My question is: What complex objects (analogous to biological systems or mechanical systems), has "unintelligent design" been observed to produce? And are these examples (if any) in themselves sufficient to merit the rejection of the consideration of intelligent biological design as science?
analogous to? so not including biological systems? because ALL biological systems have come into existence on their own. why do you want to exclude biological systems if behe himself goes on ad infinitum regarding them, and you yourself list one in your example? am i sensing the start of a false dillema?
My comments were not to meant to exclude complex biological systems (in fact these would be the best possible examples)- In fact if you have any biological systems that have been observed to come about by unintelligent design than please list them.
analogous?
ice crystals. rocks. waves. clouds. solar system. universe. if you do not agree that these sytems are sufficiently analogous to bio and mech systems, then you are simply not looking hard enough. take a step back, a deep breath, and look again (not that i think you will, but it was just fun to say anyways.
No one observed the origin of the solar system or universe, so I don't see these as being valid examples.
We can observe the formation of rocks, waves, and clouds. However, I fail to see the analogy to any sort of complex biological or mechanical system.
hooberus....I notice you underlined the word "observed," implying that obervation is a critical feature of your question. Now why is time rarely considered as a relevant factor in comparing design by human intelligence to natural selection/natural processes? Because how long have humans been around to observe things? Or better put....how long has science been around to systematically examine natural change? Several hundred years? Now consider how long scientists agree it takes for speciation or more extensive changes to occur....have humans been around observing biological change for a few million years? Or consider how long it takes a human to make a watch, a car, a television set, an atomic bomb. A year, a decade, a century to get the design worked out....faster than an eyeblink in geological/biological time. For nature to take hundreds of million years to get a fairly sophisticated mammalian eye, well it would have to be an unintelligent designer to take soooo long to get the design worked out....indeed, by trial and error (i.e. the blind watchmaker). If it would take a single person several million years to invent a design, then your analogy would be valid...but such is not the case.
Of course I realize that the claimed extreme "slowness" of the process involved will be the primary response by evolutionists to the lack of observation for "unintelligent" biological system design.
However, the fact remains that such a dogmatic claim that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" should be backed up by numerous observed examples. (Especially given the fact that virtually all (if not all) observed complex systems analogous to life seem to have required an intelligent designer for their origin as well as the chemical and probability difficulties in envisioning the formation of such systems).
perhaps the great irony of this thread title is lost on you?
like satanus asked: "where is your POSITIVE evidence for your POSTIVE assertion about the existence of, and subsequent creative acts of an Intelligent Designer??"
well, actually, i expounded a bit on his question, but there none the less do you have it my dear chap. the great irony. there is no evidence for the above said, is there hooberus?
the rafter in the eye illustration comes to mind. but yes, i think we have already had that conversation, hey hoob?
perhaps the great irony of this thread title is lost on you?
like satanus asked: "where is your POSITIVE evidence for your POSTIVE assertion about the existence of, and subsequent creative acts of an Intelligent Designer??"
well, actually, i expounded a bit on his question, but there none the less do you have it my dear chap. the great irony. there is no evidence for the above said, is there hooberus?
While, I believe that the evidence supports intelligent design (in that virtually all -if not all - of the numerous examples of complex systems that have an observed origin have required the imput of intelligent design as well as the fact that and chemical and probablility analysis seem to demonstrate the requirement for intelligence) the fact remains that this thread is about the question of what has unintelligent design been observed to create.
Keep in mind that it is not the creationists and ID proponets who proclaim that only their views be considered as possible "scientific explanations" for biological complexity, but it is instead the proponets of "unintelligent design" that proclaim such.
The fact remains that virtually all -if not all- of the millions of compex structures that have had an observed origin have required intelligent design. Thus, for someone to proclaim the origin of even more complex biological sytems by another method ("unintelligent design") and to also proclaim that only this method can be considered as a "scientific exaplantion" for the origin of such structures should be backed up by analogous examples.
i find myself incredulous that this is lost on people like you and rex. you work so hard to tear science apart in the minds of the general public, and have NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING of technically viable substance to offer them in return. take the freaking rafter out of your own eye before approaching the theory of evolution. how about that? get it?
well? what have you to say to that? i'm still waiting...
Let's accept for the time being the proposition that there is an Intelligent Designer, as a scientific hypothesis to explain natural facts. Okay. If such natural facts are evidence of the existence of this mysterious Designer, shouldn't these same facts shed more light than the mere issue of the Designer's existence and role in "designing" the natural world? I mean....shouldn't Intelligent Design advocates continue their scientific quest into more pressing matters (with apologies to John Clinger), such as:
What are the methods used by the Intelligent Designer to create complex life?
Where does the Designer currently live and can it be observed?
How many Designers were there? Is there one per solar system, or one per planet?
Were there different Designers for different kinds of life? Was there a Designer of invertebrates and another Designer for vegetation, and another Designer for viruses and bacteria?
Were these Designers cooperating in the project of creation on mutual terms, or is there evidence of competition between Designers?
Is the Designer still designing or is he retired? Or dead?
Were some Designers more intelligent than others? May some Designers have been insane, malevolent, or simply incompetent?
Did the Designer improve his/its designs over time through experience?
Who designed the Designer(s)? If the Designer did not need to be designed, then why does anything else?
Why do advocates of Intelligent Design not form hypotheses about the Designer and test them with scientific evidence (since ID is supposedly scientific, right?)? It seems that most simply assume that there was just one Designer who designed everything on this planet....why is that the only hypothesis entertained, and why isn't it tested? Why are most only content with the issue of proving the mere existence of the Designer? Aren't there far more interesting questions to consider, if such a Designer exists?
the rafter in the eye illustration comes to mind. but yes, i think we have already had that conversation, hey hoob?
ts
incredulous that this is lost on people like you and rex. you work so hard to tear science apart in the minds of the general public, and have NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING of technically viable substance to offer them in return. take the freaking rafter out of your own eye before approaching the theory of evolution. how about that? get it? well? what have you to say to that? i'm still waiting...
Let's accept for the time being the proposition that there is an Intelligent Designer, as a scientific hypothesis to explain natural facts. Okay. If such natural facts are evidence of the existence of this mysterious Designer, shouldn't these same facts shed more light than the mere issue of the Designer's existence and role in "designing" the natural world? I mean....shouldn't Intelligent Design advocates continue their scientific quest into more pressing matters (with apologies to John Clinger), such as:
What are the methods used by the Intelligent Designer to create complex life?
Where does the Designer currently live and can it be observed?
How many Designers were there? Is there one per solar system, or one per planet?
Were there different Designers for different kinds of life? Was there a Designer of invertebrates and another Designer for vegetation, and another Designer for viruses and bacteria?
Were these Designers cooperating in the project of creation on mutual terms, or is there evidence of competition between Designers?
Is the Designer still designing or is he retired? Or dead?
Were some Designers more intelligent than others? May some Designers have been insane, malevolent, or simply incompetent?
Did the Designer improve his/its designs over time through experience?
Who designed the Designer(s)? If the Designer did not need to be designed, then why does anything else?
Why do advocates of Intelligent Design not form hypotheses about the Designer and test them with scientific evidence (since ID is supposedly scientific, right?)? It seems that most simply assume that there was just one Designer who designed everything on this planet....why is that the only hypothesis entertained, and why isn't it tested? Why are most only content with the issue of proving the mere existence of the Designer? Aren't there far more interesting questions to consider, if such a Designer exists?
Sorry, but I would like to to keep to the direct subject of this thread. For a response to some of the above questions I can recommend several books. For a response to another claim frequently made here that that ID or creationism requires that that the designer himself be designed by another ad infinitum see the following: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/93982/1.ashx
