William Paley's Argument from Design (rejecting, Darwin, Earth, scrutiny)

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

my favorite ID attempt at scientific legitimacy is the "the designer doesn't need to be god" argument. Ok so we have a 'mysterious' not to be named, supernatural designer, but its not "GOD"? A great something created everything with care and precision but its not 'god'?
Yeah, right ID isn't pushing a religious agenda.

as for complexity from randomness, just take a good look at Chaos theory and Fractals. Complex patterns from randomness. Order from chaos.

Injecting the supernatual into science is a step back to the dark ages. IMHO

wa:do

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to painted wolf again.

Dammit.

[kbc_1963]

Originally Posted by truthseekingsoul

Something I've been curious about for a little while,
- why are human creations always created using 'intelligence' rather than 'human intelligence'?
Humans are the only beings we can say have created complex contraptions, so following the ID line should we not propose humans created the universe, and of-course life?

Because intelligence is found in all life, just at varying degree's or levels.
We also can't say exactly what causes it to occur, there is no chemical mixture that magically forms intelligence, so we can't say we are unique in the possesion of that which we call intelligence. Humans have so far exhibited the highest observed use of intelligence and have shown that by its use we can overcome nature by formations that are unnatural.
Here is a further thought, what if intelligence is a force along the lines of gravity or other such natural forces? what if intelligence was the first cause of all other forces.
The first thing we don't know is where it comes from and secondly how it works, it exhibits the same problems of identification that gravity does;
A) it exhibits effects on matter
b) it has no seen method for existing
c) it has no seen draw of power for the power it exerts

it simply exists and we take it for granted.
So, in answer to your positing that "Humans are the only beings we can say have created complex contraptions" we would first have to prove that nothing exists nor has ever existed with intelligence and we would need to show that all things can come about by known and understood causes that are not intelligent.
To assume that all things that exist are there by natural causes is quite a leap of FAITH don't you think? would it not be wise to show by empirical tests that everything can form by chance before making the assumption of "natural" an axiom? Our existence in the universe is very short indeed and assuming there has been no other type of life or higher form of intelligence before our existence would tend to infer that we shouldn't exist either.

[kbc_1963]

Originally Posted by robtex

What we do know is that either a God is needed to make the universe and its contents or he/she/it is not.

True

So by what evidence do you stand either way?

Everytime a genetists sees a cell reproduce itself without evidence of God's presense, or botonists sees a tree grow from a seed in a controlled enviroment without the detectable presense of God there is an arguement that God is not needed to create life within the universe. If God's presensce is not needed to create all life than how would you contend he is needed to create any of it?

A cell is an existing system with ingrained information that it uses to reproduce and continue its existence. even man has created by intelligence computer programs that act without direct action by the programmer, so to form the idea that a system would need direct observable intelligent action in order to continue the existence of an already formed system is incorrect. Where did the information contained within the cell that allows it to continue on its own come from? can random chemical interaction create information? The fact is you have not detected how information occurs or has occured so any belief either way is pure assumption.
The bottom line is this "without empirical evidence, belief in nature as causal is by FAITH and without empirical evidence, belief in unnatural as causal is by FAITH"

By what EVIDENCE do you form your position?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

Here is a further thought, what if intelligence is a force along the lines of gravity or other such natural forces? what if intelligence was the first cause of all other forces.
The first thing we don't know is where it comes from and secondly how it works, it exhibits the same problems of identification that gravity does;
A) it exhibits effects on matter
b) it has no seen method for existing
c) it has no seen draw of power for the power it exerts

You have some ideas concerning intelligence I have never previously pondered. Before I could discuss these you would have to concisely define intelligence for me.

Originally Posted by kbc

So, in answer to your positing that "Humans are the only beings we can say have created complex contraptions" we would first have to prove that nothing exists nor has ever existed with intelligence and we would need to show that all things can come about by known and understood causes that are not intelligent.

To posit:

Humans are the only beings we can say have created complex contraptions

I would have to:

prove that nothing exists nor has ever existed with intelligence and we would need to show that all things can come about by known and understood causes that are not intelligent ????

I don't see why. Humans are they only beings I have seen create complex machines. This is not to say it is not possibile for other beings to have done so. There is just no reason to believe this is true.

What I mean is we cannot say being x creates complex contraptions when we have never observed this. Or being x for that matter.

Originally Posted by kbc

would it not be wise to show by empirical tests that everything can form by chance before making the assumption of "natural" an axiom?

As far as my limited knowledge extends, the theories of natural life do not assume random chance. I would advise reading up as I am not sure.

Originally Posted by kbc

Our existence in the universe is very short indeed and assuming there has been no other type of life or higher form of intelligence before our existence would tend to infer that we shouldn't exist either.

I am unsure as to what you are saying here.

[kbc_1963]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

The point here, is that the "argument from complexity" is actually an argument against intelligent design. Because the universe, our bodies, etc., are so complex and inefficient, it leans more towards a "trial and error" type process than true intelligent design.

by what evidence do you make the assumption that all things are "inefficient"?
can you show something more efficient than a cell?

If there is a designer then the design is probably based on a goal just as most intelligent designs are, and to those that observe a design with no idea of its goal it could seem "inefficient". Why fish with rod and line, when net is more efficient?

"trial and error" can only be posited as to how life and the universe have come to exist if you believe that evolution occured and that life has evolved to higher and higher forms by that process.

[kbc_1963]

Originally Posted by truthseekingsoul

You have some ideas concerning intelligence I have never previously pondered. Before I could discuss these you would have to concisely define intelligence for me.

This is a bit of a problem for anyone to define, since, the only evidence for it is the result of its action right? just like gravity. My best definition is that intelligence is the absense of randomness.
Have you ever heard the saying "tis easier for a wise man to act the fool than for a fool to act the wise man"? Intelligence and randomness can be the two players in that saying.
What can be accomplished by randomness can be accomplished by intelligence but the reverse is not true.

To posit:
Humans are the only beings we can say have created complex contraptions
Humans are they only beings I have seen create complex machines. This is not to say it is not possibile for other beings to have done so. There is just no reason to believe this is true.

you are correct as you have shown, I believed you were infering that the only things that could exist with the complexity of human made machines would need to be human made? was I wrong?
When you say there is "no reason to believe this is true ". what if it could be shown that something had to use intelligence to create an existing object or that an object in existence could not exist by random chance? Would that be enough evidence to infer another being existed that used intelligence.
Many scientists infer intelligent design in the normal course of their work. When something like an arrowhead is found that dates back thousands of years scientists rightly infer that it was a creation of man by his intelligence. so what stops us from using the same rules that apply in that scenario with everything in existence?
What requires more faith - to believe that random chemicals became life or intelligence was used to form life? and with that thought I would also say "by what evidence do you make your stand"?

As far as my limited knowledge extends, the theories of natural life do not assume random chance. I would advise reading up as I am not sure.

There are only 2 ways that life can come to be and the current theories involve random chance as first cause or Intelligent non-random design as the first cause.
Evolution believes that chemicals came together by random chance until something began to replicate then the other evolutionary forces took over for the rest of the trip to what we are now.
What other theories are there?

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

by what evidence do you make the assumption that all things are "inefficient"? can you show something more efficient than a cell?

Can you show me something less efficient than the human knee? Can you give me the reason that male mammals have nipples? Can you explain why some species become extinct in your intelligently designed world?

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

If there is a designer then the design is probably based on a goal just as most intelligent designs are, and to those that observe a design with no idea of its goal it could seem "inefficient".

So - the human knee is a solid design - we just aren't supposed to run on it? The male nipple has a purpose - we're just to stupid to understand what it is? The species that become extinct are serving some "higher" purpose? Oh yeah - I'm buying this line of reasoning.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

Why fish with rod and line, when net is more efficient?

To have "fun" with the fish? Are you implying that the intelligent designer is toying with us? He might not like hearing you say that.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

"trial and error" can only be posited as to how life and the universe have come to exist if you believe that evolution occured and that life has evolved to higher and higher forms by that process.

At last!! You are coming around!! You will soon be embracing the very concept of carbon based lifeforms that are capable of smelling a political agenda when it reeks as badly as ID does.

TVOR

[kbc_1963]

Originally Posted by michel

The ID theory is so full of holes that it has to rely on a - forgive me Orthodox members - Don't question it command, from the church. Why should'nt we be inquisitive ? we are about everything else in life.

I.D. says "don't believe everything a man tells you without empirical evidence to back the foundation of the idea". We ask everyone to look at the foundation of any assertion and find the empirical evidence then form the most logical idea based on the evidence alone.
Let me be inquisitive here;

By what command do you believe that life formed by evolution?
do you have empirical evidence to back that idea?

To believe in anything without empirical evidence is an exercise in faith, show us now that there is no faith involved in your belief based on empirical evidence, otherwise wlecome to theist life!

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

... My best definition is that intelligence is the absense of randomness.

You are kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

Have you ever heard the saying "tis easier for a wise man to act the fool than for a fool to act the wise man"?

This is too easy - I'll refrain from the obvious retort.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

What can be accomplished by randomness can be accomplished by intelligence but the reverse is not true.

Why not? I must have missed that rule.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

When something like an arrowhead is found that dates back thousands of years scientists rightly infer that it was a creation of man by his intelligence. so what stops us from using the same rules that apply in that scenario with everything in existence?

Common sense? Or is it the lack of a need to see the hand of your God in everything in my life?

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

What requires more faith - to believe that random chemicals became life or intelligence was used to form life?

These questions are too easy - I'll take random chance, with an almost infinite number of chances. Then again, I'm not trying to sell my revealed faith to a nation, or trying to convert the minds of young people by manipulating the information that they are exposed to.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

and with that thought I would also say "by what evidence do you make your stand"?

I don't know - how about the absolute void of evidence for the existence of God? Better yet - how about the only argument you have put forth in support of ID being the existence of "complexity", and then unrelentingly begging the question of what caused it?

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

There are only 2 ways that life can come to be

No - this is an Argument from Ignorance. You do NOT know that these are the only two possibilities - while limiting the argument to them serves your purpose, it is not a given. I could likewise apply your logic by saying that there are only two types of people in the world - proponents of ID and those that view it as a politically motivated pseudoscience. Obviously, there are other types of people - even those that have never heard of ID.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

Evolution believes that chemicals came together by random chance until something began to replicate then the other evolutionary forces took over for the rest of the trip to what we are now.

Could you possibly confuse abiogenisis with evolution any more often than you do? After all of the posts that you have written, and all that you (should) have read, how can you not understand the difference? Evolution does not address the beginnings of life on earth - it describes the relationship between lifeforms. Woof.

TVOR

[kbc_1963]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

my favorite ID attempt at scientific legitimacy is the "the designer doesn't need to be god" argument. Ok so we have a 'mysterious' not to be named, supernatural designer, but its not "GOD"? A great something created everything with care and precision but its not 'god'?
Yeah, right ID isn't pushing a religious agenda. wa:do

Science doesn't ask you to believe in evolution without empirical evidence for how it began did it? or does it indeed ask you to believe in it without empirical evidence?

"Ye shall believe that the great randomness caused all things to be that are and this only shall ye believe"
(we will get the evidence for that belief real soon you can depend on us. until then make believe it true on our word alone.)