What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make? (page 4)

Leolaia

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?

hooberus

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)

hooberus

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.

tetrapod.sapien

(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.

scientific evidence for a single designer? a single designer?

wow, amazing. i wonder how biologists and paleontologists came to the conclusion that life was the product of a single designer (not several) and that the theory of evolution was somehow a more assumption filled explanation?

oh oh! i know! NO BIOLOGISTS OR PALEONTOLOGISTS OR GENETICISTS OR ANTHROPOLOGISTS were involved in these explanations. no, just born again civil engineers.

(what are you going to tell me next? that they found scientific evidence that this single designers name is jesus?)

TS

tetrapod.sapien

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.

fairmind,

It takes incredulous faith to believe in the idea that everything came from nothing and did so in such a wonderous complex manner.

i just caught this and it made me LOL. incredulous faith? oh okay, so then i suppose that believing that everything exists because of capricious, seven day, tricked out, ad hoc, god magic is based upon solid scientific methodology, and not on this "incredulous faith" you look down on?

LMAO!

TS

hooberus

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.

tetrapod.sapien

whatever.

DanTheMan

Hooberus, with all due respect, in no way did I find your answers satisfactory.

Midget-Sasquatch

hooberus

Naturalists have an a priori bias according to you. Its fairly clear that you want to limit the span of time for observations so as to eliminate evidence that counters your own a priori belief in an intelligent designer. Nearly from the beginning of this thread, Leolai essentially made this same point. Do you recall a previous post of hers that used the example of investigating a crime? Just because the detectives weren't there to physically witness the event as it happened, doesn't negate the validity of any connected evidence that they find afterwards. But you've chosen to ignore this point. (As well as her point that an intelligence could have yielded complex systems so much more quickly than what has been deduced.) You've chosen to keep to a timeframe that only shows microevolutionary processes.

Narkissos

I usually stay away from "scientific threads," because of my incompetence, although I often find them instructive.

However this stopped me:

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).

First, "unintelligent design" is a grossly fallacious concept creating (ex nihilo!) an artificial dissonance; the opposite of "ID" is "no ID", not "UD". The ironical concept of "incompetent design" was only formed as a witty parody of ID to show the latter's internal inconsistency.

Second, this ignores the essential concept of singularity. "Reality," however you define it (including "logic," "God," "parallel universes" or whatever you may wish) has ultimately nothing else to be compared to.

Third (and this is only a limited application of my second point), all "complex-systems"-reflecting-an-intelligent-design which you try to compare "life" to were produced by "life" itself. They cannot serve as an external reference for comparison.

What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

Share this