UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (47) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 25048  
Subject: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/26/2007 5:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Everyone says God created us in his image. Really? Have you ever looked at your scrotum? That's God's work? God took the most sensitive nerves we have, tied them all up in a little sac, and hung them out side the body?

--------------------------------------------

The point being that if an intelligent designer really is responsible for micro managing design, he ain't so intelligent. Case in point, robots, which are clearly the result of intelligent design, have all their sensitive stuff well protected. And if it is intelligent design, are extinctions really just economic obsolescences?

The problem with ID is it always tries to go too far. Deism is not enough. God has to be more involved. Creating the context for everything is not enough. There has to be a mother cell that contained all the genetic data for everything that lives or lived.

As Ben Stein put it so well, if a loving god doesn't have his fingerprints all over everything, then we are not divine, but just mud. How arrogant to suggest we fallible humans are divine. How insecure must a man be to feel he can have no purpose if god did not give it to him?

Science and theology are so very close, but that separation from a divine source creating all then letting it unfold, and an involved creator who constantly immerses itself in all matters of life and the universe is a chasm that will never be easily crossed.

Nigel
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: joseph714 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12329 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/26/2007 5:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
God took the most sensitive nerves we have, tied them all up in a little sac, and hung them out side the body?
-----------

In Jungian thought there is the concept of "jokester"

As in that God fellow is some jokester.

Remember as Leonard ascribed to, it is the triad of Science, Art, & (personal) Religion that makes ones center.

I really see no problem with that as long as each carries equal weight in ones perceptions. Take any one & give it more weight not monitored by the other two & that then is where imbalance occurs.

As we all have painfully witnessed, the imbalance that has driven the current administration in U.S. has simply sent total chaos into every corner of the world.

Thusly I have long ago taken Leonardos precept & tried to live thusly.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JamesBrown Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12340 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 10:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The cooking temperature of sperm is the flaw in the Intelligent Design of the male anatomy.

The reason we have this ridiculous-looking scrotum is because sperm get cooked to death at body temperature. So we have to have this device that expands and contracts, keeping the testicles far enough away from the body to prevent sperm death, but at times contracting close for warmth in cold conditions. Plus the testicles start out inside the body like ovaries, but have to later descend, causing problems when they don't descend properly, plus leaving a weak spot that can develop into painful hernias.

Any engineer will tell you that a machine should have as few moving parts as possible. If women can have their ovaries tucked away deep inside their bodies and yet still crank out viable eggs, then men should be able to have the same mechanisms for testicles.

But hey, as Behe says, it's all a part of God's plan.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12342 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 10:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Any engineer will tell you that a machine should have as few moving parts as possible. If women can have their ovaries tucked away deep inside their bodies and yet still crank out viable eggs, then men should be able to have the same mechanisms for testicles.


I assume this is tongue in cheek . . . still, I've never understood these kinds of objections. For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible? Who says thats the only way to do something?

And these kind of objections ignore the obvious . . . the things work just fine as designed. Their current placement give women an extra target as well.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12345 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 11:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible? Who says thats the only way to do something?

Ooooh! Ooooh! I know this one!!

It's not the only way to do it, it's the best way to do it. The fewer moving parts, the fewer things can go wrong. The more moving parts, the more likely something will break. Basic engineering 101.

Yes, it works. But let's compare that board game "Mouse Trap" where you build this elaborate mouse trap versus the standard 5-piece trap available at any hardware store. The one you make in the game "works" (so long as the mouse doesn't move for the 20 seconds it takes for the trap to finish doing its job), but sometimes something goes wrong and it doesn't work. The spring-trap at Home Depot works every time. Which trap would you want if you had a mouse problem?

Testicles are a poor design. They have to descend (and if they don't there's a problem), and then the scrotum has to act as a temperature regulator...almost as if "the designer" realized after he'd gone to all the trouble of making them migrate out of the abdominal cavity that they would get too cold for the sperm to survive, so he had to add-on a retracting bag to pull them back up to keep the sperm warm. Plus, the male being the one that is favored for physical combat now has a hyper-sensitive spot exposed. Really dumb design. (Yes, women are somewhat sensitive there, but not the same...unless you're talking Conception 1, but that's present on both genders and most people don't know about it unless they know martial arts or if they slid off their bicycle seat and bounced off the cross bar).

What does this prove? If there's a designer then he's an idiot. :-) Actually, it probably speaks to the evolutionary model. The males whose scrotums did not retract were unable to reproduce and so died out. Those whose did retract were able to pass that trait on.

1poorguy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JamesBrown Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12346 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 11:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I assume this is tongue in cheek . . . still, I've never understood these kinds of objections. For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible?

Umm, simplicity of maintenance? Fewer breakdowns? Which works better for making erasable marks on paper--a pencil or a Rube-Goldberg device that ends with a gloved hand holding a hunk of graphite?

Which do you suppose would be a better world--a place where men suffer from undescended testes, crushed testicles, hernias, and infertility due to low sperm counts as a result of excessive body heat? Or one without these problems? I already know what Behe would say--how about you, Brian?

And these kind of objections ignore the obvious . . . the things work just fine as designed.

Which is what evolution theory predicts. Every organism is one long string of "good enough" events after another. Organisms don't have to be perfect to compete for resources. They only have to be good enough, to have a slight edge. Deep in our evolutionary past, male mammals had testicles cranking out sperm that cooked at body temperature, thus requiring this complicated scrotum and all it's attendant problems, all because that was "good enough." And we are the inheritors of these compromises, the same way we are bipedal and have five fingers per hand. They are good enough, but they are by no means optimum, which is what an Intelligent Designer would have produced.

Their current placement give women an extra target as well.

I can't tell. Is this violence a good thing or a bad thing, in your view?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12348 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 11:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I assume this is tongue in cheek . . . still, I've never understood these kinds of objections. For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible? Who says thats the only way to do something?

We're just taking the logic of an intelligent designer to its natural conclusion, that there should be intelligence behind all the designs, not just some.

So which is it, god is all powerful and knowing and the designs are highly intelligent but we are too dumb to figure it out? That the intelligent agent that designed everything has/had its limits and, all things considered, did a pretty decent job? That even though we have minds capable of reason and logic, we shouldn't use it when it involves the god theory? Other?

Toss me a bone here.

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12349 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 11:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Organisms don't have to be perfect to compete for resources. They only have to be good enough, to have a slight edge.

They also don't have to be perfect (whatever that means) to be designed.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12350 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 11:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I assume this is tongue in cheek . . . still, I've never understood these kinds of objections. For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible? Who says thats the only way to do something?
-------------
We're just taking the logic of an intelligent designer to its natural conclusion, that there should be intelligence behind all the designs, not just some.


I don't see any logical conclusions, that's the problem. I see subjective evaluations, I see "Any intelligent designer wouldn't do it that way", with no serious evaluations of alternative solutions . . . in short, I see personal prejudice, not logic.

So which is it, god is all powerful and knowing and the designs are highly intelligent but we are too dumb to figure it out? That the intelligent agent that designed everything has/had its limits and, all things considered, did a pretty decent job? That even though we have minds capable of reason and logic, we shouldn't use it when it involves the god theory? Other?


At this point I'm only arguing that whatever you perceive as faulty design does not argue "no design".

If Microsoft designs an operating system with enough problems to make you long for the next one to be released, is that evidence that Windows ME was not designed?

And for Kazim's benefit, just to be clear, I'm arguing design in a general sense, this has nothing to do with ID theory.

Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12351 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 11:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible?

Is this a serious question?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12352 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 12:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What does this prove? If there's a designer then he's an idiot. :-) Actually, it probably speaks to the evolutionary model. The males whose scrotums did not retract were unable to reproduce and so died out. Those whose did retract were able to pass that trait on.


You have not proven that this is a poor design. In fact, your last two sentences demonstrate just the opposite.

If God (me speaking as a Christian, not an ID theorist), wanted humans to be able reproduce at the maximal rate, then external testicles are better than internal ones, by your own admission.

Where is the problem?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12353 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If God (me speaking as a Christian, not an ID theorist), wanted humans to be able reproduce at the maximal rate, then external testicles are better than internal ones, by your own admission.

Where is the problem?


This bleeds into the 'best of all possible worlds' problem. Have you read Candide?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12354 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 12:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible?
-----------
Is this a serious question?



Of course it is. If I show you a machine that could be built with 10 parts, but is commonly built with 12 because of economics, would you then admit that this "fewer moving parts" argument fails to refute design?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12355 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 12:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
If God (me speaking as a Christian, not an ID theorist), wanted humans to be able reproduce at the maximal rate, then external testicles are better than internal ones, by your own admission.

Where is the problem?


If the sperm were sufficiently robust that they could withstand the temperatures experienced within the human body (which is a relatively tight range, in fact), then the testes could be internal (which is a better place for them) just like the ovaries are.

This doesn't prove the lack of design by any means. However, it is a simple retort to those who claim that "everything is so perfect and wonderful it must have been designed". [paraphrase of general claims often made, not something you specifically said] The fact is, it isn't perfect and wonderful. It's "good enough", and often barely so.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12356 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 12:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If Microsoft designs an operating system with enough problems to make you long for the next one to be released, is that evidence that Windows ME was not designed?

It is clearly evidence that we are quite lucky MS didn't design life, which again, begs the question, how can one claim a supernatural intelligent designer is no more competent than MS, and just as capable of rolling out a Vista OS?

What I'm driving at here, Bryan, is that it appears that ID wants its cake and to eat it to. If the intelligent designer is "merely human," then the notion of god as omnipotent gets tossed. If the intelligent designer is not fallible, then we devolve back to the "well, god only knows why" argument that doesn't move me at all.

This isn't prejudicial. It's a genuine effort to try and get two extremes a little closer together.

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12357 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 1:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What I'm driving at here, Bryan, is that it appears that ID wants its cake and to eat it to. If the intelligent designer is "merely human," then the notion of god as omnipotent gets tossed. If the intelligent designer is not fallible, then we devolve back to the "well, god only knows why" argument that doesn't move me at all.

This isn't prejudicial. It's a genuine effort to try and get two extremes a little closer together.


When you say "ID", you have to be more specific in the context of this board.

If you mean "ID as a scientific research project", then ID does not get into attributes of some supposed designer other than intelligence. It does not claim to be able to scientifically study the designer, only the results of design. That's the only data available to it.

If you mean "The general concept of the Christian God as a supernatural designer", and why he'd do things one way or another, that takes us into theology, which I'm happy to do.

And I'm afraid, from a theological perspective, "God only knows why" is the best we can do sometimes. It is exactly equivalent to science saying "We don't know" when faced with certain questions where there is not enough data to determine how something works.

In these cases, like "Why did God put my balls in a sack?", there is no specific revelation that I'm aware of to answer the question. We are left to ponder, and explore the design as we scientifically study how things work. The current placement has it advantages and disadvantages. Optimal design often requires certain parameters to be compromised for over-all system function. Maybe that is a plausible answer.

The argument to absurdity cuts both ways. If you ask why God used external testicles, why not ask why he used sexual reproduction at all? And if you ask that, why not ask why God created things to reproduce in the first place?

Where do the questions stop? And why are they meaningful in the first place? In one sense they are relevant, because I'm not proposing just any designer, I'm proposing the Christian God revealed in the Bible. So anything that goes towards establishing the plausibility of this concept is fair game. But you have to make an argument that can be evaluated rationally, or we can't get very far.

Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12358 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 1:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Questions:


Does ID make any predictions about where and when the designer will be acting upon a biological system so that this action can be observed?

Or have all such necessary actions already taken place?

If so, does ID tell us when they occurred? In other words, was it all at the same time, or did it take place over millions of years as each species needed a boost?

Seems to me that since speciation is still being observed, the designer would still have to be acting, and therefore could be observed. Do you concur?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12359 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 1:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible?
-----------
Is this a serious question?



Of course it is. If I show you a machine that could be built with 10 parts, but is commonly built with 12 because of economics, would you then admit that this "fewer moving parts" argument fails to refute design?


I'm not talking about design. I am wondering if you truly would like to know why people say a machine should have as few moving parts as possible.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12361 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 2:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Does ID make any predictions about where and when the designer will be acting upon a biological system so that this action can be observed?

Or have all such necessary actions already taken place?


AFAIK, ID does not predict future actions of whoever designed whatever was designed in biology. ID is attempting to study the affects of design.

If so, does ID tell us when they occurred? In other words, was it all at the same time, or did it take place over millions of years as each species needed a boost?

AFAIK, ID theorists don't know exactly when, or how many design events there were.

Seems to me that since speciation is still being observed, the designer would still have to be acting, and therefore could be observed. Do you concur?

Not in the sense of physically meddling with nature. From what I hear, Behe's newest book admits that evolution is working via natural processes at the species and probably genus level.

From a Christian perspective, God could be using secondary causes, like evolution, to do things. We would not be able to detect anything other than natural processes occuring.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12362 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 2:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm not talking about design. I am wondering if you truly would like to know why people say a machine should have as few moving parts as possible.


No, I'm not interested in the theory of mechanical design, beyond the topic at hand.

I understand the reasons why fewer moving parts would be good. I'm interested in how it relates to the question of design.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree8 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12363 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 2:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
OK. So it wasn't a serious question. It was rhetorical. That's fine.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12365 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 3:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not in the sense of physically meddling with nature. From what I hear, Behe's newest book admits that evolution is working via natural processes at the species and probably genus level.

So, ID will have to separate itself from the bible god if it is to progress to actual science. See? We can accomplish stuff.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12368 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 5:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 41
At this point I'm only arguing that whatever you perceive as faulty design does not argue "no design".

If Microsoft designs an operating system with enough problems to make you long for the next one to be released, is that evidence that Windows ME was not designed?

And for Kazim's benefit, just to be clear, I'm arguing design in a general sense, this has nothing to do with ID theory.


I have a problem with the way you are constantly flip-flopping the frames that you work with, sometimes even in the middle of a thought.

Look, when you (you personally, Bryan) are talking about the universe having "a designer" you are talking about God. You know it's God. I know it's God. Ben Stein knows it's God. Bill O'Reilly knows it's God. Those guys in Dover knew it was God. Phillip Johnson definitely knows it's God. Behe and Dembski both know it's God.

And when I ask you directly, to your credit, you say "Yeah, I believe it's God." But when you're talking about "design in general" you feel free to throw around these analogies which assume an imperfect, bumbling, haphazard designer.

Here's my problem with that, and I think it goes to the core issue of why ID isn't science. Those two theories are mutually exclusive. You cannot simultaneously put forth the idea that "There is a bumbling designer, who writes inefficient hacks into creation like Microsoft employees" while simultaneously saying "I just want to establish that there is some kind of designer first, although eventually the argument may or may not work around to the idea that the designer is God."

Once you postulate a bumbling designer, you rule out your god. It's that simple. You can't just argue for a kind of "generalized design" (obviously there is no such thing as a designer without properties) while at the same time accepting logically contradictory statements about the designer.

This is why it is a good idea to work towards a theory, not of some kind of "generic designer," but actually make hypotheses about precisely what the designer is like and then test those hypotheses. If the question is "Does this imaginary designer have a plan, or does he tinker and guess?" then your answer should not be "That's not for us to know!" It's intellectually lazy, it's a dodge, and it is a deliberate way to avoid one of the primary responsibilities of science, which is to think of ways to test your own claims.

Now, I think I know what you're going to say next, and it's this: "But nobody has found out exactly how the flagellum evolved, and that doesn't bother you!" And that's true, but there's a major difference at work. The fact that the flagellum evolved fits in with a very detailed existing model based on observable facts, which indicates that complex parts in general do evolve (like the eye, as Behe agrees) and co-opt existing smaller pieces to get there. Your "hypothetical abstract designer" contains elements within itself that not only don't fit with understood theories, but are also mutually contradictory.

If you believe that the designer is "God," then you need to find an explanation for why "God" appears to be such a screwup. If you believe the designer is "The Microsoft Team" then you need to acknowledge the fact that you're looking for a designer who very explicitly CANNOT be God. But you can't say "this one way of looking at things explains observation A, and this other way of looking at things explains observation B." A real theory would explain both A and B without having to exclude the other.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12369 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 6:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yes, it works. But let's compare that board game "Mouse Trap" where you build this elaborate mouse trap versus the standard 5-piece trap available at any hardware store. The one you make in the game "works" (so long as the mouse doesn't move for the 20 seconds it takes for the trap to finish doing its job), but sometimes something goes wrong and it doesn't work. The spring-trap at Home Depot works every time. Which trap would you want if you had a mouse problem?

Thanks for reminding me about this game. It occurs to me that Ben is about the right age to appreciate it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12370 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 7:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
At this point I'm only arguing that whatever you perceive as faulty design does not argue "no design".

If Microsoft designs an operating system with enough problems to make you long for the next one to be released, is that evidence that Windows ME was not designed?

And for Kazim's benefit, just to be clear, I'm arguing design in a general sense, this has nothing to do with ID theory.
---------


Here's my problem with that, and I think it goes to the core issue of why ID isn't science. Those two theories are mutually exclusive. You cannot simultaneously put forth the idea that "There is a bumbling designer, who writes inefficient hacks into creation like Microsoft employees" while simultaneously saying "I just want to establish that there is some kind of designer first, although eventually the argument may or may not work around to the idea that the designer is God."


That kind of missed my point about Windows ME. I'm not postulating a bumbling designer. I don't consider Windows a bumbling design. For one, it's obviously designed, and incredibly complicated. It shows signs that a great deal of intelligence is behind it. And it serves its purpose, even if there might be ways to improve individual functions. In fact, its flaws may actually have a designed purpose in and of themselves. I see several analogies to God here.

You and others attempt to argue for the bumbling creator model, which I'm only too happy to accept for the purpose of demonstrating design. Any kind of intelligent creator is a creator after all. Once you accept a bumbling creator, the "Creation" side of the equation is established.

And I really don't know how to answer people who point to appendixes and near-sightedness and say "See, there can't be a designer", and totally dismiss the literally millions of systems in the human body that function extremely well.

Once you postulate a bumbling designer, you rule out your god. It's that simple. You can't just argue for a kind of "generalized design" (obviously there is no such thing as a designer without properties) while at the same time accepting logically contradictory statements about the designer.


I would agree, if I considered the things you see as "bumbling" the same way you do. I don't see the statement "Humans have an appendix with little use" to be contradicted by "God designed humans with an appendix".

This is why it is a good idea to work towards a theory, not of some kind of "generic designer," but actually make hypotheses about precisely what the designer is like and then test those hypotheses.

Not if you are trying to develop a scientific theory, and the designer is not available for analysis. When SETI discovers an intelligently designed radio signal, they will know absolutely nothing specific about who designed it other than "They have the technology to send such a signal our way". They won't be able to answer any of the questions you pose.

"God" is not a scientific theory, and I feel no obligation to use the tools of science to explore the concept beyond what they can handle.

The fact that the flagellum evolved fits in with a very detailed existing model based on observable facts, which indicates that complex parts in general do evolve

It only fits when you don't require any verification that such a thing could actually happen, but rather assume it.

If you believe that the designer is "God," then you need to find an explanation for why "God" appears to be such a screwup.

I don't think God is a screwup. The reason he appears so to you has more to do with your perception than anything else. I really don't know how to change your perception of things.

Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12371 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 7:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 31
It only fits when you don't require any verification that such a thing could actually happen, but rather assume it.

Which applies equally to the god theory. Difference - evolution continues to try to verify by evolving its methodology, ID sees the lack of verification as proof of god.

"God" is not a scientific theory, and I feel no obligation to use the tools of science to explore the concept beyond what they can handle.

Thank you, thank you, for so succinctly stating why ID has to be kept out of the class room.

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12372 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 7:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 26
"God" is not a scientific theory, and I feel no obligation to use the tools of science to explore the concept beyond what they can handle.

I think we can all agree with this. And since it is NOT a scientific theory it has NO PLACE in the science classroom. Thanks for coming around, Bryan! I knew it would happen eventually!

Now if we can just get those other radicals presently trying to force this non-scientific theory into the classroom to stop, everything will be peachy!

It only fits when you don't require any verification that such a thing could actually happen, but rather assume it.

We may not be able to witness the evolution of the toxin injector into the flagellum*. However, it is not unreasonable to infer it happened given that they differ only by a few proteins. In any event, this was never really intended as proof of evolution. Behe dragged it into the mix as proof of ID. Biologists simply have shown that it is not inconsistent with evolution, as Behe maintains it is. They are refuting his claim.

I really don't know how to change your perception of things.

Speaking only for myself, scientifically valid data is just about the only way to do it.

However, let me elaborate a bit on the "God is a screwup" angle. You may already realize this, but what's at issue here is the notion that 'God' is all-powerful, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc, etc. If that is the case, then it doesn't make sense that he would design things with such obvious flaws. Stuff that human engineers would fix (if it was within their power to do so, of course). After all, he's GOD. It is inconsistent that he would have such design errors if he is truly GOD. And if he really did the best he could, then he's less than perfect and the typical notion of him flies out the window (along with the three major religions of the world today). You may question perceptions of the "flaws", but speaking as a physicist/engineer my perception is that they design could be improved. Yes, a lot of stuff works really well. But face it, we're kluge's.

Contrast this to a shark. Sharks are nearly perfect. If I was going to design a sea predator, that would be it. Streamlined, powerful, replacement teeth, does not get cancer (I knew a girl in grad school studying immunology, and her project was trying to figure out why sharks never get cancer), has enormously sensitive sensor arrays, etc. Based on the fossil record they have changed very little in 100M years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Evolution). They are nearly perfect. An engineering marvel. Perhaps God designed them in his own image(??).

1poorguy (...and "yes", if I were designing sharks I would make them smarter since that's the only thing they lack, but then they don't really seem to need much more intelligence than they have)

*I didn't witness the evolution of the Grand Canyon either, but I'm reasonably sure the Colorado River did it.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: wrbennett61 Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12373 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 9:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
...(I knew a girl in grad school studying immunology, and her project was trying to figure out why sharks never get cancer)...


One nit, sharks do get cancer. Their immune system is rather neat.
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_bite_on_cancer.htm

- Bill B.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12374 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/27/2007 10:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
However, let me elaborate a bit on the "God is a screwup" angle. You may already realize this, but what's at issue here is the notion that 'God' is all-powerful, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc, etc. If that is the case, then it doesn't make sense that he would design things with such obvious flaws.

I realize this is the issue, but how do you rationally answer someone who's only argument is personal incredulity?

You can't think of a reason why God would create humans with an appendix, so that's it? Even after a scientifically determined use for it is given, it's not good enough.

There is no way of answering such thinking.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12376 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 6:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
I realize this is the issue, but how do you rationally answer someone who's only argument is personal incredulity?

You can't think of a reason why God would create humans with an appendix, so that's it? Even after a scientifically determined use for it is given, it's not good enough.


I see. So personal incredulity works just fine as a means of *establishing* God's existence, but it can't actually be used to analyze the implications of his existence. Double standard much?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12377 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 8:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I realize this is the issue, but how do you rationally answer someone who's only argument is personal incredulity?

You can't think of a reason why God would create humans with an appendix, so that's it? Even after a scientifically determined use for it is given, it's not good enough.

There is no way of answering such thinking.


If you don't like this shoe, stop trying to stick it on my foot all the time.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12379 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 8:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I see. So personal incredulity works just fine as a means of *establishing* God's existence, but it can't actually be used to analyze the implications of his existence. Double standard much?


I don't think personal incredulity works well as an argument for anything, God included.

I don't agree with the standard misrepresentation of ID as "We just can't figure out how evolution did it, so it must be God".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12380 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 9:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I don't agree with the standard misrepresentation of ID as "We just can't figure out how evolution did it, so it must be God".

And yet, there is no "This is how God does things, so it must have been God." Nor is there any non-falsified "This is how intelligent agents do things, so it must have been an intelligent agent."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joseph714 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12386 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 10:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1poorguy (...and "yes", if I were designing sharks I would make them smarter since that's the only thing they lack, but then they don't really seem to need much more intelligence than they have)
-----------

Well theres simply got to be some sort of equalizer out there in the world. Seems the lack of intellectual integration is just that.

Designed evolution?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12388 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 11:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Designed evolution?


Very likely

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12394 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 1:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Designed evolution?
-------------
Very likely




But you can't make any testable statements about who, when, where, how, or how many times?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joseph714 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12399 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 1:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Designed evolution?
-------------
Very likely
------------------
But you can't make any testable statements about who, when, where, how, or how many times?
----------------------
True.

Isn't it all just maddening for both sides of the arguement?

Thats what I personally find the most instructive. Helps unfold the mind.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12400 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
1poorguy (...and "yes", if I were designing sharks I would make them smarter since that's the only thing they lack, but then they don't really seem to need much more intelligence than they have)
-----------

Well theres simply got to be some sort of equalizer out there in the world. Seems the lack of intellectual integration is just that.

Designed evolution?


The shark is a perfect example of evolution at work. As an apex predator, it has had no need to evolve complex thought. It dominates in its niche just fine.

Ergastor, however, was on the brink of extinction from prolonged drought in Africa, and had not filled the niche at the top of the food chain.

Have you watched any of the "Walking with Cavemen" series on The Discovery Channel? I watched a couple episodes the other night. In spite of the grandest stunod on the planet, Alec Baldwin, narrating it, it's quite entertaining and well done. Given many of your posts, Joseph, if you haven't watched it yet, I think you'd enjoy it.

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joseph714 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12401 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 1:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In spite of the grandest stunod on the planet, Alec Baldwin, narrating it, it's quite entertaining and well done. Given many of your posts, Joseph, if you haven't watched it yet, I think you'd enjoy it.

Nigel
------------
Thanks, i'll give it a spin.

Stunod?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12406 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 2:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Stunod?

Well, the net nanny won't let me say how dumb he is in English, so the Italian provides a nice alternative.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12410 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 3:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Stunod?

Well, the net nanny won't let me say how dumb he is in English, so the Italian provides a nice alternative.


It's also "donuts" spelled backwards.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12412 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 3:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's also "donuts" spelled backwards.

Good point. And the way Baldwin is bloating in his old age, I'm sure he's got plenty of both.

I'll refer to him as stugat from here out.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jwiest Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12415 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 4:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Designed evolution?


Very likely


I don't recall reading about that in the original sources...

What amazes is me is how willing religionists are to stretch the original idea of God beyond all recognition just to stay married to the idea that someone nice and big is in charge and everything is going to somehow be okay.

None of this has any historical validity, they're inventing it as they go along. Science and history are showing how stupid and/or irrelevant the concept of God is, and they can't handle it.

So now God has gone from a personal champion of a Chosen People, to a hands-off designer of a process that creates really weird results through randomness...a process that presumably works in places other than our own planet and solar system. Or maybe God IS the process.

Well then, who gives a flying mambo? Is this process, or hands-off designer of a process going to answer your prayers? Do something about global warming? Cuddle you when you die? Teach you right from wrong?

Here's hoping ID is the last flare of religionist philosophical mediocrity.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joseph714 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12418 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 5:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Stunod?

Well, the net nanny won't let me say how dumb he is in English, so the Italian provides a nice alternative.
--------------

Ah, now I see. Sort of anyway.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joseph714 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12420 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 5:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'll refer to him as stugat from here out.
-------------
Taguts?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joseph714 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12422 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 11/28/2007 6:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Designed evolution?
-------------
Very likely
------------------
I don't recall reading about that in the original sources...

What amazes is me is how willing religionists are to stretch the original idea of God beyond all recognition just to stay married to the idea that someone nice and big is in charge and everything is going to somehow be okay.
--------------------------

Just for the record, for those who may have not understood my original post, designed evolution was intended to be a play on words.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: naylor99 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12511 of 25048
Subject: Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date: 12/1/2007 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"The problem with ID is it always tries to go too far."

I don't agree. ID is an interesting theological idea. The problem only arises when ID supporters try to call it science.

The fatal flaw in ID as a theological theory is this; once you buy into the premise, it is necessarily endless. In other words, if there must be a designer, then the next logical step is to conclude that there must be a yet another Designer (captital D - who must have designed the original designer (lower case d). Then of course, there would have to be a DESIGNER who designed the Designer who designed the designer, and so on, ad naseum.

The fatal flaw in ID as science is that is simply does not fit the definition of what science is.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (47) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement