News If Intelligent Design is exactly that, what's with all the design flaws?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Peronally I believe both camps are living in denial to some extent, but that's just my opinion.

The problem I have with ID is that some to put it in a scientific framework for which it is ill suited. You can't argue about ID in the same breath as evolution without saying does God exist and I think we all know where that leads. Evolution=scientific theory: ID=philosophy, never the twain should meet.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Peronally I believe both camps are living in denial to some extent, but that's just my opinion.

The problem I have with ID is that some to put it in a scientific framework for which it is ill suited. You can't argue about ID in the same breath as evolution without saying does God exist and I think we all know where that leads. Evolution=scientific theory: ID=philosophy, never the twain should meet.

with the multi-verse theory of the universe, if everything that can happen does happen in any number of alternate universes, then our existence is inevitable. no irreducible complexity.

 

[Moonbear]

This week, an article in the Vatican newspaper has supported the argument that ID is NOT science. I'm providing links to the story from a variety of sources, though you can search "Intelligent Design and Vatican" and come up with numerous hits that all say the same thing, regardless of the news source you trust most.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/18/ap/world/mainD8F7BDS03.shtml
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm

I think this helps support what the scientists have been saying all along, Intelligent Design belongs in the realm of religion, not science, and even the religious (e.g., the Vatican) recognizes this, with the exception of a very small faction of U.S., fundamentalist, Christian groups.

 

[phcatlantis]

"A lot" is relative.

All right, a lot relative to the lifespan of a human being.

True. Many people are not concerned about what happened fifty years ago. But not all.

I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about people so concerned with what happened 6,000 years ago that they feel the need to ridicule others who don't share their beliefs.

I thoughts creationists didn't believe in a "distant past", only in the past from the point of creation, presumably 6000 years ago according to some.

6000 years ago is the distant past to me, and I reckon most people not concerned with the scale of time over secular geological and cosmology history.

Obviously creationists would not care about what came before creation, and that's a big difference with what others believe. So isn't this an essential element of both belief systems, and reason enough to care?

Nah, I don't think so. At least the creationists have this magnificent God thing to inspire commitment to their beliefs. But for the typical modern layman, I don't see what value they'd find in a debate over something that happened millenia before their language and way of life even existed.

 

[Orefa]

But for the typical modern layman, I don't see what value they'd find in a debate over something that happened millenia before their language and way of life even existed.

Ok. I wouldn't debate anyone on whether their reasons to care are good enough or not. A number of people care, for their own reasons. Your "typical modern layman" may lack such reasons. Meh.

 

[Evo]

All right, a lot relative to the lifespan of a human being.
I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about people so concerned with what happened 6,000 years ago that they feel the need to ridicule others who don't share their beliefs.

That's another reason why "young earth" creationists" are to be ignored. They picked that date based on the Bible. It's meaningless.

What does any of this have to do with ID?

 

[Amp1]

If Intelligent Design is exactly that, what's with all the design flaws?

Question: Is the design of the universe flawed? Is the way chemical reactions happen flawed? Are the natural laws flawed? All of that is considered a part of ID.

How could man have the capacity to learn and experience if they are perfect?

Is there one kind or type of perfection or is there different levels to it?

What could experiential perfection entail?

What is absonite perfection?

Can one imagine absolute perfection?

 

[jimmie]

Question: Is the design of the universe flawed?

Perhaps, the only "flaw" in the universe was your perception of the universe.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Question: Is the design of the universe flawed? Is the way chemical reactions happen flawed? Are the natural laws flawed? All of that is considered a part of ID.

How could man have the capacity to learn and experience if they are perfect?

Is there one kind or type of perfection or is there different levels to it?

What could experiential perfection entail?

What is absonite perfection?

Can one imagine absolute perfection?

Large systems that have a few set of rules can interact in highly organized ways.

I guess Clouds are intelligent or each were specifically designed by an intelligent being because of their highly organized and predictable behavior?

 

[Amp1]

Large systems that have a few set of rules can interact in highly organized ways.

There is order in chaos.

Jimmie,

Perhaps, the only "flaw" in the universe was your perception of the universe.

ComputerGeek,

I guess Clouds are intelligent or each were specifically designed by an intelligent being because of their highly organized and predictable behavior?

Funny, I didn't say anything about intellect...ComputerGeek. Jimmie, No one perceives the 'entire' universe unless you believe in an infinite personality.

I just asked a few questions that all. The question after the 'if' statement "...whats with all the design flaws" presumes there to be some volitional 'Architect'. But it seems to focus in on only a specific set - the set of elements classified as man. So, I figured I'd ask something like "Is the current expansion of the universe a flaw?". Maybe, it is still expanding so that there will be enough room for an infinite number of beings.

 

[ComputerGeek]

There is order in chaos.

Jimmie,


ComputerGeek,


Funny, I didn't say anything about intellect...ComputerGeek. Jimmie, No one perceives the 'entire' universe unless you believe in an infinite personality.

I just asked a few questions that all. The question after the 'if' statement "...whats with all the design flaws" presumes there to be some volitional 'Architect'. But it seems to focus in on only a specific set - the set of elements classified as man. So, I figured I'd ask something like "Is the current expansion of the universe a flaw?". Maybe, it is still expanding so that there will be enough room for an infinite number of beings.

If the multi-verse theory is correct, then our existence is inevitable no matter how imporbable.

 

[Amp1]

I agree ComputerGeek. It's also fascinating that there could be a universe where Superman is real along with any or all other comic book heros and villains, where realities like those portrayed in books by Koonz, S. King, Terry Pratchett, ect. exist. < brrrrrrrrr > I would want to be alive in a place like the universe of H.P. Lovecraft.

 

[phcatlantis]

That's another reason why "young earth" creationists" are to be ignored.

I don't know. I can see how their version of events is sexier, and it comes complete with a whole bunch of other religious stuff.

They picked that date based on the Bible. It's meaningless.

I don't see how its any more meaningless to the average joe than ~3 billion.

What does any of this have to do with ID?

This is an aside on Orefa's point about how "the past is all we have to understand the present." My point is who cares about the past that far distant besides, well, people who study it? I like clam chowder, I don't expect everybody else to share my taste.