Intelligent Design?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No evidence for it? I dont think so, all the evidence is there, the point
is if it means what we think it does.
Kelly

Bump for KJ:

Try hard not to side step and actually answer the question.

What evidence for ID do you believe is credible?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking design the laws/forces of the universe can give us
patterns, things can just happen like snow flakes and rock layers and
so on, basically not hard see these are just the universe doing what it
does with the parts within it.
The idea behind ID takes things beyond what could happen with just
those laws of the universe, you just do not see ...[text shortened]... g with things like our houses, and a linty of other
things that get built by living creatures.

So are you claiming that living things are not part of the universe? Are you claiming that there is something identifiably unique about patterns created by living things? Can you define it or is it just a feeling? Do these designs you have identified as being cause by rudimentary intelligence also indicate consciousness? What do you mean by intelligence?

I'm amazed that you HAVE to bringing God into this discussion, it is almost like you have to use God to dismiss ID altogether. I don’t see why you do that either if you can accept bird nests, ant hills, and other things are built why do you think ID is such a subject of taboo? It cannot be true unless God did it in your view?
I don't think you are amazed at all. I think you expected it. I didn't have to bring God into the discussion, but you know perfectly well why I did.
I don't actually think there is anything about a birds nest that does indicate intelligent design.

Really, it is ridiculous why? If you accept living creatures do build, with
limited intelligence and greater intelligence what makes that
hypothesis ridiculous? We have agreed even a limited intelligence can
build with ID, so what is so ridiculous? Is it simply because it could
possibly go against your core beliefs that make it ridiculous to you?
On the face of it all I don’t see any reason to say such a thing except
for that reason given all the things we have agreed on so far.
Kelly
You didn't understand what I said. (or chose not to).
To give an example. We do not know how snow flakes form. They are clearly very complex, very beautiful etc. A prime candidate for intelligent design. Yet you yourself have quite easily dismissed them as being able to happen according to the laws of nature? Why?
I will tell you why. Because you know of a better explanation and you agree with me that ID is not the best explanation. The only reason you have for not agreeing with the 'best' explanation for life and its properties is because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. For ID to be a reasonable explanation you must first reject evolution and about half of current science along with it. And you must give good reasons for doing so.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You must make it into something other than science, you cannot
just look at the questions being asked for the sake of getting the
answers correct?
Kelly

First, the questions have to make sense.

But sure, anyone can look at those questions, but a high school SCIENCE classroom isn't the place to do it, since the answers fall short of science's standards of proof.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
First, the questions have to make sense.

But sure, anyone can look at those questions, but a high school SCIENCE classroom isn't the place to do it, since the answers fall short of science's standards of proof.

Although I agree that ID should not be taught in a science classroom as a valid theory to the origins of life, I don't see a problem with using it as an example of "bad" science i.e. something that claims to have evidence for itself when no valid predictions and tests have been performed.

Examples of bad science came from many areas during my undergraduate degree, this seems like a perfect one to use.

Originally posted by timebombted
Although I agree that ID should not be taught in a science classroom as a valid theory to the origins of life, I don't see a problem with using it as an example of "bad" science i.e. something that claims to have evidence for itself when no valid predictions and tests have been performed.

Examples of bad science came from many areas during my undergraduate degree, this seems like a perfect one to use.

I'd probably support its discussion in a first year undergraduate paper. Certainly, I'd run an honours year seminar course on this type of non-science. However, I maintain that a high school classroom isn't the place.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'd probably support its discussion in a first year undergraduate paper. Certainly, I'd run an honours year seminar course on this type of non-science. However, I maintain that a high school classroom isn't the place.

I think that the philosophy of science is very important and should be taught in high school. Critical thinking should be a part of the core curriculum, otherwise you end up with the general public buying into all sorts of unjustified rubbish.

ID would be a excellent subject of a 'compare and contrast' exercise.

In the absence of any dedicated course on this, I think the science class is the next-best place.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I think that the philosophy of science is very important and [b]should be taught in high school. Critical thinking should be a part of the core curriculum, otherwise you end up with the general public buying into all sorts of unjustified rubbish.

ID would be a excellent subject of a 'compare and contrast' exercise.

In the absence of any dedicated course on this, I think the science class is the next-best place.

--- Penguin.[/b]

I can see your point, but I remember what my high school science education was like. Maybe there was a class right at the start in my second year of high school, I don't remember, that covered the philosophy of science, but I do remember I was more interested in learning about kidney function!!

Originally posted by KellyJay
It isn't that it has nothing to do with science, it just reaches a
conclusion and science never does that.
Kelly

Hi Kelly

You're absolutely right. Intelligent design looks at a fragment of the available evidence, draws a conclusion that fits the religious and political needs of its proponents, and then refuses to consider any contrary evidence or refutations that might weaken its conclusions.

Science is more open than that. Science uses the best available conclusions but, if faced with new evidence, new theories must be formulated. Science is capable of progressing to new conclusions.

Have you crawled out of Spirituality in search of new victims for your tedious arguments?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So my question to you is:
Why do you think "Intelligence" when you see "design"? Clearly neither birds nor ants are particularly intelligent, yet birds nests and ant hills are quite clearly designed. The whole premise of ID is that you know what you are looking for (intelligence) and you look for evidence for it. If an ID person saw an ant hill and did n ...[text shortened]... ting evidence or that it is the best hypothesis for the observed facts is simply ridiculous.

You do not get design without intelligence since design means that
something was done with purpose, hence by design! You again care
more about what something could imply instead of just what the
evidence may suggest, you cannot say there isn't any evidence you
can say evidence may not mean what I think it does. My point being
when the cars were being discussed; I asked if people could see
design in a car, the replies were telling! "I can see the factory, I can
see the blue prints, I can talk to the engineers" all of this had nothing
to do with the car itself, almost all the answers had nothing to do with
the car and what we could glean by looking at them. The car was
removed from the point of interest, which is what you and others here
are doing with life, you want the factory, you want the blue prints,
you want to talk to the engineer, and you are refusing to look to look
at the car, or in this case life just to see if on the face of things you
can see design in the car or in life.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not get design without intelligence since design means that
something was done with purpose, hence by design! You again care
more about what something could imply instead of just what the
evidence may suggest, you cannot say there isn't any evidence you
can say evidence may not mean what I think it does. My point being
when the cars were being d ...[text shortened]... e life just to see if on the face of things you
can see design in the car or in life.
Kelly

To appear design must seem like thought behind yes? Many thing in nature appear design. Throw rock in water. It fall random yes? Yet could be look like design if land right. How you no is design and no random if you no throw rock?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not get design without intelligence since design means that
something was done with purpose, hence by design! You again care
more about what something could imply instead of just what the
evidence may suggest, you cannot say there isn't any evidence you
can say evidence may not mean what I think it does. My point being
when the cars were being d e life just to see if on the face of things you
can see design in the car or in life.
Kelly

Car:
Yes I see design, because the subcomponents of a car have no natural affinity to each other so could not have formed spontaneous bonds to form a more complex object. Yes I see design, because the car is not living and has no way of reproducing other cars by itself. Yes I see design, because the car has no code capable of mutation, recombination etc to produce variation at each generation to achieve its complexity.

Life:
No I see no design, the subcomponents have a natural affinity to each other to form spontaneous bonds. Life has the ability to reproduce. Life has a genetic code capable of recombination and mutation to produce variation which has driven first life to the complex organisms we see today.

So you are now trying to drive this pointless analogy in two threads, open your eyes KJ...... cars and life are not appropriate comparisons for a discusssion about ID. One clearly shows design (the car) we do not need a factory / blueprints / technicians to recognise this, one does not (life).

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not get design without intelligence since design means that
something was done with purpose, hence by design!

Then you are contradicting yourself. You claimed that birds nests and anthills were clearly designed yet neither birds not ants are particularly intelligent.
I think the problem with our discussion is that you have not really defined the key words: 'design' and 'intelligent' and keep changing them to suit your argument.

My point being when the cars were being discussed; I asked if people could see design in a car, the replies were telling! "I can see the factory, I can see the blue prints, I can talk to the engineers" all of this had nothing to do with the car itself, almost all the answers had nothing to do with the car and what we could glean by looking at them. The car was
removed from the point of interest, which is what you and others here
are doing with life, you want the factory, you want the blue prints,
you want to talk to the engineer, and you are refusing to look to look
at the car, or in this case life just to see if on the face of things you
can see design in the car or in life.
Kelly
In fact that works against your argument. You too have not provided any reason whatsoever to see design in a car. You simply assume it. You do the same with life. Can you give one property of a car which indicates design other than your own personal incredulity?

Originally posted by Jigtie
To appear design must seem like thought behind yes? Many thing in nature appear design. Throw rock in water. It fall random yes? Yet could be look like design if land right. How you no is design and no random if you no throw rock?

If you cannot tell, I guess you will never see evidence in a brick house
or a book either.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
Car:
Yes I see design, because the subcomponents of a car have no natural affinity to each other so could not have formed spontaneous bonds to form a more complex object. Yes I see design, because the car is not living and has no way of reproducing other cars by itself. Yes I see design, because the car has no code capable of mutation, recombination etc ...[text shortened]... car) we do not need a factory / blueprints / technicians to recognise this, one does not (life).

That may not be true, but you say it as if it were, and that alone
makes you ignore what could be design in life? So you see what
you want, and ignore what could also be true! What you see in life
are systems far more complex than those in a car, what you assume
is that they came together over time by themselves and no design
was ever required.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then you are contradicting yourself. You claimed that birds nests and anthills were clearly designed yet neither birds not ants are particularly intelligent.
I think the problem with our discussion is that you have not really defined the key words: 'design' and 'intelligent' and keep changing them to suit your argument.

[b]My point being when the cars ive one property of a car which indicates design other than your own personal incredulity?

[/b]Yes, look at the parts and how they are put together and work
together doing different things, but these things combined get
the car functioning as a means of transportation. Look at life it
too has various systems and they do different things, but working
together to get if functioning. Look at the car it has temperature
regulation on some of its parts, life does too, the list is endless
nearly, yet for you, where is the factory and engineer? Look at
the car there are start stop mechanisms in it besides even the
breaks, look at life in a much more complex manner it does too
and the list goes on and can go on if you want more.
Kelly