millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
Critics here have charged (based on logic claims) that we are being "self-refuting" .heh, you already refuted yourself in this thread when you said:If God is uncreated then He can't be "the product" of anything.
I have not "refuted" myself "in this thread" by pointing out that an uncreated being [uncreated in this context meaning eternal being] can't be "the product" of anything.
how to answer= where do we go to if jw not right?
i have tried the answer is not 'where' but to 'whom' (meaning jesus) any suggestions that a jw can understand?
thanks as always, carla
millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
so, you make an unfalsifiable assertion, and the only evidence you have to back it up is a scripture from the bible?okaydokee
(can someone say undemonstrable tautology?)ts
My reply to Dan the Man was to simply demonstrate that it is not a violation of creationist and/or ID logic (ie: not self-refuting) to potentailly exclude a creator from also being the product of design.
Critics here have charged (based on logic claims) that we are being "self-refuting" . I have responded by showing (using logic as well) that there is no logical self-contradiction. As I stated before:
"When creationists and ID proponets claim that design requires a designer or is evidence of a designer, they are usually specifically referring to: 1. mechanically complex systems composed of parts (such as photoreceptors) that 2. have an origin.
There is no requirement that a designer also posess these properties- hense there is no requirement that a designer logically necessarily be included in the "design requires a designer" or "design is evidence of a designer" type arguments. For example the scriptures teach (Psalm 90:2) that God has no origin and theology has also taught for centuries that God is not composed of parts (as a mechanically complex system is)."
My underlined point was still vaid on its own even if it did not contain the follow up example from scripture.
millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
hooberus....Actually my questions were closely related to the topic. You asked what can be observed of Unintelligent Design (= natural selection, evolution), implying that Intelligent Design is what can be observed just like man's fashioning of watches and other devices. What I thought was odd was that IDers are only concerned with evidence indicating the mere existence of the Designer. Other scientists, of course, are very much interested in more than the mere existence of the Unintelligent Designer (= evolution), such as how it operates, what it's like, how it varies in different contexts, etc. So why do IDers show such little interest in observing the properties, methods, and habits of this Intelligent Designer....or even pursue the question of whether there is only one Designer or several? Could it be that those questions are already answered by another (nonscientific) source?
Actually, you can find a discussion of some of these these issues. (For example the book "The Biotic Message" by ID theorist Walter ReMine, discusses scientific evidence as supporting the claim that life was specifically created to be evidence of a single designer. http://www1.minn.net/~science/about.htm)
millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
But that creates a conundrum that I can't get past. I have never seen the question adequately answered of why God is exempt from the assertion that design requires a designer.
When creationists and ID proponets claim that design requires a designer or is evidence of a designer, they are usually specifically referring to: 1. mechanically complex systems composed of parts (such as photoreceptors) that 2. have an origin. There is no requirement that a designer also posess these properties- hense there is no requirement that a designer logically necessarily be included in the "design requires a designer" or "design is evidence of a designer" type arguments. For example the scriptures teach (Psalm 90:2) that God has no origin and theology has also taught for centuries that God is not composed of parts (as a mechanically complex system is).
millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
If your God is uncreated, then isn't He the product of Unintelligent Design?
If God is uncreated then He can't be "the product" of anything.
millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
Let's accept for the time being the proposition that there is an Intelligent Designer, as a scientific hypothesis to explain natural facts. Okay. If such natural facts are evidence of the existence of this mysterious Designer, shouldn't these same facts shed more light than the mere issue of the Designer's existence and role in "designing" the natural world? I mean....shouldn't Intelligent Design advocates continue their scientific quest into more pressing matters (with apologies to John Clinger), such as:
- What are the methods used by the Intelligent Designer to create complex life?
- Where does the Designer currently live and can it be observed?
- How many Designers were there? Is there one per solar system, or one per planet?
- Were there different Designers for different kinds of life? Was there a Designer of invertebrates and another Designer for vegetation, and another Designer for viruses and bacteria?
- Were these Designers cooperating in the project of creation on mutual terms, or is there evidence of competition between Designers?
- Is the Designer still designing or is he retired? Or dead?
- Were some Designers more intelligent than others? May some Designers have been insane, malevolent, or simply incompetent?
- Did the Designer improve his/its designs over time through experience?
- Who designed the Designer(s)? If the Designer did not need to be designed, then why does anything else?
Why do advocates of Intelligent Design not form hypotheses about the Designer and test them with scientific evidence (since ID is supposedly scientific, right?)? It seems that most simply assume that there was just one Designer who designed everything on this planet....why is that the only hypothesis entertained, and why isn't it tested? Why are most only content with the issue of proving the mere existence of the Designer? Aren't there far more interesting questions to consider, if such a Designer exists?
Sorry, but I would like to to keep to the direct subject of this thread. For a response to some of the above questions I can recommend several books. For a response to another claim frequently made here that that ID or creationism requires that that the designer himself be designed by another ad infinitum see the following: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/93982/1.ashx
millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
the rafter in the eye illustration comes to mind. but yes, i think we have already had that conversation, hey hoob? ts
incredulous that this is lost on people like you and rex. you work so hard to tear science apart in the minds of the general public, and have NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING of technically viable substance to offer them in return. take the freaking rafter out of your own eye before approaching the theory of evolution. how about that? get it? well? what have you to say to that? i'm still waiting...
Responses to your "rafter" claims: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/1707457/post.ashx#1707457 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/1710730/post.ashx#1710730
millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
hooberus,perhaps the great irony of this thread title is lost on you?
like satanus asked: "where is your POSITIVE evidence for your POSTIVE assertion about the existence of, and subsequent creative acts of an Intelligent Designer??"
well, actually, i expounded a bit on his question, but there none the less do you have it my dear chap. the great irony. there is no evidence for the above said, is there hooberus?
While, I believe that the evidence supports intelligent design (in that virtually all -if not all - of the numerous examples of complex systems that have an observed origin have required the imput of intelligent design as well as the fact that and chemical and probablility analysis seem to demonstrate the requirement for intelligence) the fact remains that this thread is about the question of what has unintelligent design been observed to create.
Keep in mind that it is not the creationists and ID proponets who proclaim that only their views be considered as possible "scientific explanations" for biological complexity, but it is instead the proponets of "unintelligent design" that proclaim such.
The fact remains that virtually all -if not all- of the millions of compex structures that have had an observed origin have required intelligent design. Thus, for someone to proclaim the origin of even more complex biological sytems by another method ("unintelligent design") and to also proclaim that only this method can be considered as a "scientific exaplantion" for the origin of such structures should be backed up by analogous examples.
millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
Leolaia said:
hooberus....I notice you underlined the word "observed," implying that obervation is a critical feature of your question. Now why is time rarely considered as a relevant factor in comparing design by human intelligence to natural selection/natural processes? Because how long have humans been around to observe things? Or better put....how long has science been around to systematically examine natural change? Several hundred years? Now consider how long scientists agree it takes for speciation or more extensive changes to occur....have humans been around observing biological change for a few million years? Or consider how long it takes a human to make a watch, a car, a television set, an atomic bomb. A year, a decade, a century to get the design worked out....faster than an eyeblink in geological/biological time. For nature to take hundreds of million years to get a fairly sophisticated mammalian eye, well it would have to be an unintelligent designer to take soooo long to get the design worked out....indeed, by trial and error (i.e. the blind watchmaker). If it would take a single person several million years to invent a design, then your analogy would be valid...but such is not the case.
Of course I realize that the claimed extreme "slowness" of the process involved will be the primary response by evolutionists to the lack of observation for "unintelligent" biological system design.
However, the fact remains that such a dogmatic claim that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" should be backed up by numerous observed examples. (Especially given the fact that virtually all (if not all) observed complex systems analogous to life seem to have required an intelligent designer for their origin as well as the chemical and probability difficulties in envisioning the formation of such systems).
