The flaws in Intelligent design

[Jollybear]

To clarify....

"Creationism" in general is a belief that a god or gods played some sort of role in the history of the universe. There are several forms of creationism. For example, within Christianity there is young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, ID creationism, and theistic evolution. Other religions also have their versions of creationism, such as Hindu creationism (which IIRC has something to do with creative cycles).

Fair enough.

And ID has evidence for it.

 

[Jollybear]

It's funny how you theist can't show any objective evidence that your god is real.

Its funny how you atheists miss the forest for the trees when we give evidence to you.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

So let me ask you....how then do you explain the fact that the world's life scientists have maintained the opposite view for well over a century?

Those who were/are not atheists have been reluctant to publish materials disputing evolution because that has been very harmful to their careers.

Are they so bad at their jobs that someone like you knows their profession better than they do?

There are some good books on the problems of the evolution theory, which you most likely have not read.

Are they executing the biggest conspiracy in history?

Well, at least one of the most persistent lines of misinformation.

Are they under some magic spell?

Many of them are apparently under Satan.

 

[Jose Fly]

Fair enough.

Good.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Its funny how you atheists miss the forest for the trees when we give evidence to you.

Oh! You mean the subjective evidence from your mind?

 

[Polymath257]

Its funny how you atheists miss the forest for the trees when we give evidence to you.

Well, at least part of the issue is the nature of evidence.

Everyone knows that the universe exists and that there are natural laws. The question is whether an intelligence above and beyond this is required to understand the structures and order we see.

So, to *be* evidence for an intelligence, at least some discussion is required comparing the predictions of the systems 'natural laws without a designer' and 'natural laws with a designer'. Any evidence that fits equally well into both isn't really evidence one way or the other.

So, what evidence of an intelligence is there that cannot be equally well explained without an intelligence? We *know* that complex structures can be and are formed just from the actions of the physical laws. We know that information can be and is increased in systems having replication, mutation, and natural selection.

What evidence can you point to that goes above and beyond what is already known can be accomplished just by the known natural laws?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Fair enough.

And ID has evidence for it.

What objective evidence does it have?

 

[Jose Fly]

Those who were/are not atheists have been reluctant to publish materials disputing evolution because that has been very harmful to their careers.

Ah, so you believe it's a 150 year old conspiracy among the world's life scientists, who come from all walks of faith, to suppress contrary information.

Thanks for being honest.

There are some good books on the problems of the evolution theory, which you most likely have not read.

First, I probably have read them. Second, how is the conspiracy not able to suppress these books?

Well, at least one of the most persistent lines of misinformation.

Many of them are apparently under Satan.

Well there ya' have it....evolutionary biology is a 150 year old conspiracy that's being controlled by Satan.

Again, at the very least I appreciate your honesty. Not everyone would openly admit to such a thing.

 

[Cooky]

I think the site name should be changed to Non-Religious forums.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uhmn....I don't see how one could refute the idea of an intelligent designer, no.

However, one can certainly go about studying the design. One would use, of course, the same methods that someone who did not believe in an ultimate 'Intelligent Designer" would use. Whether there is an "Intelligent Designer" (God) or not will always end up being kicked down the road, and is a matter of subjective belief.



Of course they are. An intelligent designer of the universe would be God...by definition.

You have a lot of work to do before you can even begin to call it science. First you must properly define your terms. What is "design"? How do you tell what is designed and what is not? Creationists cannot even accomplish this first step. To call something science the claim must be in the form of a testable hypothesis. If not all you have are self contradicting ad hoc explanations and hand waving.

But at least you admit to the dishonesty of those advocating ID.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think the site name should be changed to Non-Religious forums.

Well, it's "Religious Forums", which implies that it's a place for people to come and discuss/debate religious issues. And certainly people from all forms of belief and non-belief are able to do that.

I think what you're hoping for is something like "Forums Exclusively for the Religious", which btw there are plenty of across the internet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not to argue but, no, they are not good at it. They may fool themselves,
or fellow-creos but someone who is educatrd?

No more than i would fool the fans if I tried to narrate for a football game.

That is what I mean. Creationists discuss science as if they were experts when it is clear they know so little and are relying on what they believe to be correct as evidence. Thus the impression that they know nothing about the topic is demonstrated. Much as your attempts to announce a football game would reveal a lack of knowledge of football, if I read your post correctly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If someone insults my faith, then I feel like I should be able to insult them and their mother. That seems fair to me.

Is it faith that is being insulted or claims that are made based on faith and, I would include ignorance there as well?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those who were/are not atheists have been reluctant to publish materials disputing evolution because that has been very harmful to their careers.

I am sorry, but this is merely a bad conspiracy theory. You also place the burden of proof upon yourself when you make such a claim

There are some good books on the problems of the evolution theory, which you most likely have not read.

No, there are a lot of bad books on the problems of the theory of evolution. They tend to be loaded with bad science, strawman arguments, and quite often outright lies, though you could try using a few of their claims and see if they have any legs.

Well, at least one of the most persistent lines of misinformation.

How so? You do realize that no creationist has ever come to be even close in refuting the theory, I hope.

Many of them are apparently under Satan.

And the evidence for that is . . . ?

 

[Cooky]

Well, it's "Religious Forums", which implies that it's a place for people to come and discuss/debate religious issues. And certainly people from all forms of belief and non-belief are able to do that.

I think what you're hoping for is something like "Forums Exclusively for the Religious", which btw there are plenty of across the internet.

Well, maybe I should find one of those, because you people have been disrupting my faith. Thankfully I went to Mass today and was restored. But looking back, I see how much damage was done.

 

[Audie]

Its funny how you atheists miss the forest for the trees when we give evidence to you.

Nah. Its funny how goddies see things what aint there!

When I was an undergrad, I was walking across campus
with another girl. An autumn leaf fell at our feet, and
she picked it up.

"Look", she said, "God sent it to us, it represents the
Trinity!"

"So why does it have five parts?" I asked.

"Oh, so it does! God must have sent it to..."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What objective evidence does it have?

Near death experiences, ESP, alien visitations, UFO's, ghosts, Bigfoot and a plethora of other well established, characterized and verified phenomena. LOL!

 

[Jose Fly]

That is what I mean. Creationists discuss science as if they were experts when it is clear they know so little and are relying on what they believe to be correct as evidence. Thus the impression that they know nothing about the topic is demonstrated. Much as your attempts to announce a football game would reveal a lack of knowledge of football, if I read your post correctly.

They're going by what they've been told by their creationist sources. That's why they tend to repeat the same talking points ad infinitum. The problem is, those sources don't tell them the whole story and how to respond when the talking points are challenged.

So basically, the internet creationists are being set up to fail, which we see the results of here in this forum.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, maybe I should find one of those, because you people have been disrupting my faith. Thankfully I went to Mass today and was restored. But looking back, I see how much damage was done.

Yeah, that's going to happen in an open forum like this. I tend to see being made to question my positions as a good thing, but I understand how not everyone sees it that way.

 

[Cooky]

Nah. Its funny how goddies see things what aint there!

When I was an undergrad, I was walking across campus
with another girl. An autumn leaf fell at our feet, and
she picked it up.

"Look", she said, "God sent it to us, it represents the
Trinity!"

"So why does it have five parts?" I asked.

"Oh, so it does! God must have sent it to..."

And you're the worst proselytizer on this forum.