A Question for Creationists

[leibowde84]

God created in a way that pleased Him. The fact of similar DNA means very little when you take all the differences into account. I could use that same logic to show cars evolved from each other.

That's not true. Cars are not organic organisms and they do not have DNA. Nice try though.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree, you are not a "green ink" user in the sense that I linked. But you do use green ink to technically . . .

No. End of story.

OK, so you use your own, far more generalized definition for the terms deity and god?

My base definition is one that doesn't end up excluding many forms of theism just because they don't look like classical monotheism. I'm not a fan of the monotheist bias that pervades in Western culture and dialogues about theisms, so I'm hardly going to cater to it or indulge it.

 

[PureX]

Alright, I'll respond to all of this together. A "parameter" can be an aspect of a plan, but that is not necessarily the case. They can simply be a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation. But, parameters are in no way able to plan or know anything. Likewise, DNA cannot "know" anything. DNA is information itself. Information cannot know anything, rather information is the stuff that is known.

pa·ram·e·ter
pəˈramədər/
noun
technical

1. a numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation.

Next, you jump to the conclusion that there is a design, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support that. Your entire argument rests on that assumption. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it is, in fact, a design?

Yes, the fact that when followed, the "system" (design) renders a specific outcome, and not any random outcome. Thus, the "system" has been "designed" so that when implemented it produces a specific result. Which certainly implies that intent, even if the "designer" is not known, nor the designer's motives (if there are any), beyond the specific result achieved by the design.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If existence is not an expression of design, then what do you imagine it is that scientists are trying to ascertain through the scientific process?

Accuracy.

We can infer something more or something less. But at it's core, the Scientific process is nothing more than our best method for ascertaining accuracy of observational phenomenon. That's all there is to it.

You're loading and projecting something else onto it if you're trying to argue that Science is the method of "uncovering god's majesty" or however it's usually put. The same could be said for those who think the Scientific process is antithetical to religion. It's not either of those things.

And since, by definition, design expresses a specific result, and not just any result, I don't see how you can argue with the assertion that the result is the design's intent. And that design, therefor, expresses intent.

I'm assuming of course that you're referring to design by a Designer, and not simply the benign design of an operating system. But, again, I have to ask...

Wouldn't any functioning system, APPEAR to be grafted by a Designer?
Wouldn't any successful species APPEAR to be preferred by said being?

BONUS QUESTION
What's the difference between a working Universe with no Designer and a working Universe with a Designer?

It's a very important challenge for your position that is commonly avoided.
*The previous argument that flaws in design are part of the design is not a good excuse - it just exacerbates the logical dilemma of Intelligent Design's main component; the design itself.

And further, if it requires intelligence to recognize and understand the process of designed intent, and clearly it does, then I don't see why one would object to the assertion that designed intent is an expression of intelligence (since it requires intelligence to recognize it), or why one would object to labeling such designed intent, "intelligent design".

You've jumped from A to D without establishing B & C.
In short, the objection comes from your argument's inability to properly connect the sequence.

You're asking me to accept that there is a Designer with intent without first making a decent argument for design, intents, outcomes, or Designer... That's a big problem.

 

[PureX]

Accuracy.

That's a dodge. What is it the scientists are trying to get an accurate idea of, if not existential design?

Wouldn't any functioning system, APPEAR to be grafted by a Designer?
Wouldn't any successful species APPEAR to be preferred by said being?

Yes, wouldn't they, though. Perhaps that's why the vast majority of human beings believe in a creator-god of some sort.

BONUS QUESTION
What's the difference between a working Universe with no Designer and a working Universe with a Designer?

Could there even BE a designed universe with no "designer"? How would that happen?

It's a very important challenge for your position that is commonly avoided.

I see no challenge being posed.

The previous argument that flaws in design are part of the design is not a good excuse - it just exacerbates the logical dilemma of Intelligent Design's main component; the design itself.

How can we know if a design is "flawed" if we don't know the intent beyond or apart the results? You're trying to pass judgment based on nothing.

You're asking me to accept that there is a Designer with intent without first making a decent argument for design, intents, outcomes, or Designer... That's a big problem.

Once you understand what "design" is, you can't avoid the fact that it is an organized process that results in a specific outcome. Which implies that the intent of the process is to achieve that outcome.

 

[robocop (actually)]

In creationism as species get more advanced there does not need to be as much genetic modification... it's like writing versions of a program... v. 7.0 does not need to change as much from v. 6.0 as 2.0 does from 1.0.

 

[DavidFirth]

That's not true. Cars are not organic organisms and they do not have DNA. Nice try though.

Well, apes arent human and they don't even compare to human intelligence. And life has never arisen from non-life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And life has never arisen from non-life.

Except for every single time a living thing has reproduced.

 

[Looncall]

Well, apes arent human and they don't even compare to human intelligence. And life has never arisen from non-life.

How do you know it didn't? Were you there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, apes arent human and they don't even compare to human intelligence. And life has never arisen from non-life.

This is poorly worded. Some apes are human, some apes are not. And stating that other apes do not have the same intelligence as we do is no more of a valid argument than pointing out that no other ape has the strength of gorillas.

Also moving the goalposts to abiogenesis is a logical error. The theory of evolution does not rely on the original source of life. You in effect concede the debate by using that tactic. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

God created in a way that pleased Him. The fact of similar DNA means very little when you take all the differences into account. I could use that same logic to show cars evolved from each other.

No, you couldn't. We know that cars do not reproduce sexually, but (most) animals do.

 

[DavidFirth]

No, you couldn't. We know that cars do not reproduce sexually, but (most) animals do.

There is a lot you think you know that you dont.

 

[DavidFirth]

This is poorly worded. Some apes are human, some apes are not. And stating that other apes do not have the same intelligence as we do is no more of a valid argument than pointing out that no other ape has the strength of gorillas.

Also moving the goalposts to abiogenesis is a logical error. The theory of evolution does not rely on the original source of life. You in effect concede the debate by using that tactic. Are you sure that you want to do that?

Show me an ape that's human.

 

[DavidFirth]

How do you know it didn't? Were you there?

No, but I know someone who was. You interested?

 

[DavidFirth]

Except for every single time a living thing has reproduced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me an ape that's human.

Go look in a mirror.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The fact of similar DNA means very little when you take all the differences into account. I could use that same logic to show cars evolved from each other.

Not unless you can show that cars reproduce themselves.

There is a lot you think you know that you dont.

There's a lot we know that people uninterested in science don't know.

Show me an ape that's human.

Here's a good example of the above.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

life has never arisen from non-life.

That's a religious belief, not a scientific one. Scientists are busy now trying to determine exactly how that happened a few billion years ago.

 

[Jose Fly]

What is it the scientists are trying to get an accurate idea of, if not existential design?

How things work.

 

[DavidFirth]

Go look in a mirror.

That's very scientific.