Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?

by hooberus 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  doogie

  From what I know it is a part of all-encompassing theory of evolution.

  many do look at it that way, but belief in evolution is not incompatible with a belief that god was the initial cause.
• 

  donkey

  lol...the fact that the origin of God needs to be exempt from the arguments surrounding complex life mandating a designer is the silliest thing I have read in months. Even more silly is the expectation that those asking "where did God come from?" are told to accept that he has always existed simply because some stupid bible says that is the case.

  Thanks for bringing humor to the fore you whacky Christans/Muslims/Other nutjobs
• 

  zagor

  many do look at it that way, but belief in evolution is not incompatible with a belief that god was the initial cause.

  It might well be that's where M-theory fills to void, but have to go to sleep now. See ya guys tomorrow
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  zagor,

  However, world around us is much more complex than either evolution or theology can express it.

  frankly, i am a bit surprised by this sentiment from you. but, in short, it is completely false. theology requires belief without evidence, and is also unfalsifiable. in short, it is untestable.

  evolution requires belief precisely because of evidence. it is also easily falsifiable, and testable.

  Great number of scientists are now realizing that we are only stretching the surface as far as understanding the universe and beyond is concerned.

  agreed in full. that is what is exciting about science. it's what we don't know, not what we already do. but this sentiment alone does not obsolete the fact that in exploring the unknown, you must still take into account existing theories and laws that have been proven beyond a doubt. and if there is doubt about evolution, then it is because it is not understood by those saying it is not convincing. i suggest actually studying it. and if the so-called theory of everything is ever established, you can bet your expensive dinner that the theory of evolution will be part of it, as it really is one of the universal theories.

  i know it sounds pretentious to say that all that is required is a bit more study. but really, i can't say it in any more of a nicer way. and i hate to use the argument from authority because it really doesn't prove anything, but the greatest minds in science (and theology may i add) hold evolution to be the best explanation so far for biological diversity. does this mean that someday it will be "overthrown"? no it does not. the chances of it being overthrown by another theory that does a better job on all fronts of explanation are very slim. you have to know the theory to be able to say this. i am not the only one who does.

  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?

  if they require us to worship them, then they would be gods to us. if they don't, then they are simply super-intelligent beings from another dimension, aren't they?

  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.

  as doogie has explained to you already, the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two different theories on a continuum. please do not confuse the issue.

  IDers do. but that is their problem, not the scientist's problem.

  but I’m far from being convinced by evolution.

  again, you need to honestly study it. sorry for sounding like such a jerk, but really, that is the honest answer. if biology is not interesting, this may be tedious. but it's worth it. the evidence is overwhelming.

  in it's simplest form, ID inserts the unfalsifiable philosophical assertion that there is a god, into this scientific theory of evolution. that is why ID will never be a theory. biochemists like Michael Behe can submit papers on so-called "irreducible complexity" in cells for peer review. but that is not ID. that is IC.

  and remember, complexity is only complex by the virtue of hindsight.

  "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"

  - Theodosius Dobzhansky
• 

  Spook

  Great post Tetrapod!
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  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.

  hooberus,

  it is a fact that the bible says it is so. but it is not a fact that it is true. it is an unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claim. ergo your argument falls apart. how much more simple would you like it? your assertion here that the bible says so, not only exposes your motive in supporting ID/creationism, but also does not do anything for your successive arguments for ID.

  they do not merely substantiate such a claim by the claim itself, but rather by things such as analogy arguments, probability calculations, etc.

  anyone can make analogy arguments (which seem to never really do a decent job) and then back the analogy up with "probability calculations" that omit important variables.

  in the end, does ID explain diversity better than evolution? i'm affraid not my dear man.

  When ID proponets may claim that all complex objects (that have an origin)

  why the double standard?! this is making me dizzy.

  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.

  perhaps not from observed complexity taken completely out of the context of gradualism and cumulative selection. but in the realm of science, it is self refuting because there is no evidence for the existence of god, so why postulate one?

  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).

  not philosophically. but you have scientifically. why do you confuse the issue? the confusion is not helping any lurkers trying to learn about evolutionary biology. you insert an unfalsifiable philosophy into a scientific (falsifiable) theory, and expect people to just fly with it because the bible says so!!

  holy crap hooberus. i have never seen it so clearly laid out. i can understand why i am dizzy now.

  IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE.
• 

  tdogg

  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

  Zagor, I think this is the analogy that is flawed in logic that was pointed out earlier. This is similar to the "Watchmaker Argument" which is internally flawed.

  ID has a major flaw and it is this:

  It is claimed that a complex universe could not simply come into existance, so it must have been created.

  It is created by a being that is complex enough to have created it and that being simply came into existance.

  Internally contradictory.
• 

  hamsterbait

  I think tetra wins.

  Most of the scientists I have met who believe in creation are astronomers and physicists innocent of biology.

  The WTBS constantly trundles out Fred Hoyle who did not accept the theory of sudden inflation in the early universe.

  He invented the pejorative term BIG BANG for this. His lamentable lack of comprehension of the new cosmology, and non-biological discipline does not make him an authoritative pro creation witness. (not witless!!)

  HB
• 

  zagor

  OK perhaps I don’t know something, but then when I ask you guys to give me an honest explanation and examples I’m being patronized for not being educated enough in the field of biology. I mean if something is that obvious, at least to you experts, it should be explainable in terms that a layman such as myself can understand it. Or does one need special knowledge available only to “the initiated” few?
  I’ve asked you to give me examples where complexity of design didn’t require a designer, simple. I mean in all honesty if this thing explains the origin of life I’ll accept it with all my being but until this moment I haven’t seen satisfactory explanation only explanations that gets bogged down in details that supposedly prove an aspect of evolution while neglecting the big picture. Interestingly, when a physicist or an astronomer explains complex issues and terms he’s more often than not able to bring it down to earth so that anyone with even a speck of interest can understand it. (Perhaps that’s why you see many more scientific programs on telly featuring astronomy than you see about evolution.)
  Or perhaps there is problem with biologists themselves as stated on Talk Origins website

  ost non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. Talk Origins.

  Perhaps that is true, perhaps there is an intrinsic and systemic problem with ability of biologists to bring it down to earth for us mortals. However, here is a bit of advice. If you want to make “converts” you have to do much more than just say in a sense “study biology stupid” you should give answers that are intriguing enough as to fire ones imagination especially when someone such as myself asks you to give him a simple example.
  My honest question should have told you that I’m open to discussion. My intention was not to argue existence of god of religions in any sense. (If in doubt please reread what I’ve already written on this topic). On the other hand my intention is not to try and to win an argument, which will not get me any closer to the truth (except maybe in minds of people who are already inclined to accept certain point of view, but that certainly is not leading anywhere)
  Nor do I have intention do dissect what some of you have said and try attack it out of the context as some of you are doing it to me. So unless I get a reasonably satisfactory answer I have no intention to continue this discussion.
  p.s. I could have equally well told you, "please study physics", couldn’t I?
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  OK perhaps I don’t know something, but then when I ask you guys to give me an honest explanation and examples I’m being patronized for not being educated enough in the field of biology. I mean if something is that obvious, at least to you experts, it should be explainable in terms that a layman such as myself can understand it. Or does one need special knowledge available only to “the initiated” few?

  zagor,

  really. we are always going on and on about it on this board. check out SNG's continuing articles on evidence for evolution. sorry i missed your question about complexity. let me get to it, okay?

  I mean in all honesty if this thing explains the origin of life I’ll accept it with all my being but until this moment I haven’t seen satisfactory explanation only explanations that gets bogged down in details that supposedly prove an aspect of evolution while neglecting the big picture.

  so you want us to prove it to you instead of you doing the work yourself? and are you being fair in asking complex questions and then complaining when they are too detailed and don't encompass the big picture? and again, this is about ID vs. evolution. not ID vs. abiogenesis (origins).

  Interestingly, when a physicist or an astronomer explains complex issues and terms he’s more often than not able to bring it down to earth so that anyone with even a speck of interest can understand it. (Perhaps that’s why you see many more scientific programs on telly featuring astronomy than you see about evolution.)

  so it's not marketable. what's your point? that we're doing it on purpose? really now.

  (m)ost non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution.

  so it's not easy to understand in a single discovery channel hour. so what? i would say that if god designed it all, it would be easier to explain, wouldn't you? afterall, he'd have given us the blueprints by now. of course, nature is not a blue print system, but rather a genetic program that simply executes it's algorithms. hence the stunning diversity.

  If you want to make “converts”

  - that really is a silly thing to say. i want to do nothing of the sort. i debate these threads because i don't want lurkers from the WTS thinking that creationism goes unchallenged around here. they make up their own minds.

  p.s. I could have equally well told you, "please study physics", couldn’t I?

  again, the discussion was not about origins. so i don't see why you keep bring up physics. but even so, i do study physics. and i don't go around asking physicists to cite examples of complex equations that explain super string 11 dimension hyperspace in a "big picture" sort of way. i read their books. and i don't get upset if they tell me to go read some more books, because that is some of the best advice i could possibly hope for from a string theorist. incidentally, the co founder of string theory, Machio Kaku, has come under some flak for kind of trying to dumb the theory down so that the general public can understand it. i have nothing against that. but what i do, is when people who have heard the dumbed down version want to be held by the hand through the complex version, maths and all. i don't see why people get mad at him for not being as accesible for the complex stuff, as he is for the simple, PR, stuff. but the fact of the matter is that it's ALL complex. equations on paper are neat and tidy. nature, and the explanation of it, are no where close to being neat and tidy for marketing purposes.

  something that should be noted here, is that in order to understand how evolutionary theory treats complexity, one must grasp what a biologist means when he speaks of design. in evolutionary theory, the designer is nature. some call nature the blind watchmaker, as a response to a common creationist analogy to the complexity of a watch. but nature is blind, because it is not an enitity, but more a program that executes code and thinks of nothing else. it is neither cunning, or stupid. simply indifferent. nature designs complex things via gradual cumulative selection over geologic time spans. this is not a linear process, but rather a journey through billions of small possibilities of mutation in as many dimensions as there are genes. things that seem complex to us, are not to nature. things that would have seemed complex to a trilobite, and are not to us, and were not to nature. things that seem complex to us, will not be to future generations of humans, and still, not to nature. in short, complexity is only complex with the benefit of evolutionary hindsight.

  I’ve asked you to give me examples where complexity of design didn’t require a designer, simple.

  why don't you try foccusing in on something that you want to know about? i will do my best to answer it. until then, i am at a loss as to what to choose for you out of billions of complex biological systems. why?

  frankly, your question doesn't really make sense. you want examples? like just a list? i could list every living thing, and then just say that it does not require a designer because it is shown to work via evolution very well without one. but that is precisely why i say that you should read a book, like The Blind Watchmaker, or The Panda's Thumb, or The Origin of Species. Because, that IS what the theory of evolution is all about. explaining why things are the way they are. the explanation does not include god, because it is not scientific, there's no evidence for him, he's unfalsifiable, and nature works without him "perfectly". from another angle, the answer to your question:

  if i gave you a list, it would be tediously obvious that it is getting you no where in understanding complexity any better. i could say:

  • my big toe nail,
  • the human eye,
  • bacateria,
  • DNA,
  • echolation in bats,
  • octopus eyes

  ...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. and then i would say, "there you go, there is your list". and then surely you would say, "i want evidence for why those examples do not require a designer." and i would say that the entire theory of evolution is precisely the answer that explains all the evidence. where would you be then? would you ask me to assimilate all the evidence for evolution for you on this thread? i could. i don't want to, it would take me years, but i could. or would you go and study it youself? even the evidence for my small, arbitrary list above, would get into everything from genetics and evolutionary biology, to biochemistry and paleoanthropology. do i want to do that for you?

  that is why, instead of writting our the neat formulas you are fond of in physics, i say simply to go read a book. there is no E=MC2 in biology. SORRY!