Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@wandeljw,

Quote:

Watches and "Tricorders" are inanimate objects that make poor analogies for complexity and diversity in nature.

By 'nature' I assume you mean biology. As counterintuitive as it sounds, The whole point of this argument is that biology isn't natural (a result of natural causes), so you can't win the point by just declaring it 'natural' and therefore a source of some different kind of complexity. The kind of complexity we are talking about here NEVER occurs in nature.

You will have to come up with some other example of naturally occurring complexity outside of the subject of debate (Big Bang and life from abiogenesis) in order to prove your point.

As for your quote about evolution, that's a different subject and there are other threads for that. Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis or the Big Bang. Evolution happens long after that.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
How is your intelligent designer distinct from a god?

Please present these "unmistakable signs" in a way that no one could mistake them for mundane processes.

Who the designer is is not the subject of the thread, just whether there is design here or not.

As for the unmistakable signs, that's what I've been posting about for some time now. If you wish to refute that, go ahead. That would be much more interesting that a repeat of "Show me evidence of God". The complexity of any living cell is such an unmistakeable sign of intelligent design, not God.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

So you're saying that the "intelligent designer" isn't a god? Please clarify.

"Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?"

The sciences work with empirical data that are shared in peer-reviewed journals in order to objectively evaluate their unmistakability. I haven't seen you post anything of that sort, only your personal interpretations of subjective experiences. Big diff, no?

ID is the illegitimate offspring of Creationism. Thinly veiled rhetoric will not suffice to distinguish your intelligent designer from its parent rhetoric, the Abrahamic god.

Still waiting for legitimate evidence. I suspect I will still be waiting this time tomorrow, next month, next year...unless...you cough up the genuine, credible, falsifiable, "unmistakable" evidence for all to see. Rhetoric is no more evidence than scripture. Both are the claim, not the evidence. Show us something.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It seems you feel you can win by just declaring it not natural. Redefining words on your part doesn't make your argument stronger. It only points to how weak it actually is.

As to your argument that complex things don't exist in nature, then perhaps you can tell us exactly how the ocean currents work and predict where a specific drop of water will be in 2 hours, 2 days, 2 months. Nature tends to be very complex. Biology is no more complex than nature in general.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

The sciences work with empirical data that are shared in peer-reviewed journals in order to objectively evaluate their unmistakability. I haven't seen you post anything of that sort, only your personal interpretations of subjective experiences. Big diff, no?

One last time, on this subject, I don't know who the designer is. There is no evidence, fingerprints, etc of 'the watchmaker' on the creation. There is no evidence of the type you are asking for. That does not negate the fact of an intelligently designed creation.

You once again turn back to science. You gave up the right to appeal to scientific authority when shortly ago you disavowed any obligation to answer for it's/their shortcomings. If you are unwilling to do that, you lose the right to posit its testimony as evidence. Sorry bout that.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

So no evidence is evidence. That seems a little odd for a logical person to reach that conclusion, don't you think?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You gave up the right to appeal to scientific authority when shortly ago you disavowed any obligation to answer for it's/their shortcomings.

So, when did you answer for the shortcomings of the ID argument? Does that mean you gave up any right to appeal to a designer authority?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

As to your argument that complex things don't exist in nature, then perhaps you can tell us exactly how the ocean currents work and predict where a specific drop of water will be in 2 hours, 2 days, 2 months. Nature tends to be very complex. Biology is no more complex than nature in general.

No, actually nature is not complex.

Whether life and the Big Bang are natural or not IS the subject here. Neither of us can can dictate that at the outset.

Outside of the origin of life and the origin of the universe, nature is governed by a surprisingly small set of basic principles and forces (none of which are able to generate the complexities under discussion). It is only science's ASSUMPTION that life's origin and the Big Bang are natural that you and others put them in that category. There is no direct evidence to support that. Science has been able to deal with those things very successfully, but only AFTER they are in existence.

You example of tracking the drops in the ocean has nothing to do with complexity. Given enough data on starting point, conditions and a computer with enough memory, relatively simple equations govern the movement of molecules. It is only the size of the data that makes it difficult, not the complexity. Same story on weather prediction, it's just a matter of having the necessary data to start with. Air mass flow, condensation, etc, all very simple stuff.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Nature is not complex? Have you ever heard of chaos theory?

Life is also governed by a small set of basic principles and forces. The same principles and forces that exist in nature itself.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

So, when did you answer for the shortcomings of the ID argument? Does that mean you gave up any right to appeal to a designer authority?

You have not pointed out any shortcomings of the ID argument.

I have not appealed to any designer authority. I have merely pointed out the complexity that requires a creator. You have not posited any alternative solution.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Nature is not complex? Have you ever heard of chaos theory?

Life is also governed by a small set of basic principles and forces. The same principles and forces that exist in nature itself.

Chaos is not complex, it's random. Just the opposite of what we see in life with its highly ordered specified information required for it to function.

You obviously know very little (or nothing at all) about life processes in the cell. No one who did would ever make the statement you made above. Come back when you know enough to debate the subject.

1 Reply

It is not a matter of "is there a god" ...

...it is a question of "is it possible there is a god?"

If it is possible there is a god...it is possible there is intelligent design.

That also can be stated:

It is not a matter of "is there an intelligent designer"...

...it is a question of "is it possible there is an intelligent designer?"

If it is possible there is an intelligent designer...it is possible there is intelligent design.

Anyone here asserting it is not possible there is a god?

Anyone asserting it is not possible there is an intelligent designer?

If so...you've got a burden of proof to deal with.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You example of tracking the drops in the ocean has nothing to do with complexity. Given enough data on starting point, conditions and a computer with enough memory, relatively simple equations govern the movement of molecules. It is only the size of the data that makes it difficult, not the complexity. Same story on weather prediction, it's just a matter of having the necessary data to start with. Air mass flow, condensation, etc, all very simple stuff.

Give me enough data on starting point, conditions and a computer with enough memory and relatively simple equations govern DNA.

You are simply defining complex to mean what you want it to. The truth is that you can't tell us what will happen because the movement of a single molecule in weather or ocean currents can create a completely different outcome. You can't even predict which direction a molecule will vibrate.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Chaos is not complex, it's random. Just the opposite of what we see in life with its highly ordered specified information required for it to function.

Wow. So on one hand you say can predict exactly and then when I bring up the specific theory that predicts outcomes you say it is random which would mean it is unpredictable. Which is it? Random or predictable?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Give me enough data on starting point, conditions and a computer with enough memory and relatively simple equations govern DNA.

Nope, the functioning of DNA and the associated mechanisms are not governed by simple equations. There are complex languages (as in computer languages) and programmed interactions that are unrelated to simple chemical interactions involved. Go study up and get back to me.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Wow. So on one hand you say can predict exactly and then when I bring up the specific theory that predicts outcomes you say it is random which would mean it is unpredictable. Which is it? Random or predictable?

For practical purposes it is random because we are not likely to ever have all the required data points, what with the constant thermal movement of every individual molecule of water being a factor.

The point is that there is no sign of design in the flow of water molecules in the ocean. It is not a case of complexity, just an astronomical number of things to track.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

DNA is a molecule. It follows the same rules every other molecule does. It is not a language. It acts based on other molecules just as every other molecule does.

It is NOT a language. That is a silly analogy. It is certainly not a computer language. Anyone that thinks DNA is like a computer language has no concept of either.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

So complexity has nothing to do with an astronomical number of things. What do you think complexity is?

Isn't it interesting how you are describing life and how you will never have all the data points. And yet you think life is complex because you don't have the data points but nature isn't complex because you just don't have all the data points.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,

DNA is a molecule. It follows the same rules every other molecule does. It is not a language. It acts based on other molecules just as every other molecule does.

It is NOT a language. That is a silly analogy. It is certainly not a computer language. Anyone that thinks DNA is like a computer language has no concept of either.

Until you learn how hopelessly wrong you are about this there is no point in our further discussion. A good point for you to start would be to learn how the cell manufactures a molecular machine refered to in biology as a protein. When you can intelligently discus this tiny subset of cellular biology, let me know and we'll talk again.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

So complexity has nothing to do with an astronomical number of things. What do you think complexity is?

I'll try to make this simple for you.

A box filled with the parts needed to build a Cray 1 computer is a butt load of parts, but it is not complex. When those parts are carefully assembled into a functioning computer (obviously requiring some input of intelligence) THEN it is complex.

You could try applying 'chaos' and shake the box randomly as long as you want and still not get that complex computer out of it. You can substitute a car, TV, or Large Hadron Collider in the example if you don't like computers.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know