The flaws in Intelligent design

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I agree. I saw a thread you had created where you were discussing how creationist ideas seem to be converging down to a couple of claims. But even these are examples where they are only getting half the information. The problem for them is that they only want the half that supports their views based on their belief. It is not the fault of others that they recognize and present those flaws to them. It does make discussion difficult, because they refuse to open their minds and recognize that they are repeating unverified dogma and claims that have not been substantiated.

 

[Bear Wild]

There can be remarkable variations within a species, as we have learned through selective breeding of plants and animals and as we have observed in the natural world. This property enables adaptation, and survival, so it's obviously part of the design and already within the genetic code as written for each species. It does not require that God make any changes or corrections as a species or members of a species change.

What selective breeding and adaptation cannot do is change a species beyond its parameters. It cannot turn one species into another. There is no empirical evidence that such a thing has ever happened and the fossil record offers no evidence either.

Clearly you do not understand genetics. Since any organism can continue to change its genetic makeup and expression all that is necessary for sufficient change is selection pressures, behavior or physical barriers, and time. Selective breeding is what humans do which is one of the misrepresentations of Intelligent design. The fossil record is full of support and is clearly shows that intelligent design cannot be viable. The fossil record clearly shows new species developing over time - it cant get much clearer than that! Variation in genetic code with mutational changes along with genetic rearrangements explains all of that. For intelligent design to be correct the intelligent designer must rearrange the genetic code each time a new species develops. How does the intelligent designer introduce new genetic material in the world or does the designer just appear with a new model when the mood suits the designer. Why are there so many extinct species if the designer knows how to create the most complex and integrated structures. There are so many fundamental problems with the concept of intelligent design all dependent on constant input from the intelligent designer that the argument falls apart.

 

[Audie]

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.


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


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.

OMG, The grim spectre of the WWCOSSTSSTTOG*
again again has been caught raising its rancid head!!

*World wideconspiracy of satanic scientists to
sinfully suppress the truth of God

 

[Audie]

Clearly you do not understand genetics. Since any organism can continue to change its genetic makeup and expression all that is necessary for sufficient change is selection pressures, behavior or physical barriers, and time. Selective breeding is what humans do which is one of the misrepresentations of Intelligent design. The fossil record is full of support and is clearly shows that intelligent design cannot be viable. The fossil record clearly shows new species developing over time - it cant get much clearer than that! Variation in genetic code with mutational changes along with genetic rearrangements explains all of that. For intelligent design to be correct the intelligent designer must rearrange the genetic code each time a new species develops. How does the intelligent designer introduce new genetic material in the world or does the designer just appear with a new model when the mood suits the designer. Why are there so many extinct species if the designer knows how to create the most complex and integrated structures. There are so many fundamental problems with the concept of intelligent design all dependent on constant input from the intelligent designer that the argument falls apart.

We need one fact contrary to ToE, but are not seeing one.
Opinions and assertions wont do

 

[Jose Fly]

I agree. I saw a thread you had created where you were discussing how creationist ideas seem to be converging down to a couple of claims. But even these are examples where they are only getting half the information.

Yup. It's in the interest of the creationist organizations that their faithful followers remain uninformed.

The problem for them is that they only want the half that supports their views based on their belief. It is not the fault of others that they recognize and present those flaws to them. It does make discussion difficult, because they refuse to open their minds and recognize that they are repeating unverified dogma and claims that have not been substantiated.

Yep. As the saying goes, ignorance can be overcome, willful ignorance cannot.

 

[Bear Wild]

If you ever decide to seek God with a sincere heart and a receptive mind, then you will come to know Him as a reality. You will recognize his responses to you. You might even have a miraculous conversion experience. This sort of first-hand knowledge is definitive proof for any individual who receives it, but it cannot then be proven to others.

If you seek to know your place in the natural world with a sincere heart and a receptive mind you will come to know the truth and hopefully before it is too late. First-hand knowledge of our amazing universe is there for anyone who wants to receive it and appears hidden from those who do not want to know.

 

[Audie]

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.

Uh, "announce". Not "narrate". Maybe I should just do the
post game show.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Calling the supernatural an 'intelligent designer' does not change the fact that claims about 'the designer' and questions about 'the designer' are not scientific. Science cannot show God or deny God. Science cannot show an 'intelligent designer' nor deny one.

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.

You can apply the scientific method to anything, but the application does not constitute evidence for the existence to that which it is applied.

[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 5983644, member: 63191At least it looks as if you know that when IDists talk about a 'designer' they are really trying to sneak God into the equation.

Of course they are. An intelligent designer of the universe would be God...by definition.[/QUOTE]I appreciate your honesty about who the intelligent designer is supposed to be. Of course that puts you back to my first response and shatters the illusion that intelligent design is science.

 

[Jose Fly]

OMG, The grim spectre of the WWCOSSTSSTTOG*
again again has been caught raising its rancid head!!

*World wideconspiracy of satanic scientists to
sinfully suppress the truth of God

Since it's been going on for over a century and a half, you have to wonder why Satan is taking so danged long.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Uh, "announce". Not "narrate". Maybe I should just do the post
game show.

I would do no better and I actually watch on occasion and have played American football to boot. Currently, I am on a soccer kick, no pun intended. I would do no better at announcing that and my post game show would be laughable.

The key is that we both recognize that fact and are not trying to tell others that their knowledge of sports is wrong and we are experts. Seeing these 'experts' in action as we have, now that is funny.

 

[Bear Wild]

We need one fact contrary to ToE, but are not seeing one.
Opinions and assertions wont do

Opinions and assertions is all the ID scientists and believers have as a desperate act. The concept if intelligent design as separate from religious belief was devious way to first convince people there must be an intelligent designer then next step is easy - slip in the god you want and say they do not need evidence to show a god only faith. They know they cannot show evidence that there is a god. Much of pagan believers go by gnosis to connect with the god or goddess they identify with realizing there is not direct evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you seek to know your place in the natural world with a sincere heart and a receptive mind you will come to know the truth and hopefully before it is too late. First-hand knowledge of our amazing universe is there for anyone who wants to receive it and appears hidden from those who do not want to know.

I will never understand how a person's beliefs would be shattered beyond all repair by observing, learning and understanding the natural world. It is only if you recognize that many have belief held on such a fragile basis as the deification of the Bible or other holy book, that it makes sense.

 

[Jollybear]

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

There does seam to be a good number of atheists, active on here, thats for sure.

 

[Audie]

There does seam to be a good number of atheists, active on here, thats for sure.

Close. "A number of good"

 

[Cooky]

There does seam to be a good number of atheists, active on here, thats for sure.

It would be okay, if a few weren't such aggressive proselytizers. I feel the same way about the religious ones.

...I just don't like that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Close. "A number of good"

I think we are witnessing the redefinition of atheism to include theists that understand science and reject the intelligent design movement on scientific grounds as well. I suppose the Christian judge in Kitzmiller v Dover case is also now an atheist under that redefinition, as well.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Your assumption of atheists is a form of prejudice since the theory of evolution is accepted by many non atheist believers of all kinds. Actually understanding evolution helps you to see both the forest and the trees. Name me the best evidence you have.

 

[Cooky]

Close. "A number of good"

You take pride in that title. Much more than I do at being what I am. But you're young. We all grow up one day.

 

[Bear Wild]

You take pride in that title. Much more than I do at being what I am. But you're young. We all grow up one day.

That is a misguided statement that assumes you know "the truth" above others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I think the questioning leads to a better understanding of my position. Sometimes it reveals that what I thought was correct turns out not be the case. Also a good thing. Finally, I see different perspectives and learn from them.

If my views were intractable, I do not know how I would justify participation in a discussion where those views are involved. Obviously, some of the core views or beliefs would need a lot of thought and information for me to warrant changing them, but many of those are held in place in ways unrelated to the questions raised in the discussion of a subject like evolution or intelligent design.