Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ? (page 2)

zagor

Well I would like to keep this down to earth (at least until some logical ground rules are laid down) because when we get into the realm of philosophy anything is possible or refuted. (At least on pages of philosophical books)
First evolution asks from us to believe into something that is outside our day-to-day normal logic in the same way a belief in god does. In this case it demands from us to accept possibility that design does not require a designer. Correct?
Of course we can accept possibility that, say, sea water, wind and erosion can create a natural bridge between two cliffs. These are blind forces we are talking about. The question is can the same or similar process create, let say, a chair (maybe), how about a boat, or lets go just a step further, how about a yacht or a house and I mean I a real sense, can you still imagine natural forces doing that? How about a computer? Now try imagining something even more complex, say, first life form complete with “primitive” reproduction.
I think that many people have a problem with one basic word – god, which gives them hairy feeling of dumbness associated with religion (especially when fleeing something like WTBS). However, world around us is much more complex than either evolution or theology can express it.

In the last few years a new branch of physics understanding has been created termed a “theory of everything” or M-theory (try to google it). There is an increasing recognition in scientific circles that space-time in which we live is in fact far more than what eyes can see in our three-dimensional universe. In fact, there is a strong mathematical indication that there are at least 11 dimensions.

M-theory allows for the fact that universes can coexist without interfering with each other. In fact countless number of them could coexist in so called multiverse. There is even talk in some circles of attempting to create entirely new universe in a lab that would exist in its own space and time. (Scratching your head, are you?

Now lest try going a step further and imagine that certain beings can, in effect, traverse even from one dimension into another. What would they appear as to being that are, for example, living in confines of, say, only a three-dimensional universe? Probably, something like angels or alike (explanation would vary depending on local worldview, culture and collective consciousness)
Great number of scientists are now realizing that we are only stretching the surface as far as understanding the universe and beyond is concerned. A number of new theories have sprung up. One of them being an Electric Universe which would in a sense diminish a need for big bang or moment of creation as such (this is something that goes even beyond M-theory if you are interested here is a good site http://www.holoscience.com)
We see everything from our three-dimensional world and are hence judging it accordingly. Of course if we want to be objective we have to admit that all our reasoning applies only to our own universe (and it might not even be correct) How do we judge something like 11 dimensional global multiverse which we have never experienced and existence of which we can only infer mathematically? And if there are intelligent beings that can transcend different dimensions or even if they can create universe in some sort of a lab, what would they be to us if not gods?

zagor

Here is also a good site with an overview

Spook

Zagor,

I always like your posts, but you've committed an error of analogy that is central to the argument of I.D.

zagor

I always like your posts, but you've committed an error of analogy that is central to the argument of I.D.

OK help me to see it

funkyderek

zagor:

In this case it demands from us to accept possibility that design does not require a designer. Correct?

No, it requires that you accept the possibility that complexity does not require a designer. By definition, design requires a designer. It is not clear that complexity does, although that is what the ID camp believe.

Of course we can accept possibility that, say, sea water, wind and erosion can create a natural bridge between two cliffs. These are blind forces we are talking about. The question is can the same or similar process create, let say, a chair (maybe), how about a boat, or lets go just a step further, how about a yacht or a house and I mean I a real sense, can you still imagine natural forces doing that? How about a computer? Now try imagining something even more complex, say, first life form complete with “primitive” reproduction.

While a life form may be more complex than the other objects you named, it is different in a fundamental and deeply important way, namely: it is self-replicating. Chairs do not make copies of themselves, competing against other chairs for resources. But life does exactly that. Any entity that self-replicates imperfectly will inevitably be subject to the forces of natural selection, which is not random at all.

I don't see the need for M-theory or parallel universes to explain what we see, although if there are a large (infinite?) number of parallel universes, then there is definitely no need for a god.

(I will respond to hooberus's post when he finishes constructing it)

zagor

No, it requires that you accept the possibility that complexity does not require a designer. By definition, design requires a designer. It is not clear that complexity does, although that is what the ID camp believe.

Of course it is one thing to make a statement like that and quite another to prove it. Forgive me for being blunt but to me this sound like nothing more than playing with words. Can you substantiate it with concrete examples? M-theory is exactly where it should be as it implicitly states that we ourselves could be gods of someone else's universe.

I don’t think that evolutionary theory has passed the first step of explaining how life came out of inanimate substances before we ever get into the discussion of natural selection.
Having said all of that I want to state that for the time being I don’t have any strong religious feeling either but I’m far from being convinced by evolution. In fact, some new physics theories seem, to me at least, for the first time as something that gives tangibility to the question of origin of universe and the life itself.

funkyderek

Virtually everyone (including the evolutionists) agree that we are dealing with objects that have an origin (ie: have not always existed).

Those are the only objects we know to exist. There are no known objects in the universe that do not have an origin.

The Bible and christian theology have taught for numerous centuries that God has no origin. (Thus I have not created "a new category of object" for the designer).

They have taught that as a matter of faith. There has never been any evidence for such a claim. I concede that you didn't invent this idea, but you are using a hypothetical entity's mythological alleged properties to except him from a requirement you impose on all other complex entities.

This thread is not over the existence of God, but rather whether or not it is "self-refuting" to postulate an intelligent designer (or the requirement for one) from observed complexity.

Agreed, and with your exception, I have conceded that it's not necessarily self-refuting. However, the exception is just another claim, made without evidence, even if it is a very old one.

I'm glad that you at least admit that the ID argument is capable of being "internally consistent" - thus not necessarily "self-refuting."

You shouldn't be too happy. It's easy to make an internally consistent claim. The one you have made is particularly shoddy, and bears no relation to actual facts.

When ID proponets may claim that all complex objects (that have an origin) must have a designer (or are evidence of a designer), they do not merely substantiate such a claim by the claim itself, but rather by things such as analogy arguments, probability calculations, etc.

It is the analogy argument that tries to equate complexity with design. ID proponents' probability calculations are usually deeply flawed. But we're getting off the subject a little.

The claim that God has no origin is not being made "for no other reason except that" my "argument would necessarily fail" if I did not claim it, but instead is based on the fact that this is what the Bible and theology have taught for centuries.

It's baffling to me that you can claim that complex life forms must have a designer, and make an exception by claiming that the most complex entity of all not only didn't need to be designed, but didn't need to begin. It was just always there. If we can simply claim an exception that was "always there", then I claim a law of emergent properties. I believe the universe has always contained properties that allow complex life to form. Ta-da. No need for your god at all.

Once again I am not postulating "a new category of object, just to make it self-consistent.", but instead am pointing out how it is not necessarily "self-refuting" to postulate intelligent design (or required intelligent design) for complex objects such as life.

Not necessarily, but your two primary claims ("complexity equals design" and "God always existed") are both unproven and do not sit well with one another.

doogie

I don’t think that evolutionary theory has passed the first step of explaining how life came out of inanimate substances before we ever get into the discussion of natural selection.

you're right, it hasn't. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!

evolutionary theory deals with how lifeforms have changed over time, not how life began. if it's "ID vs. Evolution", let's keep it at that and not confuse it with "ID vs. Abiogenesis" which is completely different.

dorayakii

Here is also a good site with an overview

(Putting my little 2 pence in)... i saw this programme on BBC2 it was quite good to help the "lay-person" get to grips with string theory and M-theory... he animation was cool too...

dorayakii of the "too-early-to-discuss-quantum-physics" class

zagor

let's keep it at that and not confuse it with "ID vs. Abiogenesis" which is completely different.

From what I know it is a part of all-encompassing theory of evolution. But anyway, I would suggest you guys get familiar with M-theory and at least theory of Electrical Universe To add: Gotta go to sleep, will answer to any comments tomorrow

Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?

Share this