Is Human Design Truly Intelligent?

[Psi 5]

Intelligent design is nothing but a veiled attempt to argue that we were created by an omnipotent being. So let's see how intelligent our design really is.

A human being has many bad design components.

The human eye was designed to last about 50 years. The eye is filled with a gel sac that shrinks quite a bit by age 50. This shrinkage sometimes results in torn retina's that, until recent times, caused blindness. Not a big deal because the average life span then was about 50 years so it went pretty much unnoticed. If an omipotent designer had designed the eye you would think it would take into account the fact that we would eventually have a much longer lifespan than 50 years. Especially if he was the Christian God who designed earlier humans to live hundreds of years like Moses and his buddies.

What about designing us with skin full of holes (pores) that are perfectly designed to harbor bacteria and cause many people much grief?

Then there are inadequate muscles and tendons that tear and break easily.

The biggest design element of the human being that makes intelligent design unlikely is the fact that our brain is split into 2 halves and requires a nerve bridge between them to act somewhat in unison. While this may be a good design, it isn't the way an omnipotent designer would make the vessel of a soul. If you want a container to hold something that must not be divided, you don't design it with 2 compartments. 2 compartments can and will be split. The nerve bridge between the halves of the human brain has been cut in operations and these people in effect have two separate consciousnesses. You might argue that the soul is still in one body but it is inevitable that someone will take half a brain from someone and transplant it in another body. If this isn't splitting the soul, if it exists, then you will have to invoke some crazy logic like quantum entanglement to explain the soul not being split too. That would be stretching logic quite a bit.

Taking all this into account shows that the intelligent designer wasn't too intelligent, much less omnipotent. All of the above can easily be explained by evolution and natural selection though.


I think another bit of evidence against intelligent design is the fact that the universe works by the laws of logic. That's right, logic implies a natural universe, not a created one. Why would an omnipotent being create a logical universe, just because he could? It would be better for his purposes to create a universe of magic and chaos where there were no logical physical laws. There would be no need for an infinite universe. The stars only need to be lights in the heaven. Another words, the universe only needs to be what people thought it was when religions were created. The logic of the universe has only become apparent in recent history, long after religion was invented.

 

[dubmugga]

well i don't know about you as i can only really speak for my self...

...but i intelligently designed myself to be the person I am today

though that in itself is relative to your perception...

...think what you will

as you were...

 

[jammieg]

That's a convincing argument against intelligent design, but check this out:
The universe has infinite time and space and gives rise to ever progressing forms of "intelligent" life, given these three facts it is a matter of time until a species progresses to some point where for lack of a better word they are "God" to us, but within infinite time this has already happened.
On some level we are Gods ourselves to the other creatures of this world, I imagine seeing a car to a deer might be like us seeing a 200M ton pyramid fly down from the sky and float, but in a universal context we are perhaps more like a colony of ants. I know if I were a god I would probably spend a lot of time making up crazy stuff, maybe they make universes the way we make a beautiful painting...I do agree that no one really knows for sure what the hell is going on.

 

[pmb_phy]

Intelligent design is nothing but a veiled attempt to argue that we were created by an omnipotent being. So let's see how intelligent our design really is.

Why do you call it a a vieled attempt? And who is to say that the creator is an omnipotent being?

First off let's get one thing creal straight off the bat - It is the designer who is intelligent and not the object being designed.

A human being has many bad design components.

Sounds right. If anybody wants to challenge this first remark I suggest we discussmy back in e-mail.

The human eye was designed to last about 50 years. The eye is filled with a gel sac that shrinks quite a bit by age 50. ...etc

If you say so. I have no data on eye design and gel sac shrinkage vs time. I'm close to 50 myself and my eyes don't seem much different to me than hwne I was 25. They are just as bad now as they were then.

If an omipotent designer had designed the eye you would think it would take into account the fact that we would eventually have a much longer lifespan than 50 years.

Why? That a creator is omnipotent doesn't mean that his creations are omnipotent too. God may choose his creations to be imperfect for reasons only god knows and for reasons we can only speculate. And I know people whose eyes are fine for someone their age. Our diets today are not the same as they were in biblical days and that may play a role or perhaps God wanted it that way. Life is not a play ground. To me it is a place for our souls to develope even if that means they develope in non-perfect bodies.

What about designing us with skin full of holes (pores) that are perfectly designed to harbor bacteria and cause many people much grief?

Porse are no designed to harbor bacteria anymore than the hand is constructed for killing other men.

So basically you're upset because didn't make you perfect? So get used to it like the rest of us and move on. You can look at the bad parts or the good parts like sex. IF sex is not perfect here and it is perfect in heaven then OH BOY! :)

Pete

 

[scix]

Are you really whining that we are not naturally perfect? You must be forgetting the fact that we have poisoned our bodies countless times over.

You also are forgetting the fact that we are capable of improving upon our own design. Which we are doing right now. Our bodies are insignificant, our minds/brains are perfect, we simply have yet to harness it's full potential.

Our bodies will eventually be designed and artificially created, or we will simply have replaceable mechanical parts. (Nanotech at work.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

pmb_phy and scix, the potential defects of our "design" are brought up not to lament or whine, but to point out that evolution, which has no guarantee of perfection is a better fit for our condition that intelligent design, which by implication does.

 

[Psi 5]

pmb_phy and scix, the potential defects of our "design" are brought up not to lament or whine, but to point out that evolution, which has no guarantee of perfection is a better fit for our condition that intelligent design, which by implication does.

True, but I am whining a little because I am intimately aware of the flaws I mentioned. I had a torn retina last year so that's how I know about the eye design. Retina's don't tear with everyone but the eye sac does shrink with everyone so the potential is there. I tore my achilles playing baseball 20 years ago and that ended baseball for me. And who doesn't have zits?

The point is not so much that we are designed poorly (and I have only hit a few of the design flaws we suffer) as we are designed poorly compared to other species. It's not like there isn't something around better designed. All of our design flaws are better designed somewhere in the animal kingdom. So what, the designer is playing a joke on us by designing us poorly and letting us be smart enough to see that these problems don't exist elsewhere in the animal kingdom? ha ha, very funny. I don't think God would be a jokester.

I am not saying God doesn't exist, he might, but I don't see his hand in our design. I don't see it in the universe either for that matter but he may have and then let evolution take its course. That is far more believable than he is a really poor engineer or just likes jokes which is the only explanation if we are products of "intelligent design". And please don't hand me that 'God works in mysterious ways' crap, that statement is a refuge of the 'intelligently designed' intellect.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am no Believer (in fact, I'm an aetheist), but you give Darwinists a bad name with this drivel.
Who do you think you are that you suppose you know how and why we *should* have been designed? Why does every non-believer think that God would have created our world to make us perfect, to never have us experience any pain, and never have any of us suffer?
Too many Darwinists are as guilty of shutting our minds to counterargument as we are so fond of accusing the Creationists of. Even *I* (as an aetheist) know that the idea is the He put us here so that we may make our OWN fate, and that we may learn to help each other with our suffering (or not).
Come on, this gives Creationists a huge target to shoot at.

Edit: Your arguments, that is. No offense intended about your ailments - I know what you mean! I'm 41 and I know what it means to have your warranty expire!

 

[moving finger]

The universe has infinite time and space

who says so?

with all due respect, this is not necessarily so.

MF

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A human being has many bad design components.

How do you explain these bad components in terms of the theory of natural selection? I thought that that only traits that enhanced survival would get transmitted. Does bad eyesight enhance survival?

On the other hand, it can be explained in terms of the theory of intelligent design. What would prevent an intelligent designer from making design decisions that we don't fully understand or agree with?

In other words, unless you can elaborate further, I see your argument as being more in favor of ID than natural selection. Please elaborate further.

 

[moving finger]

How do you explain these bad components in terms of the theory of natural selection? I thought that that only traits that enhanced survival would get transmitted. Does bad eyesight enhance survival?

an eye that performs reasonably well up to the age of 50 in most humans would be enough to ensure propagation of the associated genes (by age 50 most people are past the bulk of their reproductive life), therefore would "pass" the natural selection test.

MF

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

an eye that performs reasonably well up to the age of 50 in most humans would be enough to ensure propagation of the associated genes (by age 50 most people are past the bulk of their reproductive life), therefore would "pass" the natural selection test.
MF

So it's not a bad design component after all. What on Earth are we talking about?

 

[moving finger]

Then it's not a bad design component. What are we talking about?

I have no idea since I am not the author of the first post in this thread.

MF

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Tonight and for the next two nights there is going to be a debate near where I live entitled "Creation vs. Evolution". This is not exactly what I am interested in. I would have preferred a debate between intelligent design and natural selection. However, I intend to show up. Here are a couple of thoughts that I bring with me as I prepare to attend.

1. I know zip about biology. Regardless of what good reasons there may be for favoring natural selection over other theories, I don't know what these reasons are. For me to favor one theory over another at this time would be a religious act, not a scientific one. Perhaps (not likely, I admit) this debate will clear up some things for me.

2. If there is a Q & A session, I may get to ask what I really want to know: A. What are the scientific rivals to natural selection and what experiments favor natural selection? B. Are intelligent design and natural selection falsifiable and if so, what experiment would falsify them? On the other hand, if there is a Q & A session, I expect there will be a lot of questions from semi-articulate people with vague axes to grind and lots of free time on their hands.

Public debate on the issue has different goals than scientific debate. The issue tends to center on what will be included in grade school textbooks and classrooms. It's one thing to claim that intelligent design is not science and should not be taught in the science curriculum. But are kids being taught that science progresses by improving upon and in rare cases by replacing existing theories. Or are we telling them that the scientific battles are over, natural selection wins. World without end.

 

[DaveC426913]

I await your report on the debate.


"But are kids being taught that science progresses by improving upon and in rare cases by replacing existing theories. Or are we telling them that the scientific battles are over, natural selection wins."

I heard somewhere an intriguing compromise:
First, instill in our children a strong foundation upon the principles of critical thinking and the Scientific Method.
Then, introduce them to the theories of natural selection and intelligent design. Educate them in coming to their own conclusions.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Then, introduce them to the theories of natural selection and intelligent design.

As far as I know, the courts have consistently ruled that ID cannot be taught in the classroom because it it religious. Maybe I have it wrong.

 

[moving finger]

Are intelligent design and natural selection falsifiable and if so, what experiment would falsify them?

Intelligent design implies an intelligent designer. One possible designer is God. imho (and a lot of other people's opinions as well), the existence of God (and hence whether He intelligently designed creation) is NOT falsifiable by definition, thus you would be wasting your time looking for ways to falsify the intelligent design argument (for this reason it must always be considered an issue of faith and can never be considered a reasonable subject for scientific study).

MF

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

One possible designer is God.

True enough, but the rest of your argument seems to be based on the assumption that the ONLY possible designer is God. However, the intelligent design people take great care to avoid postulating that the designer is God because they want their theory to be taught in public schools. In my opinion, this means that your argument doesn't work.

The ball is in both courts. Is natural selection falsifiable?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Is natural selection falsifiable?

Sure. If you find the conserved portion of the human genome is encoding the message, "Patent Pending: God". That would do it I suppose.

 

[Psi 5]

I am no Believer (in fact, I'm an aetheist), but you give Darwinists a bad name with this drivel.
Who do you think you are that you suppose you know how and why we *should* have been designed? Why does every non-believer think that God would have created our world to make us perfect, to never have us experience any pain, and never have any of us suffer?
Too many Darwinists are as guilty of shutting our minds to counterargument as we are so fond of accusing the Creationists of. Even *I* (as an aetheist) know that the idea is the He put us here so that we may make our OWN fate, and that we may learn to help each other with our suffering (or not).
Come on, this gives Creationists a huge target to shoot at.
Edit: Your arguments, that is. No offense intended about your ailments - I know what you mean! I'm 41 and I know what it means to have your warranty expire!

I don't mention 'how we should have been designed'. I am pointing out that we are poorly designed relative to our current lifespan. Our lifespan is artificially long due to our intelligence and many of our design flaws would not be a problem if we were unintelligent animals and our average lifespan would be about what it was 500 years ago (around 35?). Our design reinforces the idea of evolution and is not supported by intelligent design. I don't see how you get my statements are anti-Darwin, they seem to be perfectly evolutionary to me.

You can buy into the religious crap which has evolved over the years (and your statements sound distinctly religious for an atheist) to explain pain and suffering so that they can continue to believe, I don't. Where do we get this idea that the only way we can be better people is to have pain and suffer? It hasn't made me a better person, it has made me an angry person, the suffering of humanity has made me even more angry.

This is off the subject I brought up though. You criticize my statements without any supporting arguments other than religious ones.

 

[Psi 5]

Intelligent design implies an intelligent designer. One possible designer is God. imho (and a lot of other people's opinions as well), the existence of God (and hence whether He intelligently designed creation) is NOT falsifiable by definition, thus you would be wasting your time looking for ways to falsify the intelligent design argument (for this reason it must always be considered an issue of faith and can never be considered a reasonable subject for scientific study).
MF

Let's cut through the crap, no proponent of intelligent design (and they are the best evidence against it) thinks we were designed by aliens, they believe we were designed by God even if they won't say so.

Intelligent design is falsifiable to an intelligent person, that is why most of the smartest people are not religious or republican or proponents of intelligent design, they see the world differently than most people of lesser intelligence. Call that arrogant or anything else but it is also true.

The evidence against intelligent design is overwhelming (some of the points I brought up are ones that no one else has to my knowledge which is why I started this thread, not to rehash tired old arguments). For instance there is essentially no such thing as a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution, why is that? It's because they know more than the average person, they are aware of facts that the average person (you know, the people who don't know the sun is a star or what a molecule is, the people who voted for Bush) isn't.

 

[jimmie]

I am pointing out that we are poorly designed relative to our current lifespan.

What if the planet, which always has been and always will be in motion, continued on spinning for eternity and you, being AWARE that you are separate from the planet, and its motion, also continued on, ON TOP of the planet, for eternity?

Kind of like surfing a wave, that never ends. The wave is what it is, and the surfer is what it is. The difference between the two is that the surfer is AWARE that he is not the wave; he exists entirely independant of the wave.
First, the 'surfer' is a world unto himself. Second, that individual then does actions, which he is AWARE are illusion. He is not affected by anything, including waves or the position of any planet.

So really, what other individuals that are not as aware as he may perceive that he is surfing, he knows otherwise. He knows that he is ONLY standing on the board, which is on the wave, RIGHT NOW.

And that's the current problem thinking about "lifespans"; individuals currently are NOT AWARE that they exist independantly of the planet.

Have to get that perception fixed.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I just got back from the 'Creation vs Evolution' thing. I thought it was going to be a debate, but that was not the case. It was a pastor who gave a talk on why evolution cannot have occured. Most of what he had to say was not convincing, and I found out why after the lecture. During the lecture he said that although archeopterix was supposed to be the oldest bird, there were other birds that were older than it. I wrote that down because I intended to ask him after the lecture to clarify how that could be. I had supposed that in creationism, all creatures were the same age give or take a few days. The answer he gave me laid bare why his lecture didn't seem that convincing. He feels that evolution did in fact occur. For instance, different species of fish may have had a common ancestor, or different species of lizards may have. But in his estimation there could not have been a common ancestor of both a bird and a lizard. I have never heard this view of creationism before and armed with the knowledge of it, I thought back on his lecture and I realized why it didn't seem so convincing. He is cutting evolutionists a lot of slack. I don't know how prevalent this view is among creationists.

In my opinion, this stance is more difficult to defend than simply saying that no two species could have a common ancestor. The reason I say this is that the variation within such large groups as fish, lizards, and birds is greater than differences between particular individuals from differing groups. For instance a pterodactyl is a lizard but looks more like a bird than a gecko. (if I got the groups wrong, and still you get the idea, please post the correct example).

Although it was not a debate, the Q & A turned into one. Not between the pastor and the audience, but between audience members themselves. I felt the questions were not to the point of the lecture because the pastor never made clear his unusual stance.

Tomorrow night's lecture will be on the subject of the scientific case for creation.

 

[Psi 5]

Don't expect an honest or intelligent debate anytime the forces of creationism or intelligent design want to debate science. The religious side will always be trying to impose their beliefs on someone, they don't care about scientific evidence. Their beliefs are set in stone so trying to convince them is a waste of time.

The general view of creationists is that the bible is the literal truth, the Earth and the universe is less than 10,000 years old, any scientific evidence that shows anything is older than that is wrong and man and dinosaurs lived concurrently (if you really want to see some twisted logic, have them explain why man and dinosaur fossils are never on the same layer of sediment).

All this is why scientists are beginning to refuse to debate the subject, it's a losing proposition and it gives creationists publicity.

I just read somewhere that the bible, taken literally, assumes the world is flat, I don't hear them trying to push that idea.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I just read somewhere that the bible, taken literally, assumes the world is flat, I don't hear them trying to push that idea.

An early Pope dictated that the Earth could not be round, because the New Testament says that "all men" would see Christ coming on the clouds, and if there were people living around the curve of the Earth they couldn't do that. (Evidently his infallibility didn't foresee television).

And the rebuttal to Galileo's claim that the Earth goes around the Sun ws that one of the psalms (Number 95, I seem to remember) says the the Sun gets up every morning, and eagerly races across the sky, to relax in its tent after the run. This is taking poetry literally with a vengeance!

Modern creationists don''t use these arguments, which means they are not REALLY interpreting the Bible literally! I once worked with an old professor of Biblical Greek, who said everybody interprets the Bible, they just choose different passages to interpret. Liberals, he said, take the story of Noah as fiction, but interpret the Song of Songs as what is seems to be, an erotic poem. Fundamaentalists on the other hand take Noah literally and interpret the Song of Songs as a metaphor of Christ and the church.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Psi 5, you must have been in a bad mood when you wrote that.

Don't expect an honest or intelligent debate anytime the forces of creationism or intelligent design want to debate science.

It was not a debate, it was a lecture. It was honest and it was intelligent, but it wasn't very good in places.

The religious side will always be trying to impose their beliefs on someone

The speaker was polite and well spoken and he was quite specific on this issue, he was not trying to impose his beliefs on anyone. However, if he tries it on me, I'll be ready for him. Have no fears on that point.

they don't care about scientific evidence.

He cares. In fact he brought up some scientific evidence. I don't think his scientific evidence was compelling. He is a pastor, not a biologist and does not pretend to be one. Neither am I for that matter. What a joke it would be if we debated each other.

Their beliefs are set in stone so trying to convince them is a waste of time.

There was no evidence of it at the lecture. As there was no opportunity to convince him of anything, I didn't try. I would not have tried in any case as my objective in attending was to listen (and my objective in listening was to attend.)

I had an entertaining evening and heard interesting things I had never heard before. I am far less worried about the open state of his mind as I am in my own. I try to keep it so open that my brains could fall out. I just hope they don't. To the consternation of a small minority, I try not to believe much. The pastor did not convince me to believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean I believe in evolution.

Tonight's lecture is on the topic of scientific evidence for creation. The speaker will be a physician. Last night he answered a heated question with a dispassionate answer. I will report what I hear.

 

[Tisthammerw]

Tonight and for the next two nights there is going to be a debate near where I live entitled "Creation vs. Evolution". This is not exactly what I am interested in. I would have preferred a debate between intelligent design and natural selection. However, I intend to show up. Here are a couple of thoughts that I bring with me as I prepare to attend.
1. I know zip about biology. Regardless of what good reasons there may be for favoring natural selection over other theories, I don't know what these reasons are.

We should straighten some things out. First, natural selection and creation aren't necessarily contradictory. Creationists agree that if a fitter species evolved, natural selection would do its job. However, creationists dispute the idea that more complex organisms (e.g. a species getting a new organ) can evolve in the first place. If I were you, I'd focus on the evidence that they did evolve (e.g. the sequence of the fossil record).

2. If there is a Q & A session, I may get to ask what I really want to know: A. What are the scientific rivals to natural selection and what experiments favor natural selection? B. Are intelligent design and natural selection falsifiable and if so, what experiment would falsify them?

Modern ID theory says that artificial intervention is necessary (confer Dembski's explanatory filter, which selects design only after law and chance are ruled out). To falsify ID, simply show a means how it (whether abiogenesis or the evolution of a biochemical system) could have evolved without the aid of a designer. Of course, in many cases that has not (yet?) been done.

 

[Tisthammerw]

As far as I know, the courts have consistently ruled that ID cannot be taught in the classroom because it it religious.

It's a very interesting ruling to make. What is so religious about the theory that life on Earth was artificially created?

 

[Psi 5]

... What is so religious about the theory that life on Earth was artificially created?

... no proponent of intelligent design (and they are the best evidence against it) thinks we were designed by aliens, they believe we were designed by God even if they won't say so.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Tonight's lecture was much better prepared than the first night's. However, in many ways it was weaker. In fact, some of his arguments were simply specious. The problem as I see it is that these guys believe in a little bit of evolution. For instance they mentioned a group of 5 animals including skunks, ferrets, wolverines, and two others, I forget. They said they felt that all the animals in this small group evolved from a single species. Therefor, every time the speaker showed what he felt was evidence against evolution, he left me wondering why that same evidence didn't militate against evolution within these small groups. In response to my question, the speaker said that he thought natural selection played a role in this kind of evolution.

Unfortunately, the speaker brought up the example of the irreducible complexity of the simple mousetrap. This concept has already been put well to rest. Either the speaker was not aware of it, or felt that it was an expedient example to sway the minds of people who didn't know that there are problems with it. If it was the latter, then I can only suppose that the strategy will blow up in his face. The more that people become aware of the argument, the more they will come to realize that it doesn't work.

On the other hand, there was nothing of the picture that Psi 5 paints. The speaker said that he was not certain that he was right and evolution wrong, only that he felt the evidence weighed in favor of creationism. He was asked some question of a theological nature and although he did answer it, he mentioned that he wanted to keep the Q & A limited to questions of a scientific nature, especially as tomorrow night, the topic will be biblical evidence of creation. As I have said, I am not a biologist and I am not fully aware of what evolution means. He seemed to focus on the idea that evolution had to consist of gradual changes. Is gradual change a critical element of evolution, or does it work just as well with dramatic change, say mutation?

I will attend tomorrow night's lecture, but I doubt that I will report on it unless there may be some amusing anecdote or something like that. The fact is that I am not that interested in the topic, I am more interested in hearing the views of these unusual creationists.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's a very interesting ruling to make. What is so religious about the theory that life on Earth was artificially created?

I doubt that the courts decide these cases solely upon this characterization of the argument. I expect that when a case comes before the court on the issue of teaching of creationism, the court simply agrees with the argument that creationism is bible based and for that reason cannot be taught in public schools. And when the issue of teaching Intelligent Design comes up, the court agrees with the argument that ID is old wine in a new bottle. I am guessing. You may google it to find out more informed opinions.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I forgot to mention that during the lecture, the speaker said that in the church school, creationism was taught along side evolution. I have no idea what the quality of the teaching is. I only mention it to contrast these people with the closed minded bigots that they have been compared to.

 

[b.j.c]

Don't expect an honest or intelligent debate anytime the forces of creationism or intelligent design want to debate science. The religious side will always be trying to impose their beliefs on someone, they don't care about scientific evidence.

This is a gross generalization. Many creationists are well educated scientists who have taken an alternative view of what evidence there is.

Their beliefs are set in stone so trying to convince them is a waste of time.

Judging by your somewhat intemperate posts, your views may also be set in stone.

(if you really want to see some twisted logic, have them explain why man and dinosaur fossils are never on the same layer of sediment).

Well, you can explain to me why the fossils never match up in the layers of sediment like they 'should' - the layers seem to be jumbled up the world over, instead of being perfectly chronological from bottom to top. Evolutionist logic is no less twisted on this point.

 

[Mk]

who says so?
with all due respect, this is not necessarily so.
MF

Mainstream physics says so.

 

[Conehead]

Mainstream physics says so.

Nope. Matter and time are bound together. Matter (aside from helium, hydrogen, and lithium (which, interesting, brings us fairly close to the issue of intellegent design)) was created at the BB and is quite finite.

 

[Psi 5]

This is a gross generalization. Many creationists are well educated scientists who have taken an alternative view of what evidence there is.
Judging by your somewhat intemperate posts, your views may also be set in stone.
Well, you can explain to me why the fossils never match up in the layers of sediment like they 'should' - the layers seem to be jumbled up the world over, instead of being perfectly chronological from bottom to top. Evolutionist logic is no less twisted on this point.

Education doesn't impart either intelligence or wisdom, education makes the stupid dangerous. My opinion is stupid people shouldn't be educated, many of humanities problems come from educated stupid people, take the current occupant of the white house for example.

My views are subject to change by evidence, evidence that I judge impartially, unemotionally and without any preconceived ideas to prove.

The layers seem to be jumbled? That is creationist horse manure. In the same class as questioning carbon dating. Even if the layers are moved, which is easily explained, you still won't find a dinosaur bone in the same undisturbed layer as a humanoid bone.

 

[jimmie]

Education doesn't impart either intelligence or wisdom

Psi 5, please explain that which does impart either intelligence or wisdom.

 

[Conehead]

Education doesn't impart either intelligence or wisdom, education makes the stupid dangerous. My opinion is stupid people shouldn't be educated, many of humanities problems come from educated stupid people, take the current occupant of the white house for example.

Yes, you sound like one of those special people who were just born smart. Evolution probably.

I have only one problem with most of this discussion and that is the willy nilly application of absolutes. It seems to me scientists by definition exhibit more faith than most. Before you freak out, I'm not talking about a religious faith. Faith is an element of discovery. To borrow, science requires a testable hypothesis. This we all learned in school, well most of us anyhow. Since you can't test a claim of divine intervention or an article of faith, I don't see how there could be any scientific opinion about a divine origin of the physical laws of the universe whatsoever, or about any question of divine activity.

But if you really pressed hard on the topic, as we are, you eventually arrive at the issue of a First Mover, God, whatever you prefer. Most physicists are unready to admit that something of a physical nature predated the Big Bang. Why, I'm not sure. I think it has to do with the nasty blend of Quantum and General physics necessary for the Big Bang to work. It’s tough to postulate the origin of the Big Bang matter and energy. Regardless, something queued the whole thing up that we can't sort out. This all started out, well, somehow. It could have been subject to the same arbiters of physical law we understand today or not. Both are as likely from where we stand now. I repeat, it is unknown. We have a window, using microwaves, right back to the beginning. But before So why are so many cosmologists ready to mix their opinions on the topic with proven theory when the two couldn't be further apart?

Just as nutty Creationists preach ID as the only possibility for such a flawed world, many scientists preach that there is no room for God in such an ordered universe. Bias can wreak havoc on the complexion no matter how much Biblical or scientific make-up one adorns. Shouldn't scientists be the most dedicated bunch of agnostics out there? At least on the topic of design?

Me, I’ll refrain from hanging a stupid sign on someone simply because they come to a different conclusion than me based on the very limited information we all share. Seems to me I remember Einstein rejecting Quantum Theory because it he refuse to give matter "magic" attributes and he was overly confident in his general relativity's ability to govern. Not too far from the kind of rejection ID is facing from some of the science community at the moment. The best compliment you can offer in this type of debate is, “Hey man that’s some really killer speculation.”

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

The definition of God is flawed from a philosophical perspective. A being cannot be kind, omnipotent, and all-knowing. It is impossible within current logic and, therefore, should not be given any weight as a concept.

Could an intelligent being have created the world? From my little scientific knowledge, I should say it is, in theory, possible; however, I know enough to realize that even that is statistically improbable to the point that it should be disregarded entirely.

Atheism is either the truth or should be accepted as the truth due to the lack of any efficient evidence to suggest it is incorrect. Occam's Razor.

Reductionism has been proved scientifically superior to holism time and time again. It isn't wrong on this matter either.

 

[Conehead]

The definition of God is flawed from a philosophical perspective. A being cannot be kind, omnipotent, and all-knowing. It is impossible within current logic and, therefore, should not be given any weight as a concept.
Could an intelligent being have created the world? From my little scientific knowledge, I should say it is, in theory, possible; however, I know enough to realize that even that is statistically improbable to the point that it should be disregarded entirely.
Atheism is either the truth or should be accepted as the truth due to the lack of any efficient evidence to suggest it is incorrect. Occam's Razor.
Reductionism has been proved scientifically superior to holism time and time again. It isn't wrong on this matter either.

If something can't be kind, omnipotent and [sic] all-knowing, I'd love to hear you qualify that. Perhaps you do have good "logic" on the issue and you just over-estimated how smart we are (or maybe it's just me) and didn't tell us how. Explain please.

Also, I'm not familiar with any statistics on probability of an intelligent being creating the world--well, beyond those discussed by Douglas Adams. Could you share some of that "scientific knowledge" with me? There is a high probability that we can have a meaningful discussion at that point.

Your last paragraph is good. You would like to see a more elegant explanation for life, the universe and everything. Me too, brother. I was in love with elegant theory the moment I laid eyes on E=mc2. So little explaining so much. And then of course there's quantum mechanics and relativity, the source from which much of this debate is stemming. How do we reconcile this two such antithetical (proven) theories that independently explain so much of what we observe in the physical world? Well, physicists and cosmologists have been driving very hard in the race for a unified theory. Something small and beautiful that captures physical interaction big and small. String theory is the best offering thus far. It may be the coolest thing I have ever misunderstood. It is also by definition, and very disappointingly, not provable. Can't be done. So, as you can guess cosmologists aren't sleeping very well because their world is a mess again. IDists decided to throw their name in the hat and offered that perhaps elegance is contrived. Perhaps God unifies. Well, that's no good. Scientists want a more esthetically pleasing, far reaching theory, even though quantum mechanics works very well for very small objects and very short distances, and relativity works great for everything else. If the day ever comes I will just for joy. But for now every effort to unify with science is clunky and messy.

Physicists and cosmologists have gotten as far trying to prove that a very uncomplicated explanation will reconcile the two theories as Idists have in trying to prove the existence of God. What do you say, bro? Shall we take big O's Razor to both of them? Nah, let's wait and see before we start talking about getting rid of anything.

 

[moving finger]

Intelligent design is falsifiable to an intelligent person, that is why most of the smartest people are not religious or republican or proponents of intelligent design, they see the world differently than most people of lesser intelligence.

with respect, it is no more falsifiable (using accepted scientific methods of falsification) than is the existence of God.

Some extremely smart people believe in God.

Please refrain from using wording that implies some of us are not intelligent - it merely reflects on your own intelligence.

With respect

MF

 

[moving finger]

Is natural selection falsifiable?

Natural selection is an hypothesis based on accepted scientific principles - as such it is indeed falsifiable. But has yet to be falsified.

MF

 

[moving finger]

The universe has infinite time and space

who says so?
with all due respect, this is not necessarily so.

Mainstream physics says so.

I disagree. Read Einstein or Hawking or any of a number of "mainstream" physicists who have considered the possibilities of finite spacetime dimensions
.
MF

 

[PIT2]

Atheism is either the truth or should be accepted as the truth due to the lack of any efficient evidence to suggest it is incorrect. Occam's Razor.

According to that logic, God should also be accepted as truth due to the lack of any efficient evidence to suggest it is incorrect. Occam's Razor.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Natural selection is an hypothesis based on accepted scientific principles - as such it is indeed falsifiable. But has yet to be falsified.
MF

Are you aware of any experiment that could be conducted that would falsify it?

 

[moving finger]

Are you aware of any experiment that could be conducted that would falsify it?

I am no expert on Darwin's theory or it's predictions. However I stand by the fact that any acceptable scientific theory must make testable predictions in order to allow itself to tested by experiment/observation and, possibly, be falsified.
Darwin's theory does make predictions. Some people have attempted to refute the theory on this basis ( see for example http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm)
The following link explores possible predictions of both Darwin's theory, and Intelligent Design theories...
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:...darwin's+theory"+predictions&hl=en&lr=lang_en
MF

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see how you get my statements are anti-Darwin, they seem to be perfectly evolutionary to me.

You misunderstand. I think your statements ARE in favour of Darwinian evolution. My entire response is geared towards the arrogance that you think you can shoot down a counter-theory without understanding it first.

(and your statements sound distinctly religious for an atheist)

You think because I *understand* the issues means I *believe* in them?
(If I stopped a man about to shoot a pickpocket, would you then label me as a pickpocket?)

No, I am not religious, nor do I buy into any of that crap. I’m just tired of people taking cheap shots. It gives rational people a bad rap. I think you have a responsibility to take more care in being the scientifically-minded, rational person you suppose you are.

(Remember the detractors of Darwin, and their “men from monkeys” ridicule? They were ignorant of Darwin’s work and so, their counterargument fell apart - Darwin never said we descended from monkeys.)



Let me distill your argument:

“….lets see how intelligent our design really is…”
“A human being has many bad design components.”
“it isn't the way an omnipotent designer would make [it]” [italics mine]
“…Taking all this into account shows that the intelligent designer wasn't too intelligent, much less omnipotent….”


Your overarching assumption is that you think you know what the “criteria for success” is (something like “human body as well-oiled machine”). Upon reflection, do you really think you understand the “criteria for success” behind ID?


Again, I am not in favour of ID, nor do I have any religious leanings. I think your claim needs to be put through internal review (i.e among the scientifically-minded types) before presenting it as a (very wide) target externally. i.e. I think your argument is poorly thought out.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

According to that logic, God should also be accepted as truth due to the lack of any efficient evidence to suggest it is incorrect. Occam's Razor.

Something doesn't exist until it is proven. You do not have to prove something doesn't exist because there are few or no variables to prove it doesn't exist. The nature state of something that is not around is nonexistence. Strong Atheism involves the use of Occam's Razor. You are incorrectly applying the concept.

To the poster above you, I meant statistical evidence indicates it is improbable simply by common sense. The arguments for atheism are clearly better than those for God. If a psychological problem prevents someone from recognizing that fact, I am not qualified to treat their disorder.

Also, modern logic denies the definition of God.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Furthermore, IQ research indicates that the average IQ of atheists is higher that that of other group. The more atheist someone is the more likely they are to have a high intelligence.

I have spent days worth of time researching this matter. The answer becomes clearer with every fact presented.

 

[Conehead]

To the poster above you, I meant statistical evidence indicates it is improbable simply by common sense. The arguments for atheism are clearly better than those for God. If a psychological problem prevents someone from recognizing that fact, I am not qualified to treat their disorder.

Ah, your arguments seem less like blind conjecture now. I must have taken my medicine this morning. Instead of a lack of information, now I'm just confused.

Again, you failed to actually cite an argument or a piece of evidence. Time and time again throughout history scientific advancement backs itself into a corner only to come raring out again. Right now, it's starting to feel like it's in a corner. For lack of an issue cited in your posts we'll keep using my example of the tension between quantum and general. Science is floundering at the moment in terms of unification. Are you familiar with the 11-D problems and M-Theory, historical direction? This is a mess, an absolute mess of a theory. Complicated to the point that at any given moment the theory's leading posits change and new ones are championed. This can't be one of your examples of "efficient evidence" exempt from Occam's Razor, can it? What ID offers is a particularly non-scientific solution that is not particularly inefficient. Given your penchant for getting rid of inelegant solutions, it seems a little like you'd be championing IDs cause, no?

Furthermore, IQ research indicates that the average IQ of atheists is higher that that of other group. The more atheist someone is the more likely they are to have a high intelligence.

This is something that needs to stop in these threads. Righteously making claims of intellectual superiority (based on studies that prove nothing about the actual claimer’s), I suspect, doesn't get you very far anywhere let alone in science forums. Hey, you might be the next super-genius for all I know, but for now we are experiencing a lack of any "efficient evidence" to that end. Let's just have a discussion here without dusting off our under-grad grades. Okay? A little banter is more than welcome but let's keep this on equal footing for now.

 

[jimmie]

This is something that needs to stop in these threads. Righteously making claims of intellectual superiority

I, hereby, second the motion. Here, Here.

you might be the next super-genius for all I know

If that individual truly was the next "super-genius", that individual would NOT have made an 'un-founded' righteous claim of intellectual "superiority".

To individuals that intend to make claims of intellectual superiority: Mind your manners BEFORE you mind your mind.