gnostic
The Lost One
From my experiences here at RF, as well as at other forums, I have noticed that some people think they can postulate "cause-and-effect" of some phenomena, without the needs to present empirical physical EVIDENCE of the "cause".
This topic is about the Intelligent Design's faulty uses (and abuses) of "cause-and-effect" scenario.
In sciences, particularly Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, testing the new hypothesis or existing (scientific) theory require observations of the evidence or of the experiments, regardless if it is the "cause" or the "effect", you would still need evidence for both.
So if you are going to formulate a hypothesis that include "cause-and-effect", then you would need evidence for the "cause" as much as you do with the "effect"...otherwise those advocating for "cause" is nothing more than speculative and highly subjective opinions.
I see YEC creationists do that, and I see Intelligent Design creationists do that too.
They think they can say creation (effect) is created by the Creator (cause), or design (effect) is intelligently designed by the Designer (cause), but are never able show that the cause physically exist, which would require physical evidence to support their claims for some "cause".
Both groups (YEC & ID) frequently used non-scientific sources, and they seemed to love using analogy in their reasoning for the Creator or for the Designer.
But analogy isn't evidence for anything. Using analogy is just comparing one thing to another thing, where they are totally unrelated. Examples, the Watchmaker analogy, the car analogy, computer analogy, the mouse trap analogy, etc.
But in real life, these analogies are faulty, because watches, cars, computer hardware or computer programming, and mouse trap are made by real people, not by some nonexistent invisible spirits, gods or this absurd Designer.
If you want to know who made the design of car's bodywork or the car's engine, then you can actually meet the person, the engineer or the designer, who would have a real job and real place (eg headquarters of car companies), and he or she would have real home, contact number, qualification, family (eg parents), etc.
The Intelligent Designer don't exist physically, so how can something that don't exist be responsible for the design of life on Earth or for the design of the universe?
The "Designer did it", is no better than using the "God did it" adage. It relied on subjective reasoning, which are susceptible to biases.
So if ID creationists cannot produce physical evidence for the "cause" like that of the Designer being the CAUSE, then Intelligent Design is nothing more than pure speculation of some entity that don't exist.
That's my 2-cent on the cause-and-effect. (Or 5-cent, since Australia no longer minted the 1-cent and 2-cent coins.)
This topic is about the Intelligent Design's faulty uses (and abuses) of "cause-and-effect" scenario.
In sciences, particularly Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, testing the new hypothesis or existing (scientific) theory require observations of the evidence or of the experiments, regardless if it is the "cause" or the "effect", you would still need evidence for both.
So if you are going to formulate a hypothesis that include "cause-and-effect", then you would need evidence for the "cause" as much as you do with the "effect"...otherwise those advocating for "cause" is nothing more than speculative and highly subjective opinions.
I see YEC creationists do that, and I see Intelligent Design creationists do that too.
They think they can say creation (effect) is created by the Creator (cause), or design (effect) is intelligently designed by the Designer (cause), but are never able show that the cause physically exist, which would require physical evidence to support their claims for some "cause".
Both groups (YEC & ID) frequently used non-scientific sources, and they seemed to love using analogy in their reasoning for the Creator or for the Designer.
But analogy isn't evidence for anything. Using analogy is just comparing one thing to another thing, where they are totally unrelated. Examples, the Watchmaker analogy, the car analogy, computer analogy, the mouse trap analogy, etc.
But in real life, these analogies are faulty, because watches, cars, computer hardware or computer programming, and mouse trap are made by real people, not by some nonexistent invisible spirits, gods or this absurd Designer.
If you want to know who made the design of car's bodywork or the car's engine, then you can actually meet the person, the engineer or the designer, who would have a real job and real place (eg headquarters of car companies), and he or she would have real home, contact number, qualification, family (eg parents), etc.
The Intelligent Designer don't exist physically, so how can something that don't exist be responsible for the design of life on Earth or for the design of the universe?
The "Designer did it", is no better than using the "God did it" adage. It relied on subjective reasoning, which are susceptible to biases.
So if ID creationists cannot produce physical evidence for the "cause" like that of the Designer being the CAUSE, then Intelligent Design is nothing more than pure speculation of some entity that don't exist.
That's my 2-cent on the cause-and-effect. (Or 5-cent, since Australia no longer minted the 1-cent and 2-cent coins.)
