them. About half of the organisms He made, including the malaria organism which preys mainly on children, make their living by killing and eating the other half of the organisms He made. Most curious of all, this supernatural being did His work in such a way as to make it look like evolution did it.” Now what part of that do you disagree with? UD Editors: *Palm Forehead* Even after it has been pointed out, you persist in your error. Do please take some time to familiarize yourself with ID theory. KF has provided your some help above.
Barry, could you be so kind as to actually point out their errors you think I'm making? What part of what I wrote conflicts with what part of ID theory? Are you saying that the Intelligent designer didn't actually create life? I doubt that. Are you saying that the majority of all animals big enough to see are not beetles? Are you saying that all the early species are not extinct today, along with the vast majority of all species that have ever lived? Are you denying that half the organisms today make their living by killing and eating other organisms? Are you denying Michael Behe when he says the Intelligent Designer designed the malaria virus? If you don't want to talk about it (I understand), could you at least indicate which of the above violates the principles of ID? I ask these questions mainly to give you a chance to get out of the embarrassing situation you've put yourself in. To someone who hasn't drunk the ID Koolaid, it looks like a couple of sentences I wrote caught your eye and instead of reading the context to see what I meant, you rushed into print with a really bad quote mine. If you can at least show the readers which principles of ID I've missunderstood, it will help vindicate you. Just repeating your claim makes it look like you've dug yourself into a hole and can't get out.MatSpirit_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Matspirit: But ID says that an intelligent entity DID design life, so WTF?
Well perhaps those alien scientists are not all nice guys. Or perhaps we don't understand their plan. One thing is for sure: they are technologically far ahead of us.Origenes_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: Just because you don't like what a designed object does or is used for doesn't change the fact it was designed. Understanding the motivation for any design is not an aspect of design detection.William J Murray_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit
But ID says that an intelligent entity DID design life, so WTF?
Your point is valid. Lots of unanswered questions on the why and how of the design. At the same time the genome is a sequence, an obvious product of design. At the core of RNA processing is alternative splicing of exons which sequences exons, strings of RNA, again an obvious product of design.bill cole_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

My point is more along the lines of, "If a malaria parasite is designed by evolution then common sense (It is bad policy to kill children.) and morality don't enter the equation since they are only possible for intelligent entities. An earthquake or tornado might be tragic, but you wouldn't call them stupid or immoral. But ID says that an intelligent entity DID design life, so WTF?MatSpirit_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Matspirit: What’s the name of your faction? INTELLIGENT design. Not stupid, brainless design, INTELLIGENT design!
Your argument (see #33) boils down to the claim that designing a malaria parasite is "stupid, brainless design" and does not require intelligence. Why do you think that is the case? The last time I checked contemporary science is not able to construct one. Those alien scientists are far ahead of us.Origenes_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

It's because evolution scientists don't do subjectivity that they lack sincerity, honesty, truthfulness, fairness. Only debates between creationists are of real interest.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Origenes @ 334 Matspirit: An Intelligent Designer should be able to come up with something better than this, especially if He’s omniscient and omnipotent. Origenes: Unlike ID, you are making assumptions about the designer. As Dawkins pointed out (see #31), the designers could be alien scientists. To quote that great ID philosopher, Denyse O'Leary, wake up and smell the coffee! What's the name of your faction? INTELLIGENT design. Not stupid, brainless design, INTELLIGENT design! ID makes a HUGE assumption about the designer. They say he is INTELLIGENT. ID is so certain of that assumption, so proud of that assumption, that they put it in their title. INTELLIGENT design. So why doesn't your INTELLIGENT designer come up with a design that is obviously better than unintelligent, mindless evolution. If you want to join ID, you have to put a huge pair of blinders on first. Blinders so big they won't even allow you to see the first word in your title, let alone think about its consequences.MatSpirit_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: The problem is structural. It isn't going to change. You/we are arguing, best case, with intellectually dishonest people (against whom one can sharpen one's arguments albeit with diminishing returns), or worst case (e.g. MatSpirit) with intellectual adolescents whose entire intellectual experience is predicated and reinforced (dulled) by their uniformed, uncritical, intellectually adolescent, like-minded peers. They are like children who when caught by their mothers with cookie crumbs on their lips and hands, blame the dog, because blaming the dog works with their adolescent friends and they have no clue as to how many levels higher their mother operates. It is entertaining to a point, but like sitcom reruns, we all know the punch lines and the laugh track just doesn't get it done in heavy rotation. UD needs a better class of loser.Charles_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Goodusername: Materialism isn’t inherently against the belief that life, or even the universe, was designed – although there would obviously be an issue with the proposal that life or the universe was supernaturally created by a God. See, for example, this idea from the astrophysicist John Gribbin: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html Would you say that John Gribbin is an ID proponent? I’m not sure how most ID proponents would respond to that question.
Obviously wrt a designed universe John Gribbin is an ID proponent.
Gribbin: The great British astronomer Fred Hoyle suggested that the laws of physics were so uniquely conducive to human existence that the universe must be "a put-up job". I believe he was right: the universe was indeed set up to provide a home for life, ... It isn't that man was created in God's image – rather that our universe was created, more or less, in the image of its designers.
However his theory seems to rule out that life is designed:
John Gribbin: Crucially, though, it would not be possible in any of these cases – even at the most advanced level – for the designers to interfere with the baby universes once they had formed. From the moment of its own Big Bang, each universe would be on its own.
So, it seems that Gribbin's theory is incompatible with life being designed. Although ... maybe —just maybe— a universe can be front-loaded with information about life.Origenes_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Matspirit: An Intelligent Designer should be able to come up with something better than this, especially if He’s omniscient and omnipotent.
Unlike ID, you are making assumptions about the designer. As Dawkins pointed out (see #31), the designers could be alien scientists.Origenes_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply