Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daydreamer · 06-27-2002, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thor Q. Mada:
<strong>As an engineer, I can only say that if we are the fruit of "intelligent design", then I am really worried.
Which all knowing designer would design a body of which some parts have a 200 years design life and others max 120. Even Henry Ford new better.
And how about the heart of a human male??
Clearly underdesigned.
The capacity of this pump is only enough to feed one consumer at the same time!! Its either the brain or the reproductive organ, but not the two together!! Unbelievably stupid!!</strong>

The Designer or the Males?

Wait, rhetorical question.

Duvenoy · 06-28-2002, 02:50 AM

This is an easy one. An undesigned universe would look exaclty like what we have now. A designed one would look like a young Audry Hepburn.

doov

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy ]</p>

Clutch · 06-28-2002, 08:01 AM

I don't know if it's old hat, but I did take a run at this in my "Three Glosses..." thread on this forum. In short: no universe is design-explicable *or* design-inexplicable without some specification of the designer's preferences.

A universe of lightless dust looks designed by an agent who just *loves* dust and hates light. Hence, without an independent proof of a designer who likes the properties of our universe, the claim that the properties of our universe are explained by the existence of a designer is empty wind.

And if we had such an independent proof... well, ID-ology would sorta be beside the point.

Stephen T-B · 07-01-2002, 02:55 AM

There are two reasons for things to be designed: either they DO something, as in the case of computers, phones, planes and freeways, or they belong to one of the Arts and are intended to BE something, such as a painting, a sculpture, a play, a poem, a symphony, a pop song.
If the Universe had been designed, we might speculate as to which of these two reasons it was done.
Is it, for instance, a piece of cosmic theatre, made for the amusement and entertainment of extra-cosmic, multi-dimensional entities which we cannot know anything about?
Or does it, as the Bible says, have a practical function?
Did God create it in order to provide a support system which was necessary in order that I should be born, die, judged as to whether I am redeemed or not and accordingly assigned to heaven or hell for eternity?
When I die, therefore, will the whole lot simply cease to exist?
You might think this a somewhat ego-centric point of view - you know, all those billions of galaxies, all that complicated physics and chemistry, plus nearly 5,000 species of ant, just so that I could come into existence, and then the whole lot get wiped out while my soul waits at the Gates of Heaven and argues the toss with Peter.
But if it wasn�t done for me, who was in done for? You? Or perhaps it was done for all of humanity? That does sound more reasonable, but I doubt if it is any less arrogant or fatuous than claiming that the whole lot was done for me, personally.
It means, for instance, that when the last human being dies, the whole lot will become redundant.
This is implicit in the arguments put forward by the advocates of ID. They pretend to have a scientific view point but in fact are supporting a religious dogma which is derived from the Bible which they believe is God�s word because the people who wrote it say it is.
That is not empirical evidence. It's not evidence of any sort.
Empirical evidence suggests - and this is a difficult concept to grasp for some people - that human life is one of the very many products of a vastly complex system which is self-generating and exists in its own mighty right.
It is difficult to grasp because human beings have been designing things - from stone-age flint heads to computer chips - for a considerable part of their history. We make things, ergo a super version of ourselves must have made us and the universe we live in.
It was a reasonable assumption in Bronze-age societies, but we know enough now to know that it's stupid.

Secular Pinoy · 07-01-2002, 03:19 AM

River out of Eden by Richard Dawkins -

On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

Douglas J. Bender · 07-01-2002, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Thor Q. Mada: As an engineer, I can only say that if we are the fruit of "intelligent design", then I am really worried.

Well, that makes sense, given the knowledge of judgment, however repressed, which God has given to everyone.

Quote:

Which all knowing designer would design a body of which some parts have a 200 years design life and others max 120. Even Henry Ford knew better.

Henry Ford designed human bodies? Wow. But hadn't you heard that originally human bodies were designed to last forever, and that SIN corrupted humanity, resulting in death and the eventual decline in life-span?

Quote:

And how about the heart of a human male??
Clearly underdesigned.

"Clearly".

Quote:

The capacity of this pump is only enough to feed one consumer at the same time!! Its either the brain or the reproductive organ, but not the two together!! Unbelievably stupid!!

Oh, so you're saying that a human male's brain completely shuts down during "reproductive activities"? So, sex for the human male involves "brain death"? Why are you giving fodder to the females here, anyway?

Quote:

liquid: Strange no-one has directly picked up on an important point - 'creator' ID theories are inherently unscientific and unfalsifiable even before you get to the actual evidence or the fact that apparent 'design' is explained by evolution in any case.
Why? Simply because in either scenario, there is no experimental control available (and of course, we all know that is a first step in valid experimentation).

So, if a human fossil, wearing gold rings, was discovered in a pre-Cambrian strata, and both the fossil and the rings were conclusively dated to pre-Cambrian times, this would not falsify Darwinian evolution, and "prove" at least some sort of "Design" (that, since at least humans had not "evolved", they had to have been "designed")?

Quote:

For instance, in a universe with no creator, there is no created design to be found in the first place.

Fine. So?

Quote:

In a created universe, all is designed, and there is no 'non-design' in existance as a control or reference. So design still cannot be distinguished.

Wrong. The Designer could incorporate "natural" processes as part of the "Design", but could ALSO incorporate "intentional" (rather than merely "consequential") things, giving evidence of "Design".

In Christ,

Douglas

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender · 07-01-2002, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Richard Dawkins: On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Sure thing. And it was just a "happy coincidence" that, the morning after I had seriously considered devoting my life to bringing the Gospel to Romanian orphans, I saw a burned out piece of a newspaper at the very bottom of the steps to my 2nd floor apartment, and which had ONLY the following words remaining on it (from some headline): "GO FOR IT". Yep, nothing but a random occurrence - obviously no "intent" behind it.

Quote:

R.D.: As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman...

I wonder why he was "unhappy".

Quote:

...put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

Oh. That explains it.

In Christ,

Douglas

Duvenoy · 07-01-2002, 04:57 AM

Doug Bender sez:

"So, if a human fossil, wearing gold rings, was discovered in a pre-Cambrian strata, and both the fossil and the rings were conclusively dated to pre-Cambrian times, this would not falsify Darwinian evolution, and "prove" at least some sort of "Design" (that, since at least humans had not "evolved", they had to have been "designed")?"

I sez:

Produce said fossil, get it reviewed and authenticated, and I will drop the Theory like a hot rock. It doesn't even have to be a ring-wearing, hominid fossil. Just any, old, out of place fossil will do. How 'bout that trilobite in a shod, human foot print? Authenticate that bad boy and you've killed the Theory as it is now.

However, thus far, all fossils are being found exactly where the Theory predicts they would be, the ridiculous AiG and ICR, and Kent Hovind to the contrary.

Doov

Douglas J. Bender · 07-01-2002, 05:28 AM

Doov,

Quote:

Produce said fossil, get it reviewed and authenticated, and I will drop the Theory like a hot rock. It doesn't even have to be a ring-wearing, hominid fossil. Just any, old, out of place fossil will do. How 'bout that trilobite in a shod, human foot print? Authenticate that bad boy and you've killed the Theory as it is now.

No such said fossil, or anything like you suggest, is on the horizon, I don't think (though who knows?). But that was not my point - my point was that there ARE at least theoretically and logically possible (i.e., they are not precluded simply by logic) things which COULD indicate "Design", and which could be "scientifically verifiable".

In Christ,

Douglas

Oolon Colluphid · 07-01-2002, 05:28 AM

Ah, Douglas has returned to this topic. DJB, may I remind you of the list of wonderful designs I�ve told you of before. An updated version is on display in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001481&p=" target="_blank">Last time I mentioned it</a>, your reply (30 November) was, shall we say, rather comical. Perhaps you�d like another go? The fall routed the laryngeal nerve as it is and put female parts on male flowers how, exactly?

(<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001519" target="_blank">This thread</a> has a nice summary of so-called intelligent design.)

TTFN, Oolon

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2002, 02:50 AM	#22
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	This is an easy one. An undesigned universe would look exaclty like what we have now. A designed one would look like a young Audry Hepburn. doov [ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy ]</p>

06-28-2002, 08:01 AM	#23
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	I don't know if it's old hat, but I did take a run at this in my "Three Glosses..." thread on this forum. In short: no universe is design-explicable or design-inexplicable without some specification of the designer's preferences. A universe of lightless dust looks designed by an agent who just loves dust and hates light. Hence, without an independent proof of a designer who likes the properties of our universe, the claim that the properties of our universe are explained by the existence of a designer is empty wind. And if we had such an independent proof... well, ID-ology would sorta be beside the point.

07-01-2002, 02:55 AM	#24
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	There are two reasons for things to be designed: either they DO something, as in the case of computers, phones, planes and freeways, or they belong to one of the Arts and are intended to BE something, such as a painting, a sculpture, a play, a poem, a symphony, a pop song. If the Universe had been designed, we might speculate as to which of these two reasons it was done. Is it, for instance, a piece of cosmic theatre, made for the amusement and entertainment of extra-cosmic, multi-dimensional entities which we cannot know anything about? Or does it, as the Bible says, have a practical function? Did God create it in order to provide a support system which was necessary in order that I should be born, die, judged as to whether I am redeemed or not and accordingly assigned to heaven or hell for eternity? When I die, therefore, will the whole lot simply cease to exist? You might think this a somewhat ego-centric point of view - you know, all those billions of galaxies, all that complicated physics and chemistry, plus nearly 5,000 species of ant, just so that I could come into existence, and then the whole lot get wiped out while my soul waits at the Gates of Heaven and argues the toss with Peter. But if it wasn�t done for me, who was in done for? You? Or perhaps it was done for all of humanity? That does sound more reasonable, but I doubt if it is any less arrogant or fatuous than claiming that the whole lot was done for me, personally. It means, for instance, that when the last human being dies, the whole lot will become redundant. This is implicit in the arguments put forward by the advocates of ID. They pretend to have a scientific view point but in fact are supporting a religious dogma which is derived from the Bible which they believe is God�s word because the people who wrote it say it is. That is not empirical evidence. It's not evidence of any sort. Empirical evidence suggests - and this is a difficult concept to grasp for some people - that human life is one of the very many products of a vastly complex system which is self-generating and exists in its own mighty right. It is difficult to grasp because human beings have been designing things - from stone-age flint heads to computer chips - for a considerable part of their history. We make things, ergo a super version of ourselves must have made us and the universe we live in. It was a reasonable assumption in Bronze-age societies, but we know enough now to know that it's stupid.

07-01-2002, 03:19 AM	#25
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	River out of Eden by Richard Dawkins - On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it: For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

07-01-2002, 04:57 AM	#28
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Doug Bender sez: "So, if a human fossil, wearing gold rings, was discovered in a pre-Cambrian strata, and both the fossil and the rings were conclusively dated to pre-Cambrian times, this would not falsify Darwinian evolution, and "prove" at least some sort of "Design" (that, since at least humans had not "evolved", they had to have been "designed")?" I sez: Produce said fossil, get it reviewed and authenticated, and I will drop the Theory like a hot rock. It doesn't even have to be a ring-wearing, hominid fossil. Just any, old, out of place fossil will do. How 'bout that trilobite in a shod, human foot print? Authenticate that bad boy and you've killed the Theory as it is now. However, thus far, all fossils are being found exactly where the Theory predicts they would be, the ridiculous AiG and ICR, and Kent Hovind to the contrary. Doov

07-01-2002, 05:28 AM	#30
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Ah, Douglas has returned to this topic. DJB, may I remind you of the list of wonderful designs I�ve told you of before. An updated version is on display in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>. <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001481&p=" target="_blank">Last time I mentioned it</a>, your reply (30 November) was, shall we say, rather comical. Perhaps you�d like another go? The fall routed the laryngeal nerve as it is and put female parts on male flowers how, exactly? (<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001519" target="_blank">This thread</a> has a nice summary of so-called intelligent design.) TTFN, Oolon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.