Intelligent Design and Real World Nastiness (page 2)

Abaddon,

TD said, " However the task of reconciling the idea of a munificent Designer with the reality of life is is not without a few hurdles."

You said, "As regards debunking the Creator, you make a logical error. It is not sceintists place to debunk the Creator"

Is it me you are arguing with here or TD?

I don't think I was barking up that tree, I have accepted that you cannot prove a creator by disproving evolution.

You also make a logical error or bad judgment. You are not in a position to say the Creator doesn't exist because you know you don't know that.

Forget the goat herders, apart from some moral values in the NT I don't subscribe to the Bible.

My take on the subject is this:

If there is incontrivertible evidence for evolution and, I'm not talking adaptation, then my belief is that a Creator programmed a senquence of rules or laws, a framework if you like for organic matter to evolve from simple to more complex to animated.
My analogy is the instructions received by the CPU of a computer. The CPU processes each simple intruction given to it and according to rules, predicates and what-not constructs a complex application that can fly you to Mars. The application alters its execution according to the inputs it receives and an instruction that would have been executed isn't as a new instruction is loaded to deal with the new input. So one minute the application does one thing and the next something entirely different. The laws of the Computer/program were pre-written years before but applied during execution.

To add credence to this theory.
Stars and planets, snow flakes are complex inanimate objects. But they don't form without following the very specific rules of physics for the large and the small, so finely tuned that a little more mass here a little less gravity there and non of this would have been possible. To create a star nature follows a framework of precise rules without which nothing happens in this universe. Blind evolution is about pot luck randomness. How many times the word random comes up with evolutionists to create something better when it should be the word instruction?
This is what evolutionary scientists are really measuring - the pre created though out instruction set for things to be allowed to evolve to complexity.

So Abaddon what do you think?

Abaddon

Spectrum

You are not in a position to say the Creator doesn't exist because you know you don't know that.

I didn't.

I said "We all know one cannot prove something that does not exist does not exist". This is demonstrably true, as in "prove my purple invisible quantum kangaroo is not real". You can't. Nobody can.

I did say it's theists 'job' to prove god. That's different to saying god doesn't exist.

Science means knowledge. If one cannot prove something (like the theory of gravity), one cannot be said to truly 'know' that thing. Thus god is not a subject for science, as one cannot prove god, QED.

Theists don't need proof to make an investigation valid to them. A theist can (stereotypical example but you'll get my point) argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and their arguments in that frame of reference (i.e. angels dancing on sewing apparatus) can be valid to those of like mind without proof.

A scientist cannot undertake a longitudinal study of the eco-biology of tooth fairies. Even colleagues who really really wanted fairies to exist would have to point out the person undertaking the study had no proof and was researching here-say.

If there is incontrivertible evidence for evolution and, I'm not talking adaptation,

We better start at the beginning and have you define 1/ what evolution is and 2/ what would prove evolution to you, as in the broad scope of general evolutionary theory.

then my belief is that a Creator programmed a senquence of rules or laws, a framework if you like for organic matter to evolve from simple to more complex to animated.

I concede that god could have 'blown on the dice' in such a way as to get a double six, but lack proof of god or proof even that humans are the double six (i.e. the purpose (or even dolphin) of god's creation). If god did set up things so 'this' happened, I see no proof that we are the focus. Maybe we are the result of god-designed processes, just as wood shavings are part of a carpenter-designed process, but no more the focus of the effort than the wood shavings are. Maybe god set things up to make something else and we are just industrial waste.

This isn't nearly as silly as it may sound and could explain LOTS, but humans see themselves at the centre of everything even if they are not, so us being a byproduct of no especial interest to god is not a popular idea.

so finely tuned that a little more mass here a little less gravity there and non of this would have been possible

What do you know about the anthropic principle?

Let me put it another way; do you realise every puddle of water praises the god of puddles, and marvels at how exactly its environment fits it, and how if its environment was a tiny bit different, it wouldn't fit?

If our existence was not possible (or some other existence was possible) through a change of physical constants, we a/ wouldn't know about it as we wouldn't exist, or b/ if we existed in another set of physical constants that allowed existence (obviously we wouldn't be 'we' but I think you'll follow the argument) we would ALSO assume this other range of physical constants was the only one where 'we' ('one'? multiple realities require new personal pronouns) could exist.

Blind evolution is about pot luck randomness. How many times the word random comes up with evolutionists to create something better when it should be the word instruction?

I think we better define evolution and see what would prove evolution to you and continue from there; those last two sentences show a possible lack of appreciation over what evolution even is. RANDOM? Who told you the progress of evolution is directed by RANDOM processes? Some change might be random, but that is provable in real time. The SELECTION of what features survive is so non random as to defy belief.

So Abaddon what do you think?

I think this might be an interesting conversation and look forward to you defining what you think evolution is (not a trick question I promise you) and what would prove it to you ( a question of obvious usefulness).

Spectrum

Abaddon

I wrote you a long reply but my browser crashed and I lost everything.
My temper is seathing.

I'll try again tomorrow

TD

Hi Spectrum,

The whole premise of your argument against ID is the human concept of good and bad. I say forget about good and bad and think about what you are expounding again. It makes absolutely no inroads into debunking a Creator regardless of what attributes you might want to force on him.

With respect, my point was not against ID per se (Although my feelings on the subject are probably obvious) It also was not intended to disprove the existence of a Creator, as proving a negative is a rather basic logical fallacy. And I don't discount the existence of a Creator in any event.

My point was simply against the, "Argument of expediency." --Overcoming a problem with an arugment that is ultimately incompatible with one's larger belief system.

Enigma One

Spectrum....why are you seething? Why is it that your belief in God must be shouted from the rooftops and accepted blindly?

heathen

why are you seething?

I think he's seething because he had a long beautiful post that was going to explain ,life , the universe and everything but his browser crashed on him .

I think God said he didn't have to prove he exists but that people would believe in faith alone because when he did prove he existed people did stupid things anyway so it really didn't matter to him .

either way you look at it , it's a system of faith . Evolution does not show creatures evolving on a molecular scale . At first they claimed it was small changes in species then when they couldn't find evidence of that targeted big changes , so a whale could now in all possibility give birth to a kangeroo . How wonderful science is .......

M.J.

In order to explain the fact that this actually does happen, they have combined the Augustinean concept of deviation from original purpose with a very literal reading of Genesis 1:30, declaring that all animals were originally created as vegetarians and that the only reason that predators exist today is because, "Existing features were put to a different use from what was originally purposed." (cf. Awake! 1/8/83 p. 28)

Not to mention death. Was it the original purpose for animals to die? If death did not enter the scene until the "fall" then there is a lot of fancy footwork to be done regarding the 6 "geological day-ages". I'm not sure what kind of story the WTS comes up with on this one.

Despite the statement from Awake! I don't know of any JW who will try and make the argument that the T-Rex was a vegetarian.

mkr32208

great thread!

metatron

I don't know if you guys actually read Dembski's book - "Intelligent Design" but I enjoyed it. That said, the book has a big problem.

The conclusion states that the intelligent design being suggested would be compatible with deism, pantheism and so on.

However, preceding chapters talk about Bible teachings in depth and "Christology". It pains me to say so, but I can see why

some consider ID to be Creationism - or religion in any case,although the basic idea of intelligent design requires no religious

baggage. Injecting the simple idea of design does not equal Christianity - although that seems to be the intent of the author.

metatron

Intelligent Design and Real World Nastiness

AlmostAtheist

Spectrum

Abaddon

Spectrum

TD

Enigma One

heathen

M.J.

mkr32208

metatron

Share this