by nicolaou 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The human brain does seem to suggest an intelligent creator.How can we start off this debate about intelligent design and can we all agree to try and keep it civil?
Maybe by referring to contemporary cognitive studies that argue that our brains are hard-wired to see design around us. Here you find a modified version of the original essay by two psychologists at Yale.
Agree that elegant, complex systems require design. Why does design require a designer???
Evolution designs systems. Through a never ending cycle of survival of the better mutation, a constant asking of "is this better, or that" through hundreds of millions of years, very complex, energy saving mechanisms are developed.
nicolau:
Complicated things do look designed. The human brain does seem to suggest an intelligent creator.
That's true but not quite in the sense I think you mean. The way our brains have evolved causes us to infer design where we see complexity. Humans are designers, makers, creators, tinkerers and toolmakers. Much of the world we live in only works because it has been consciously designed and manufactured. It's not surprising that most humans have imagined the rest of the world works so well for the same reason. It was not until Darwin's discovery of natural selection that we had a better explanation than design for the complexity we see.
For matters of science, it's vitally important not to assume that what our intuition tells us is correct. Our intuition and superficial observation tell us the earth is flat, and that the sun orbits it. But rigorous investigation and the gathering of evidence has shown otherwise. The same is true of the apparent design of living organisms. The Argument from Design turns out to be the Argument from Incredulity. I can't believe that wasn't consciously designed, therefore it was designed.
FD: Spot on. You do know I was making an opening statement, not for myself (I'm an evoultionist/atheist after all) but for the sake of the argument?
It's difficult to maintain patience with individuals who promote the idea of a God/Creator "because that's what the Bible says" but the so-called argument from design is at least an argument that can be made. You and I would agree it's also an argument that can be overturned and refuted - it's been done many times on this forum alone. I was just trying for a more humble approach from both camps.
Related to the Argument from Incredulity is the 'Argument from Ignorance', and it cuts both ways. A believer cannot argue; "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore God does exist" and I should not counter; "You can't prove God does exist, therefore God doesn't exist". They're both appalling pieces of crooked thinking and fallacious reasoning.
That's why we need evidence or, in the absence of evidence, solid, logical reason.
The primitive tribes of New Guinea imbue everything in their environment with a god or spirit connection. It is logical to them, it gives them an explanation for everything that happens to them. They have developed rituals to influence the spirit forces so that things go well, and they have rituals to deal with bad things that happen such as illness or food shortages. They truly believe they are interacting with 'god'. At one time the entire human race lived this way and it is a deeply ingrained coping mechanism.
Here's one of my favorite little blurbs from Terry:
*****************************
I stand in awe.
I wonder.
I wonder about ingrown crotch hairs that itch and make unsightly pimples.
I wonder about loogies and why men like to hock them up and spit them in front of you.
I wonder about nostril hair that grows like an elephant tusk when you are over 40.
I wonder why chubby women wear tight pants that cause their muffin-top fatrolls to spill over like squeezed water balloons.
I wonder about little kids with large and wondrous eyes with foul-mouthed parents who scream at them and jerk their little arms like pitbull leashes.
I wonder about the dead sparrow I saw on the sidewalk which had been infested by thousands of itchy lice that were abandoning the inert host.
I wonder about the billions of prayers sent heavenward pleading for mercy and the rivers of blood that silence them.
I do wonder about God.
I really do.
***********************************
OM
Related to the Argument from Incredulity is the 'Argument from Ignorance', and it cuts both ways. A believer cannot argue; "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore God does exist" and I should not counter; "You can't prove God does exist, therefore God doesn't exist". They're both appalling pieces of crooked thinking and fallacious reasoning.
That's why we need evidence or, in the absence of evidence, solid, logical reason.
No, we do not there is no invisible Dragon in my garage. Despite the funny noises one might use to prove it's existence. There are natural reasons for those noises. Though I may lack proof of their cause for the moment they will be found out with some study.
Also no one can prove a negative. So the lack of clear evidence is evidence to the negative.
Consider this then,
The illnesses out there that every day kill people are also so complex in design, althogh there are cures to many of them, there are those that make people suffer and die due to them if they don't get treatment. Cancer, Aids, Leprosy, Black death, spanish flu, the comon cold, etc. and we can't get rid of them. There has been so much research against these illnesses and yet they can't stop them from existing.
In the New Testament Jesus is described as performing miracles of healing since he was a perfect man on earth. So truly how complex is the body if it were perfect as Jesus was.
-Aleman
I don't know if there is room for discussion really. The "argument from design" falls flat on its face, crashes and burns, grinds to a halt, slams into a brick wall, etc. etc. etc. the moment the question is asked, "so who designed the designer?" I've never seen anything remotely approaching a good answer to that question.
Only if original genesis of all life is the issue. Take that need for a genesis explanation out of the equation and there is a real argument on the side of design. Evolution theory doesn't attempt to answer the genesis question, why should ID be compelled to do so?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
5go: The debate is over there is one side that just can't bring themselves to admit they are not scientist and have not put forth any viable theories science can work with to repeat what in scene in nature.
Scientists can't repeat what they say they see in nature, either, but they do say they are scientists. What gives?
