Sidian

still nothing =(

i'll play "savior's advocate" in their stead just to get the ball rolling. here's what i've read/heard that i can't answer (yet?)

some would say that all we have to back any observable data is the probability that what we have seen and are seeing will happen again the way we are seeing it. and that all things being equal, what is most probable to happen will. or in this case did happen before our observations. rockem sockem's razor (sp?)

these two arguements may be seen as an attack on abiogenesis, but consider this. in a game of probability, eliminating one possibility (or atleast decreasing its likelyhood) raises the probability of the other options.

IDist tend to dispute abiogenisis (not evolution necessarily) with the watchmaker arguement. if you were to stumble onto a working watch, you would assume that a watchmaker built it. this analogy takes alot of hits for some logical details, but the principal is powerful if not so quickly skoffed at.

even combinations of molecules acting like life have a low probability of coming together in the right kind of environment this quickly (13 billion year old universe). add on top of this that these simple systems reproduced. add on to this that these reproducing systems stumbled on to dna, a blueprint system that allowed life to evolve. add onto this that dna and evolution eventually (and again quickly) yielded the human brain(the watch).

granted our being here proves that despite the odds, it happened...but this response is weak. it's obvious, backs niether side, and defeats nothing. it only shows that an answer exists which is what sent us searching in the first place.

based on probability being our only form of pre-historical observations, the odds of a "watchmaker" outweigh those of random chance.

another arguement i've heard (admittedly against abio and not for IDism) was that there wasn't much explanation of an "on" switch for the first form of life. if you have all components for the first life form together, and all of the food and sunlight you needed (whatever energy-in you prefer to afford life out), what would cause that first life form to actually begin taking that energy-in and living? why isn't this perfect combination in the perfect environment dead and inactive? what initiated life?

they are good questions that i can't answer. i'd like to see our arguements.

E_muse

Hi Bubba!

O.K, I'll use the 'view your recent posts' option to view what has been said.

Well, we'll see

Seriously though, I think that the term 'natural' is somewhat misleading at times and people mean different things by it.

The term 'natural' can be applied to anything that is thought to exist in the sense that anything than can be thought to exist can be considered natural. If it can be thought to exist then it isn't unnatural.

If you are a theist, and therefore accept the existence of a God or gods then what type of God or gods do you believe in and what relationship do you think this God or god has to the physical world?

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Bubba

E-muse, I'm not really sure what I believe, which is why I'm here. I'm finding that this is about the only place on the web with a good rational exchange of ideas.

Also, if you check my past posts I've vented a few times.

But seriously, do you have an arguement for intelligent design that you would like to advance?

Bubba

E_muse

Certainly this is true. However, once again, I think that the real situation is somewhat more complicated.

Firstly, in a game of chance, or any situation where chance is a real possibility, such as where a dice is being thrown, it may be impossible to distinguish between whether an event has been deliberately selected or has occured by chance. I'll try and explain...

Imagine that I have two dice. I roll one and get a 3, I then deliberately place the other dice so that it shows 6. I then invite someone to view the dice and ask them which occured by chance and which was intentionally selected. What would they be able to tell me?

Of course the atheist can say that where there is the possibility of chance events and no observable intelligent cause then unguided chance events would be the most likely scenario.
In the case of the dice above, there is nothing to keep someone from believing that a dice can be deliberately placed. People placing dice deliberatley is something that is easily observable and so the possibility can be ruled in. However, the atheist can say that an intelligent designer can be ruled out because none is observable.

However, Bubba has said that he is a theist which is why I'm keen to hear of what sort of God he believes in.

I personally don't feel that any arguement should be scoffed at.

Hume and Dawkins both have a respect for the arguement from design and I think that a lot of modern atheists should learn from their example. Neither seems to dispute 'apparent' design, that it exceeds what humans are capable of and believe in some way that to scoff at design arguements is at the same time to show a disresepect and lack of appreciation for the natural world.

However, in the case of the watch, watches being intelligently designed is something that can easily be observed. A designing God is something that can't.

I'm glad you equate the human brain with the watch. I think this is really what Paley's arguement is all about.

As a general rule I think it fair to say that all designed phenomena are still less complex than the brains that gave rise to them and still do not match the human brain in terms of what it is able to do. We have no problem understanding that intelligence can give rise to something less complex than itself.

We know that a technology requires intelligence to exist (for example cars, nests etc) and yet remains less complex than the brains that produce such phenomena. Yet we are asked by the atheist to accept that our brains have occured by chance.

However, in the cases of 'technology' above, the designers are easily observable. In other cases there is no observable intelligent creator. The atheist would then say that if one is postulated it has simply been invented and has no apparent ontological counterpart. Also, on the basis of observation alone, we can have no concept of intelligence without a brain to make it possible. This would mean that God requires a physical brain in order to be intelligent. Unless of course we argue that what exists at the physical level is a bounded form of what exists at the immaterial level unbounded. I think this is essentially what theists argue.

But none is observable. Does that mean that one should be ruled out?

Of course, saying that science has no answer does not rule a god 'in' by default and I don't think many of the IDers I've spoken to argue this.

I think they would ask that, if blind mechanistic forces are inadequate as explanations, then why should the idea of an ID be ruled out as unthinkable a priori.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

I would disagee. What is 'creationism'?

I would describe 'creationism' as the idea that our natural world and everything in it (even the observable universe) were somehow created. I would also go on to say that everyone, atheist and theist alike would agree with this notion.

The theist would argue that what we see requires an intelligent designer to explain it. The atheist would argue that this is nonsense and that we can observe blind, unintelligent mechanisms at work in nature.

Both attempt to answer the question concerning how we were created. One says that we must have been created by an intelligent designer, the other says that blind mechanistic forces could have created us and are an adequate explanation.

Both are forms of creationism. That we were created is almost beyond dispute. The question as to, "By what?" is still very much disputed.

BTW, Illithid has suggested to me that evolution is Metaphysical Naturalism in sheep's clothing. See <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001716&p=3" target="_blank"> HERE</a>. I just feel that your comments oversimplify the arguement.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

davidH

This post has been moved <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001741" target="_blank">here.</a>

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

LordSnooty

You missed a step. You stated your arguments against Darwinian evolution based on a lack of transitional fossils, but provided no such evidence against punctuated equilibrium. It's not enough to say that it was brought about to allow people to continue 'to believe'.

Paul

davidH

LordSnooty,

Are you under the impression that punctuated equilibrium is accepted in the scientific community since it was published in 1970?

I quote here from something I read in answersingenesis.com.

So if you maintain that the transition fossils are present then punctuated equilibrium cannot be correct. If gaps are present then "aparently" punctuated equilibrium is proved.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: davidH ]</p>

ageofreason2000

I would counter that macroevolution IS supported and in some abundance.
The 5 points below are picked from the oft used talk.origins website. These are but a few of many transitional forms

1. reptile-birds - more specifically one I remember from my childhood reading - Archaeopteryx - was a reptile-bird transitional then, still is now.

2. reptile-mammals - the large number of species showing a transitional stage from reptile to mammal, specifically shown in the jaw bones, having both a mammal jaw joint and a reptile jaw joint (from reading it seems recent fossil findings in 2001 show this clearly).

3. human-apes - no elaboration needed methinks

4. legged whales - several transitional forms have recently been found.

5. legged seacows - a nice picture of Pezosiren portelli shows a transitional phase as they adapted to life in the sea.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1</a>

To add, macro-evolution is just many combined micro evolutionary steps, it can be difficult to tell species apart, and the entire classification of species is often arbitery.
However their are certain transitional forms which are not expected to be seen in such as a bird-mammal and to this day no such find has been made.

Again your argument falls into "god of the gaps" highlighting what archeologists have NOT found as proof of ID.

Age

pz

You don't seem to understand evolutionary explanations, so your post is wrong on two levels: your criticisms are not valid, and this dichotomy you've set up is false. Evidence of shortcomings in modern evolutionary theory (even if they were valid) are not evidence of intelligent design.

I said back at the beginning of this thread that I was going to police it a bit more thoroughly for ad hominems. I'm also going to watch it carefully for this kind of fallacious logic. I don't want to see any more bogus arguments of the form "I don't understand evolution, therefore it is wrong, therefore god (or magic space elves) did it." Capisce?

If this thread degenerates into a few ignorant creationists carping at their percieved flaws in evolution, with evolutionists trying to correct the flow of nonsense, I'll shut it down. Let's see some positive evidence for magic space elves, or whatever else you want to call your putative "intelligent designer".

EVERYONE: if you want to discuss evidence for macroevolution or punctuated equilibrium, start a different thread. This one is specifically for evidence for intelligent design.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>