Originally posted by lemon limeNice impartial site you found!
Definition of Intelligent Design
"What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Why not use wiki?
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain
features of the universe and of living things are best explained by
an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural
selection."Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community
have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism
which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses
Originally posted by C HessSo, all I have to do to end this whole farce is point to an example where so called CSI is produced in nature through a non-intelligent process?
So, all I have to do to end this whole farce is point to an example where so called CSI is produced in nature through a non-intelligent process?
Ice, waterfalls, clouds... need I go on?
Seriously, if they want to support intelligent design with science they run against two problems. First, if they are serious about the designer not having to be supernat ...[text shortened]... e realm of philosophy (though I imagine a philosopher or two would object to that), not science.
Ice, waterfalls, clouds... need I go on?
No, you really don't need to go on seeing as how you got the definition of CSI wrong. "Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI)." So how do you figure ice, waterfalls or clouds fits the definition of CSI?
How can you know if intelligent design is science or not if you don't know what it is?
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think their motivation is to not appear to be anti-science by denying the theory of evolution and billions of years of pre-history. Perhaps Suzianne would be a better person to ask, because I believe she is a theistic evolutionist.
And what is the motivation of theist evolutionists?
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessWhat is the complex and specified information? Those things make bonds and form various patterns, but I would not say that is CSI. It does not seem to be like the DNA code language that contains CSI (instructions) to make a living animal or a human.
So, all I have to do to end this whole farce is point to an example where so called CSI is produced in nature through a non-intelligent process?
Ice, waterfalls, clouds... need I go on?
Seriously, if they want to support intelligent design with science they run against two problems. First, if they are serious about the designer not having to be supernat ...[text shortened]... e realm of philosophy (though I imagine a philosopher or two would object to that), not science.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeLet's see if we can rewrite that so it better reflects reality.
Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."
Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures (that can also be explained through natural processes), the complex and specified information content in DNA (that is really an acid chain that can form through natural processes and be naturally selected for), the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe (of which we have only one sample so we can't tell what other forms of life would or would not be yielded had this universe not been so "fine-tuned" ), and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago (which went on for millions and millions of years and therefore fits within the boundaries of evolution).
Of course, when one puts it like that, ID is revealed for the wishful religious thinking that it is.
Originally posted by C HessYou ignore the fact that DNA has to be programmed with information so that it can be read by a protein machine to pass on instrutions in a specific sequence to make other protein machines that are necessary to assembly themselves in ways I don't understand to make various parts of the body to form a complete and living human being or some other creature depending on the specfic blueprint instructions. How does the programming information get in the original creatures, if not put in there by the intelligent designer of the animal or human creatures?
Let's see if we can rewrite that so it better reflects reality.
Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures (that can also be explained through natural processes), the complex and specified information content in DNA (that is really an acid chain that can form through natural process ...[text shortened]... ourse, when one puts it like that, ID is revealed for the wishful religious thinking that it is.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsI've explained this so many times now. Evolutionary theory doesn't suggest complex organisms just popped into existence fully formed. That's your claim as a YEC. What evolution proposes, and for which we have an abundance of evidence, is that life gradually evolved (and continue to evolve) to form the intricate relationships between and within cells that we see today.
You ignore the fact that DNA has to be programmed with information so that it can be read by a protein machine to pass on instrutions in a specific sequence to make other protein machines that are necessary to assembly themselves in ways I don't understand to make various parts of the body to form a complete and living human being or some other creature depe ...[text shortened]... nal creatures, if not put in there by the intelligent designer of the animal or human creatures?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by lemon limeThat's my whole point. CSI is the claim that complex and specified (?) information comes from intelligent agents. If you're saying that it doesn't have to come from intelligent agents, the whole basis for the ID claim falls apart. In fact, if I can point to complex structures that form naturally, the whole basis for the ID claim falls apart, for how can you determine that some complexity comes from an unseen, untested, unknown intelligent being and has meaning in some sense, when another kind of complexity don't? Put another way, how do you know complexity that formed when you weren't around to see it, is really only best explained as designed by an intelligence? Especially when you consider all the obvious design flaws, like using the same hole for breathing and eating, a flaw that's led to countless deaths by now. This is best explained through a blind design process, like natural selection.
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI)." So how do you figure ice, waterfalls or clouds fits the definition of CSI?
Originally posted by C HessYes I understand what you believe. You believe evolution of life is a bottom up procedure in which life begins in its simplest form and additional parts and information gradually increase to form more and more complex life systems. It is like the egg comes first and produces the chicken.
I've explained this so many times now. Evolutionary theory doesn't suggest complex organisms just popped into existence fully formed. That's your claim as a YEC. What evolution proposes, and for which we have an abundance of evidence, is that life gradually evolved (and continue to evolve) to form the intricate relationships between and within cells that we see today.
Creationists believe it all begins from the top down in which all different kinds of living creatures are designed and made with the abilities to reproduce within their kinds. This is the idea that the chicken is made first and then produces the egg.
I believe the following video explains it pretty good:
Programming of Life
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you have to admit there is no science in creationism.
Yes I understand what you believe. You believe evolution of life is a bottom up procedure in which life begins in its simplest form and additional parts and information gradually increase to form more and more complex life systems. It is like the egg comes first and produces the chicken.
Creationists believe it all begins from the top down in which all d ...[text shortened]... eo explains it pretty good:
Programming of Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
1 edit
"In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant claimed that the most the design argument can establish is “an architect of the world who is constrained by the adaptability of the material in which he works, not a creator of the world to whose idea everything is subject.” Far from rejecting the design argument, Kant objected to overextending it. For Kant, the design argument legitimately establishes an architect (that is, an intelligent cause whose contrivances are constrained by the materials that make up the world), but it can never establish a creator who originates the very materials that the architect then fashions.
Intelligent design is entirely consonant with this observation by Kant. Creation is always about the source of being of the world. Intelligent design, as the science that studies signs of intelligence, is about arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence. Creation and intelligent design are therefore quite different. One can have creation without intelligent design and intelligent design without creation. For instance, one can have a doctrine of creation in which God creates the world in such a way that nothing about the world points to design. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote a book titled The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. Even if Dawkins is right about the universe revealing no evidence of design, it would not logically follow that it was not created. It is logically possible that God created a world that provides no evidence of design. On the other hand, it is logically possible that the world is full of signs of intelligence but was not created. This was the ancient Stoic view, in which the world was eternal and uncreated, and yet a rational principle pervaded the world and produced marks of intelligence in it."
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm
Originally posted by lemon limeAll well and good but it is just as logical no designer was needed.
"In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant claimed that the most the design argument can establish is “an architect of the world who is constrained by the adaptability of the material in which he works, not a creator of the world to whose idea everything is subject.” Far from rejecting the design argument, Kant objected to overextending it. For Kant, ...[text shortened]... s of intelligence in it."
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm
Originally posted by lemon limeHave you yourself read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, or even these relevant portions?
"In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant claimed that the most the design argument can establish is “an architect of the world who is constrained by the adaptability of the material in which he works, not a creator of the world to whose idea everything is subject.” Far from rejecting the design argument, Kant objected to overextending it. For Kant, ...[text shortened]... s of intelligence in it."
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm
Originally posted by lemon limeThe only problem being that there are no actual scientists doing this science. The only people pushing what they call 'intelligent design' are in fact creationists trying to push their religion in opposition to the theory of evolution.
Intelligent design, as the science that studies signs of intelligence, is about arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence.
Certainly there have to date been no scientific findings whatsoever that do provide a sign of intelligence.
Originally posted by bbarrFor instance, in his critique of pure reason:
Have you yourself read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, or even these relevant portions?
Restraint should be exercised in the polemical use of pure reason. Kant defined this polemical use as the defense against dogmatic negations. For example, if it is dogmatically affirmed that God exists or that the soul is immortal, a dogmatic negation could be made that God doesn't exist or that the soul is not immortal. Such dogmatic assertions can't be proved