scigirl

Excellent question, Ab_Normal,

scigirl

Non-praying Mantis

Just a small nit (also known as a Pediculus humanus egg) to pick, Scigirl.

IIRC, E. coli in the human large intestine do not allow us to digest cellulose. That ability is reserved for other organisms, like those found in the guts of termites or cows. However, IIRC, E. coli does make certain vitamins, such as vitamin K, that we do need, and do not manufacture by ourselves. Thus, your argument is still unaffected by this tidbit of information.

NPM

scigirl

Thanks for the info - I guess studying cattle as a grad student warped my knowledge of biology!

scigirl

NumberTenOx

Sorry to intrude, this topic just reminded me of the Arthur C. Clark short story, "The Nine Billion Names of God". Google and ye shall find; I won't provide a link because I assume it's copyrighted and is illegally posted on the internet.

However, I'm intrigued by the original idea of this thread. If ID proponents claim "evidence of ID can be found through science", then does it follow that the purpose of this design can be found through science?

The elephant in the room with ID has always been that it replaces one mystery with an identical mystery: the beautiful egg was made by a chicken, but where did the chicken come from? Irreducible complexity was made by irreducible complexity, but where did that IR come from? At least currently accepted scientific thought provides a progression of questions and answers (consciousness and complexity were formed from raw matter by evolution, raw matter was created from the cooling of the primordial energy, the energy was created by the ripping of energy from gravity during the inflationary period, inflation was started by a fluctuation in the false vacuum, now where did the false vacuum come from? That's a very different question than "where did the designer come from?" And OK, maybe not so "currently accepted", but at least it's a series of falsifiable theories that demonstrate that such a progression is possible.)

So a question related to "where did the designer come from" is "why the hell did she do it, and did she do it to us on purpose?" Is anything about the designer knowable by examining the design?

Kevin Dorner

"An inordinate fondness for beetles."

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

GPLindsey

Thank you, NumberTenOx! You have brought this thread back to my original issue: the distinction between design and purpose. For those of you who have been thrown into a rage against me in some of your responses, FYI--I AM AN ATHEIST!! I was just positing an idea and arguing the religious side, just to see where the discussion would go. You can find alot of examples of this on the forum boards. How many fundamentalists would dare suggest God could be a savant, as I did in an earlier post?! You're all so scientifically minded out there, yet you could not tell from the obvious clues when my tongue was firmly planted in cheek!

Let me restate my initial thought. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the universe was the product of intelligent design. With this starting point, you can debate many points--whether the designer is singular or plural, dead or alive, good or evil, etc. I was curious about purpose. So here is my argument (actually what I assume would be the argument of a religious person, who is not me):

1) The universe is the product of intelligent design.
2) Anything created as the result of intelligent design must have a purpose--a reason why the designer created it.
3) The Bible provides an explanation for God's purpose in creating many things, but much of the universe appears unrelated to the purposes explained in the Bible.
4) A plausible explanation is that much of God's creation is "art," created for its own sake and requiring no further purpose.

Everyone seems to want to argue about bullets 1 and 3, but 2 and 4 are what interest me most. How about just bullet 2--if something is the product of intelligent design, does that mean it must have a purpose as well?

Neruda

zzang?

scigirl

Interesting - I guess I just didn't see this clear of a question in your first post. I did think you were a non-theist at first, until you started quoting the Bible!

Well I'm still mad (not at you), because many Christians have espoused the same nonsense that you did in your later posts.

Heh is that because we are dense, or that creationists use the same arguments? A bit of both, I suppose. . .

Heh why didn't you just say so in the first place? If you want to discuss hypotheticals, just say so, you don't have to pretend to be a creationist!

Sure you will get some tongue-in-cheek examples (I for one enjoy the humor here - I have to think hard and seriously all freaking day, so I'm glad we can joke about stuff AND talk science too). But you will get much more thought-provoking answers if you are just up-front with your questions (at least in my opinion).

Well it's hard for me to answer this question, but I'll take a stab at it. If I were to believe in an intelligent designer, it wouuld not be the Christian god. Rather, it would be some ambivalent deity that enjoyed complexities and empty space. So I would say, no, created things do not always have a purpose).

However, to bring the argument from an interesting subject at a coffee shop at 3 am to a more practical location - the classroom, where ID advocates want to teach this stuff.

People who espouse intelligent design often do so at the same time they are rejecting an evolutionary explanation. Lower back pain, appendicitis, all those things we were all "raging" about earlier to you. This is how I see it:

1. There is a lot of evidence for evolution.
2. Evolution provides many explanations as to 'why' things occur (not in a philosophical, but in a real sense). For example, we have lower back pain because we are adapted from a 4-legged body posture.
3. If you are going to say, "No evolution didn't give us the lower back pain, God did," then I think you DO need an explanation as to why, since you are trying to replace a current model which contains a why in it.

Another problem I have with saying that designed things don't need a purpose is that most Christians do see the earth as evidence as God's design, and insert the "whys" when it is convenient to do so. For example, a few radicals believe that God created HIV to punish gays. If they say this, than I also feel they need to explain why (or at least realize there must be a reason why) God created all the other organisms as well. So once you start ascribing meaning to any creations, in my view - you need to ascribe meaning to many more similar types of creations.

Is this making sense? I've been studying anatomy for like 5 hours straight and I'm having trouble putting coherent sentences together!

scigirl

Oolon Colluphid

Equine excrement.

But you’re among ‘fellow’ atheists... if you really were an atheist, you’ve got the wrong pronoun there...

Also:

Because, as any atheist knows, there ain’t nothing listening...?

Also, your use of creationist arguments.

Also, your typical-creationist-esque ignoring of pertinent points, and restatement despite of them of your original point.

I do not believe what you say bears out your claim. Whatever else you are, you are not an atheist.

Oolon

DMB

GPLindsey: I won't say I hate to be pedantic, because I quite enjoy it. I wish to point out that you have twice used the term "savant" to mean what the rest of us understand by "idiot savant". The latter term refers to someone who in general comes across as mentally deficient and probably even incapable of leading a normal life, but who has one inexplicable skill, such as the ability to to rapid and very complex mental calculations. "Savant", OTOH, means someone with great wisdom or knowledge.