Freethought & Rationalism Archive

davidH · 12-01-2002, 07:44 AM

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 ]

pz · 12-01-2002, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by davidH:

Ok, so you would like us all to leave evolution alone and concentrate on +ve evidence for an "intelligent designer".

Ok, here it is.
The utter complexity of our bodies cries out "intelligent design"
It has to have been made by an intelligent being -we are too complex to be brought by any other process.

Bear in mind that when you answer the statement above that I have made concerning intelligent design you cannot argue it with the theory of evolution. The moderator doesn't want this to descend into a debate of whether evolution is correct or not. I started down on that road about the fossil record and statements evolutionists had made and got my knuckles rapped.
If you do argue it with evolution my hands are tied because the moderator will shut down the topic if I go down the road I went down before.

You are free to start another thread to specifically bring up your complaints about macroevolution and the fossil record -- I know I wouldn't mind tearing into them. However, this thread is about the evidence for intelligent design.

If 'The utter complexity of our bodies cries out "intelligent design"' is the best you can do, IDists are in big trouble. That's pathetic. You could try expanding on it here, and explain why it is something more than an argument from ignorance.

Principia · 12-01-2002, 07:59 AM

Quote:

If the shortcoming invalidates the whole evolutionary theory then there is nothing else but to accept intelligent design - correct? Unless there's another theory like we where brought from a planet where evolution did occur and all living creatures where dumped on planet earth.

Absolutely false. This is a Philip Johnson type argument that forces an unnecessary choice. You and E_muse continue to make this principal mistake. In fact, you have answered your own question with the 'Unless' clause. One only needs a little bit more imagination to see that the possible alternatives to standard neo-Darwinian theory are many.

In fact, I challenge you to formulate which variant of 'intelligent design' you are proposing. Is it Special Creation? Is it panspermia? What? Intelligent design is often conveniently defined as 'not evolution.' But we can both see that for the sake of discussions, this definition is utterly useless.

Principia · 12-01-2002, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Ok, here it is. The utter complexity of our bodies cries out "intelligent design"
It has to have been made by an intelligent being -we are too complex to be brought by any other process.

This too is an argument from negative evidence -- note your use of the phrase 'too complex to be brought by any other process. Where is your evidence that 'utter complexity' requires intelligent design (i.e. intelligence is sufficent and necessary for utter complexity)? Where is your evidence that intelligence cannot be explained by naturalistic forces? Where is your evidence that life is 'utter complexity?' For that matter, tell us what you mean by 'intelligence' or 'complexity' without using a circular definition. And when is complexity 'utter' as opposed to 'not utter?'

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

Principia · 12-01-2002, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Bear in mind that when you answer the statement above that I have made concerning intelligent design you cannot argue it with the theory of evolution.

This argument is nonsensical for the very reason that you have made no positive assertion about intelligent design. Of course it makes sense to argue against 'not evolution' with 'evolution.' We can go further with your analogy if you like. Perhaps you would like to posit a completely unscientific explanation and challenge us not to defend it with science?

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

Bubba · 12-01-2002, 09:16 AM

Intelligent design can mean anything. For example, I recently aquired an automobile from a friend for a friend's grand daughter who will be attending college next year.

I could argue that wearing out in "only" 11 years is not intelligent design.

Also, only a few thousandths of an inch of paint, a few thousandths of an inch of fabric, and a few thousandths of an inch of steel inside the transmission and motor are gone. To wear out when 99.997% of the orignal material is still present could be considered unintelligent design.

Thus a Dodge is not a product of intelligent design.

Until you define what type of design you are trying to defend the arguement is meaningless.

Bubba

E_muse · 12-01-2002, 09:45 AM

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 ]

E_muse · 12-01-2002, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Until you define what type of design you are trying to defend the arguement is meaningless.

Good point Bubba. Unfortunately, replying to pz has taken up some time but I will come back to this.

CALDONIA · 12-01-2002, 09:52 AM

Robert Ingersoll:

"You know the watch argument was Paley's greatest effort. A man finds a watch and it is so wonderful that he concludes it must have had a maker. Then he finds God, the maker of the man, and he is so much more wonderful than the man that he could nothave had a maker. This is what the lawyers called a departure in pleading."

E_muse · 12-01-2002, 10:19 AM

Quote:

"You know the watch argument was Paley's greatest effort. A man finds a watch and it is so wonderful that he concludes it must have had a maker. Then he finds God, the maker of the man, and he is so much more wonderful than the man that he could not have had a maker. This is what the lawyers called a departure in pleading."

The idea of God not needing a creator rests upon the philosphical principle of contingent being and the need for an uncaused cause, thus avoiding infinite regression.

God is, by definition, necessary being. That which must exist for all else to exist if you like. If God had a beginning then something greater than 'God' would have to be conceived of to explain the presence of God.

This is why Anselm's described God as "A being greater than which nothing can be imagined".

So, if you conceived of an intelligent creator greater than God, then the new being would be, by definition, God.

12-01-2002, 07:44 AM	#21
davidH Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: N.Ireland Posts: 527	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>

12-01-2002, 09:45 AM	#27
E_muse Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: na Posts: 329	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>

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

12-01-2002, 09:16 AM	#26
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Intelligent design can mean anything. For example, I recently aquired an automobile from a friend for a friend's grand daughter who will be attending college next year. I could argue that wearing out in "only" 11 years is not intelligent design. Also, only a few thousandths of an inch of paint, a few thousandths of an inch of fabric, and a few thousandths of an inch of steel inside the transmission and motor are gone. To wear out when 99.997% of the orignal material is still present could be considered unintelligent design. Thus a Dodge is not a product of intelligent design. Until you define what type of design you are trying to defend the arguement is meaningless. Bubba

12-01-2002, 09:52 AM	#29
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	Robert Ingersoll: "You know the watch argument was Paley's greatest effort. A man finds a watch and it is so wonderful that he concludes it must have had a maker. Then he finds God, the maker of the man, and he is so much more wonderful than the man that he could nothave had a maker. This is what the lawyers called a departure in pleading."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.