Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

It's not just humans, either. Consider the musk oxen . . . they form defensive circles with the juveniles in the center. I don't think you'll see very many wolf packs going after these boys and girls.

http://www.microbiologymaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/musk_oxen.jpg

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

People who are saying there is no intelligent design...are, in effect, saying there is no GOD.
...

And then there's those who merely observe that the argument for intelligent design is vastly weaker than than that for the naturalistic explanation, seeing as how only one of the two has accumulated any empirical evidence whatsoever as support.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

People who are saying there is no intelligent design...are, in effect, saying there is no GOD.
...

And then there's those who merely observe that the argument for intelligent design is vastly weaker than than that for the naturalistic explanation, seeing as how only one of the two has accumulated any empirical evidence whatsoever as support.

FBM..every bit of "empirical evidence" for "the naturalistic explanation"...MAY BE evidence of intelligent design.

We do not know.

You cannot logically claim that only one side of this issue has empirical evidence. That claim is gratuitous.

Simply because science can show the way the process has (and is) unfolding...does not mean that it was not intelligently designed that way.

The IDers are way out of line suggesting that Intelligent Design is the only way things could have happened...

...BUT suggesting that intelligent design could not be the answer (or that there IS NO empirical evidence for it)...is every bit as far out of line.

Neither side in this matter is willing to concede the obvious.

I am not trying to insult either side...just pointing that out so both sides can consider it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Bringing the altruism point closer to home, I can report the urge to defend, protect and aid children of (relatively) unrelated parents, no matter how old the "children" are. I doubt that this urge comes ex nihilo, since I've witnessed others engaged in similar behavior, expressing similar sentiments. I suspect that it may have something to do with the human genome. I've volunteered for the local home for the blind in the past and have recently volunteered to tutor local North Korean defectors. In a way that's hard to explain, volunteering makes me feel better deep inside. It's not something that I've ever mentioned to anyone before, so I doubt it's an issue of pride or self-aggrandizement. It seems more like a deep-seated drive to alleviate suffering in others, just as I do for myself. Theory of other minds, and all that.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

...BUT suggesting that intelligent design could not be the answer

Which I haven't done.

Quote:

(or that there IS NO empirical evidence for it)...is every bit as far out of line.

To put it more precisely, the empirical evidence accumulated so far shows no need for a divine creator, so following the principle of parsimony, that explanation is excluded until the evidence demands it. We're talking about induction and probability, not deduction and certainty.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Quote:
...BUT suggesting that intelligent design could not be the answer

Which I haven't done.

Nor have I said you have. My remarks are not just for you.

Quote:

Quote:
(or that there IS NO empirical evidence for it)...is every bit as far out of line.

Quote:
To put it more precisely, the empirical evidence accumulated so far shows no need for a divine creator...

Correct. Which does not impact on the question at all!

Quote:

..., so following the principle of parsimony, that explanation is excluded until the evidence demands it.

Science would go out of business if they held to that thought! It is a thought completely self-serving to your purpose here.

Quote:

We're talking about induction and probability, not deduction and certainty.

Actually, we are talking about two statements you made which I consider gratuitous.

a) ...the argument for intelligent design is vastly weaker than than that for the naturalistic explanation

b) only one of the two has accumulated any empirical evidence whatsoever as support.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

FBM...

...is there the possibility of a GOD?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

...
Actually, we are talking about two statements you made which I consider gratuitous.

a) ...the argument for intelligent design is vastly weaker than than that for the naturalistic explanation

b) only one of the two has accumulated any empirical evidence whatsoever as support.

By all means, demonstrate how either the arguments or current empirical evidence for ID is equivalent to or greater than that for the naturalistic explanation. What, specifically, points towards the need for a supernatural intervention?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM...

...is there the possibility of a GOD?

I'm told that anything that is possible in an infinite universe is inevitable. I have no idea whether or not a god is possible, considering the paucity of directly relevant evidence.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, i'm assuming DESIGN because that's what 'intelligent design' speaks of. And I am saying ghat evolution looks like an non-designed, stochastic process, with huge amounts of waste and error.

But of course one can still conceive of a god who would have played with life the way you describe: haphazardly, learning by doing through a trial and error process. That should not be called 'intelligent design' though, it should be called a 'stochastic evolution process'. Or perhaps 'haphazard godly darwinism'? Or 'divine trial and error process'?

Even if we knew how to produce life out of prebiotic chemistry in a test tube, believers would still say: "We're just discovering how God did it, and He probably wanted us to discover it..."

So science simply CANNOT rule metaphysics out, and it cannot apprehend the PURPOSE of things, if there is one. In summary, science is just about how things happen, not why they happen.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yes, i'm assuming DESIGN because that's what 'intelligent design' speaks of. And I am saying ghat evolution looks like an non-designed, stochastic process, with huge amounts of waste and error.

It can't be! Just do some statistics on it! It is IMPOSSIBLE

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I'm told that anything that is possible in an infinite universe is inevitable

So, tomorrow your mother will spontaneously switch to a man!!!

that is stupid mate!!!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

I have done the math and it is possible.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

...
Actually, we are talking about two statements you made which I consider gratuitous.

a) ...the argument for intelligent design is vastly weaker than than that for the naturalistic explanation

b) only one of the two has accumulated any empirical evidence whatsoever as support.

By all means, demonstrate how either the arguments or current empirical evidence for ID is equivalent to or greater than that for the naturalistic explanation.

Every bit of the so-called empirical evidence for the "naturalistic explanation"...MAY BE evidence for intelligent design.

You are arbitrarily suggesting that it cannot be...simply to support your thesis.

Every step taken during the "evolutionary process"...may have occurred only because a GOD set things in motion so that it would happen.

You CANNOT show that this is not the case...so to exclude that possibility so that you can claim the evidence only for your side...is illogical.

I've said that every way I can think of...but you just disregard it.

Don't. What I am saying makes sense.

Quote:

What, specifically, points towards the need for a supernatural intervention?

There is no need for a "supernatural intervention"...and I have never suggested there is one. Earlier I said this same thing.

But the fact that there is no need for something is not evidence it does not exist.

There is no need for gnats that are as annoying as gnats are that we know of...but there sure as hell are annoying gnats, as any springtime golfer will testify to.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Or you could grow a brain...

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM...

...is there the possibility of a GOD?

I'm told that anything that is possible in an infinite universe is inevitable. I have no idea whether or not a god is possible, considering the paucity of directly relevant evidence.

C'mon, FBM. You know damn well there is the possibility of a GOD. Why not just acknowledge that there is...rather than hiding behind "the paucity of directly relevant evidence?"

If furtherance of that thought...allow me this question.

In spite of "the paucity of directly relevant evidence" for intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...do you think there is the POSSIBILITY of such life on any of those planets?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Yes, i'm assuming DESIGN because that's what 'intelligent design' speaks of. And I am saying ghat evolution looks like an non-designed, stochastic process, with huge amounts of waste and error.

But of course one can still conceive of a god who would have played with life the way you describe: haphazardly, learning by doing through a trial and error process. That should not be called 'intelligent design' though, it should be called a 'stochastic evolution process'. Or perhaps 'haphazard godly darwinism'? Or 'divine trial and error process'?

Even if we knew how to produce life out of prebiotic chemistry in a test tube, believers would still say: "We're just discovering how God did it, and He probably wanted us to discover it..."

So science simply CANNOT rule metaphysics out, and it cannot apprehend the PURPOSE of things, if there is one. In summary, science is just about how things happen, not why they happen.

Which is one of the reasons I respectfully suggest "science" should not be used to attack the possibility of intelligent design.

We are finding out what is happening (and what has happened)...but we do not know HOW it happened. One way it might have happened is through intelligent design.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The point being: it doesn't look like an intelligent design process, but like a stochastic trial and error process. This much we can say. The term 'design' is misleading.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You CANNOT show that this is not the case...so to exclude that possibility so that you can claim the evidence only for your side...is illogical.

I've said that every way I can think of...but you just disregard it.

a) I have manifestly not excluded the possibility; I have shown only that the evidence accumulated so far does not suggest that supernatural intervention is required. The creationists have been insisting that it does require a supernatural explanation, but have been so far unable to substantiate that claim, largely due to their reliance on logical fallacies, evasion and other dishonest manners of engagement.

b) I don't have a side in the explicit sense. Should the creationists produce an argument as robust as that of the scientists, I will jump ship and join them. I have made that abundantly clear.

c) I don't disregard anyting you say. You have a knack for cutting to the chase that I admire, though I would do it a bit differently.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

...
C'mon, FBM. You know damn well there is the possibility of a GOD.

By all means, demonstrate in detail how you know for a certainty that such is the case.

Quote:

Why not just acknowledge that there is...rather than hiding behind "the paucity of directly relevant evidence?"

Because that would be to claim to know something beyond which I can claim certainty. If you want to do that, go ahead. I'm going to reserve judgement until someting decisive arises.

Quote:

If furtherance of that thought...allow me this question.

In spite of "the paucity of directly relevant evidence" for intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...do you think there is the POSSIBILITY of such life on any of those planets?[/b]

Categorical error. Alien life doesn't require any more of a supernatural explanation than does terrestrial life. Given that life exists here, I can't see anything to suggest that it should be impossible elsewhere. If you know of something that does, please share.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know