Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

But as you see, even Dawkins can't bring himself to say definitively and absolutely that they ARE that way

Dawkins quote:
..."Its one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cant admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, and lacking all purpose"

..."Its one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cant admit that thingsmight be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kindbut simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, and lacking all purpose"

Question X ---> If X = True then should see Y
If Y seen, X = True
If Y not seen, X = False
Y seen --> so X = True

Repeating the same error does not make it less erroneous.

I think youve missed the point of Dawkins' phrase ,The "Might be" refers to the two opposing concepts

Quote:

..."Its one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cant admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, and lacking all purpose"

EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew (1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief.
However in 2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in God. While never embracing Christianity—Flew only believed in the deistic, Aristotelian conception of God—he became one of the most high-profile and surprising atheist converts. In 2007, he recounted his conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Some critics suggested Flew's mental capacity had declined and therefore we should question the credibility of his conversion. Others hailed Flew's book as a legitimate and landmark publication.
A couple months before the book's release, Flew sat down with Strange Notions contributor Dr. Benjamin Wiker for an interview about his book, his conversion, and the reasons that led him to God. Read below and enjoy!


Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"

Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

Un-intelligent Design: No Purpose for Vestigial Ear-Wiggling Reflex

Around the human ear are tiny, weak muscles that once would have let evolutionary ancestors pivot their ears to and fro. Today, the muscles aren't capable of moving much — but their reflex action still exists.

These muscles are vestigial, meaning they're remnants of evolution that once had a purpose but no longer do. However, humans may be able to repurpose these useless muscles for their own uses, according to Steven Hackley, a psychologist at the University of Missouri and author of a new review of research on the forgotten muscles in the journal Psychophysiology. For one, these muscles activate in response to positive emotions, for reasons nobody truly understands. This odd fact creates a handy tool for psychologists seeking an objective way to measure emotion.

And then there are the educational implications: This muscle reflex is new evidence against the notion of creationism or intelligent design, Hackley said.

"According to intelligent design and creationism, our body was designed by a being with perfect intelligence," he said. "If that were the case, why would he put circuits in our brains that don't work? Why would you put circuits in our brain which are useful for lemurs that are useless for humans?" [Top 10 Useless, Vestigial Organs]
...

Why would you put circuits in our brain which are useful for lemurs that are useless for humans?"

My parsing is perfect ( as opposed to your understanding of English, which seems to be- somewhat- rooky), You still dont seem to understand what Dawkins is getting at.


As far as cellular biology I admit my understandings are paleontologic in application, but all in all several stacks higher than your understanding.
Howevere, my organic chem (especially understanding of reaction rates and bonds) is several log cycles above you. Life is a series of reactions that work against gradients and are pretty-much self sustaining by reactions that are well understood
'


I recognize that most all science is available on the web but you really need to get an understanding of basics, rather than cherry picking phrases and random concepts from Google.

It aint my job , You want Ken Millers class down the hall. You did say that youd visit his book on "Darwins God"

You are an unwavering advocate of a specific worldview ,of which I am incredulous ,when coming from folks who claim to be sophisticated in quantitative methodology and computation skills. Science does not have advocates really(except for the "Scientific Method"). Although Ive had a few students who, after a grad program in applied geology methods, have retained an ID/Creationist worldview. I have no doubt that they are good folks who also have adeep need to ignore many basic concepts in what we teach , or else their heads would have to explode(My characterization, not theirs).

My feelings have always been , at first generous and outreaching to discuss their points of "belief without fact". However, when they no longer engage in collegial discussions and only wish to "play sophist games", Ill acknowlledge that they are like my Creationist students who have already ignored and denied much discovery based and experimental science.

If I wish any babble from you, Ill merely puch the repeat button and your mantra will play incessantly. As for the difference twixt Creationist and ID, Its not my determination Frankie. Its the legally binding determination of the Pa Federal District Court(decision of kitzmiller v Dover_) .

Did you know what your obsessive phrase anagrams out into??

Betcha dont

Ahhh...neat transition from "intelligent design" to "creationist."

I like that...and it was smooth.

The "creationist" babble IS easier to deal with.

But "intelligent design" is a bit more complex...and you are not doing an especially good job of dealing with that

Yeah...but we are having a discussion in A2K...not in any District Court, Farmerman

Frankie said to me

Quote:

Ahhh...neat transition from "intelligent design" to "creationist."

I like that...and it was smooth.

The "creationist" babble IS easier to deal with.

But "intelligent design" is a bit more complex...and you are not doing an especially good job of dealing with that

To which I tried to patiently explain to the old fart that I was not responsible for that conjunction of the words CREATIONIST/IDer. It was a conjunction coined by the Federal District Court. So I assume it has some validity in normal usage. So, then Frankie, always one who demands what the ord "Is" is, demands more of me for discussing this concept with the morons who deny that the conjunction has any basis in reality. Frankie says,

Quote:

Yeah...but we are having a discussion in A2K...not in any District Court, Farmerman

Id think that such a discussion "On A2K" did not have strict requirements to set legal precedent. Perhaps Frankie can tell me why he thinks otherwise.

Ha, THINK?, not a word which we commonly accuse Frankie of doing. He is, after all, from New Jersey, and the toxic air from Toms River to the Swamps of the Meadowlands imbue his frontal lobes only with bumper stickers and phrase loops.

Quote:

Why would you put circuits in our brain which are useful for lemurs that are useless for humans?"

Software reuse often results in unused subroutines in computer science.
Lots of times you have to pad a byte value with leading zeros even if they are ignored. Other reasons are possible too. I'll ask the designer when I meet him :-)

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:

Why would you put circuits in our brain which are useful for lemurs that are useless for humans?"

Software reuse often results in unused subroutines in computer science.
Lots of times you have to pad a byte value with leading zeros even if they are ignored. Other reasons are possible too. I'll ask the designer when I meet him :-)

Doublespeak translation: Factual support for evolution, but still,