nic
The choice is between natural selection and design.
What are the rules by which the selections are made, and where do these rules or laws come from?
There is so much evidence around us to prove an Intelligent creator.
by nicolaou 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Deputy Dog
-
greendawn
I really can't see why evolutionists deny that random chance is part of the evolutionary process when it is obviously at the heart of it. Random mutations leading (supposedly) to new characteristics that if advantageous will not only lead on to the creation of a new species but also secure its survival. Now if that (random mutations) is not chance I don't know what chance is. Evolution is based on chance from start to finish from the first simplest living thing to man.
-
AuldSoul
Let me clarify - by my asking, "at what point do you separate the designer from the designed", what I'm asking is, where does the regression stop? Yes, a robot shows signs of design. And so, that leads to the question, who is the designer? How did the designer come into being? And who designed this designer? Another designer? And who designed that designer?
Exactly. You have it perfectly figured out. The robot shows evidence of design, and was therefore designed. No one could convince you otherwise whether or not you ever met the designer or ever even came to know who he designer was or ever came to know the designer's origin. In fact, if someone tried to encourage you to believe that the robot evolved randomly (without any designer's input) from an earlier, less capable robot you'd be very hard pressed to accept that as an explanation, given that the robot shows evidence of design. Evidence of design is evidence of design whether or not you know who did the designing.
The fact that evolution theory leads to questions of origin is indisputable, yet the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the answers to these questions, does it, DanTheMan? Any theory explaining variety, similarity, and/or adaptability of species will inevitably lead to questions of origin, but these questions in no way weaken or invalidate the theory under discussion.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
DanTheMan
Exactly. You have it perfectly figured out. The robot shows evidence of design, and was therefore designed. No one could convince you otherwise whether or not you ever met the designer or ever even came to know who he designer was or ever came to know the designer's origin. In fact, if someone tried to encourage you to believe that the robot evolved randomly (without any designer's input) from an earlier, less capable robot you'd be very hard pressed to accept that as an explanation, given that the robot shows evidence of design. Evidence of design is evidence of design whether or not you know who did the designing.
The fact that evolution theory leads to questions of origin is indisputable, yet the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the answers to these questions, does it, DanTheMan? Any theory explaining variety, similarity, and/or adaptability of species will inevitably lead to questions of origin, but these questions in no way weaken or invalidate the theory under discussion.
I think that whether or not a "random" process such as evolution could produce something that has the appearance of being designed has already been well-covered on this thread and on the Ben Stein thread. But this really isn't what my questions are about. What I'm saying is, unless you arbitrarily invoke the existence of an unmoved mover that Exists Outside Of Space And Time™ (what does that even mean?) then you get caught in an infinite regress of designers designing designers designing designers. And so you haven't really come up with a coherent answer to anything.
-
Qcmbr
This question vexes me much maybe because I think there are other questions that precede it:
1/ What does intelligence mean? Could we find a definition that argues that the very first RNA is 'intelligent' ergo intelligent design drives evolution and uses imperfect replication to diversify and fill all energy vacancies possible. Where an energy souce is completely exploited diversification drives towards the next niche. If intelligent means the ability to construct meaning from chaos then maybe RNA is intelligent.
2/ What constitutes design? A prior plan like unto Plato (a perfect idea or form from which all subsequent imperfect copies draw for want of a better word 'inspiration')? Does the very process of replication fit any definition of design - one design preceding another if somewhat imperfectly.
3/ Does ID require an eternal designer?
4/ Is anything in this universe intelligently designed? Presumably if we say yes we have our evidence... If we say that we are not the result of intelligent design how can we become intelligent designers? If we can become intelligent designers why can't we be designed?
5/ Does design exclude imperfect replication or does design require the stricture of 'perfect' - i.e. is it valid to say that windpipes can choke us ergo they can't be designed? Does design care about such viewpoints of good/bad/passable/artistic merit?
6/ Does ID cause an issue with infinite regression? Does any other proposed solution actually solve infinite regression? Is infinite regression a valid argument if no other proposal surmounts it either?
7/ Does ID require everything to be designed or does it allow parts to be purely random? If we accept any element of randomness can we therefore ever disprove ID?
8/ What are the characteristics of non-design?
These are the areas that I weigh in my own personal debate on ID:
If design is on an extra universal scale how on earth could I see it or better still identify it since there would be no 'non-designed' comparison (i.e. if an ID set the physics rules , the curvature of space and so forth.) e.g. In a white,colourless world how would I know what white was?
If design is on a sub universe but macro level again - until I had some comparative data I still could not see it. So far everything looks uniform across space - the same physics seems to be holding everywhere we look.
If design is on a local earth level then the ONLY evidence we have so far is what makes this planet different from all other observed planets thus far - life. Life bears many features of design but also many features explained without the need for design. Life however, is so far extremely unusual in our local spot of space. Unusual but repeated occurence may indeed be a hallmark of design.
If design is purely limited to mankind then the ONLY evidence we have is our own intelligence and ability to design - i.e. the work of our own hands. The work of our own hands is intelligently designed. So in summation:
Starting with our own work we have 100% evidence of ID (the scope of our work is currently limited to our own world and contains examples of bad / good design.)
Starting with ourselves we have evidence in that we are an unusual but repeated phenomenon showing high levels of organisation and purpose. Let's throw an arbitray value at that (beacuse intelligent creatures can do maths?) - let's say x% evidence of ID where x is a debateable figure from 0 (zero design, strictest definition of ID) through to 100 (all design, loosest definition of ID).
Starting with all life we have no need to change the math - let's keep it at x%.
Starting from a galactic / universe / extra-universal point of view we loose any ability to currently identify macro design BUT we must concede that at the macro level - simply because we have 100% proof of ID when we look at the work of our own hands we can assign the evidence for ID at the fixed level of (100% * man's universal influence) + (x% * earth observed life's influence minus man's inluence) + (y% * infinity) where y is unknowable since we are not our own creators and cannot discern design from non-design using our own frame of reference. The resulting answer to this equation can yield an answer of 100% design evidence through to any non-zero value. In other words there is evidence within our own output for ID.
Hmm - I need to work the kinks out. -
AuldSoul
But this really isn't what my questions are about.
Your question is about origin. You asked at what point you separate the design from the designer. There is an obvious and simple answer: "The point just before you regress to a question about the designer."
Similarly, at what point do you separate the evolved from the origin? The answer is: "The point just before you regress to a question about the origin."
There is no material distinction between the two. It is the unbalanced position of evolutionists that they expect a more extensive argument covering a wider range of subjects regarding a designer than they are either prepared to answer or are capable of answering about random chance. You insist a regression is necessary in the case of design and insist it is unnecessary in the case of evolution. Before I concede to that inequitable standard, you'd have to show me cause to do so.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Shawn10538
"The design may be intelligent, but this does not answer questions about the nature of the intelligent designer. If one is to concede that evolution was not the sole driving force, there still is no answer to who the designer is. Is the designer a simple creative force that tends towards life - an impersonal Mother Nature? Is it alien? Is it a complex hierachy of Gods that create lower Gods, that created the God of our universe? Is there one God Almighty - if so was it Zeus, YHWH, Jesus or Brahman - and does he only listen to the person that gets the correct spelling of his name?
If God does not reveal himself regularly and dramatically in our everyday lives, then it is quite meaningless as to whether there is an intelligent designer or not. It does not seem sensible to have to worship an unknown force in the way prescribed by a religion based on the region of our birth, simply because an ancient text says that is what we must do in order to appease the creator and have hope of everlasting life."
Beautifully put. Thank you. -
Shawn10538
Just a reality check here; For the record, as an atheist I say, I do not know how life got here, and I don't think you do either.
I have not seen these words nearly often enough, if at all, in this discussion. So, come on people, admit that you just don't know in the end. Look in the mirror and admit to yourself that you really, in your heart of hearts, just don't know. -
Gerard
Intelligent design is the project of the Discovery Institute, a Christian group. Most of the principal intelligent design advocates are evangelical Christians who have stated that in their view the "designer" is god. When addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible. The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the "Christian God", to the exclusion of all other religions
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "teach the controversy". There is no such debate, however, within the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.
By the way, to date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
-
golf2
My faith in a Creator is not based on the JW teachings. There is no need for me to defend the thought of design, it's all in front of us. I would like anyone to duplicate it. We are from the dust of the ground and out food comes from mother earth. Just duplicate the intricate design of mother earth, not to mention life.
Golf