• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory...

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
OK - how about the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve...this nerve loops around the aorta en-route from the brain to the larynx. In fish (and the fish-like common ancestor of modern fish and mammals) this route is (would have been) more or less direct, but in mammalian bodies with longer necks and the heart sitting much lower in the body, the detour around the aorta becomes increasingly extended. Evolution explains how, once the pattern was set, it would simply have become successively extended to accommodate the detour. As to whether this constitutes evidence of lack of "intelligent design" - I suggest we ask the giraffe - but we won't get very far - the 15 foot detour of the nerve controlling the larynx in their case means they are capable of only a few feeble bleats. But even that is as eloquent testimony for evolution as any I have seen for ID.
Thank you, siti. Excellent example!
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I think it ought to be pretty clear that since I do not accept "original creation/design," it is pretty much impossible that I could even wonder whether life today is in harmony with it or not.

This is very well understood by geologists and others studying the fossil record. It is usually (though not always) possible to reconstruct the geological events that cracked, shifted or bent strata. This is quite a normal part of the science.

As has been repeated until one would think it impossible you could have forgotten it once again, that elephant is NEVER in the room with evolution. Evolution, as a theory, stands apart from abiogenesis and/or creation, does not depend on them, does not reference them, does not care about them at all.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution.
To be honest, while threads like this are fun, the reality is that ID creationism is dead.

It was specifically crafted as a legal strategy to sneak creationist material into public school science classes, following a series of court rulings forbidding the teaching of Biblical creationism in those classes. After the rulings, creationists stripped their material of the overt Biblical material, kept the talking points, and re-labelled the whole thing "intelligent design". But that effort was short-lived, ending at the Dover, PA trial where the judge ruled that ID is a form of creationism, and as such cannot be taught in science classes.

So as a legal strategy it is long dead, and since it never generated any actual science of its own, it was stillborn as a science.

Now it only exists as discussion fodder in religious internet forums.
Wow, are you totally uninformed ! The number of scientists who adopt ID increases each year and includes physicists, cosmologists, chemists astronomers, biologists, bio chemists and many many more. As science advances, more problems with the theory of evolution are identified, and unanswered.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
And - unfortunately for me - I was just reminded of another - headache...I mean who in their right mind would have invented sinuses with a drain hole at the top? But of course its only at the top because I'm standing (well mostly sitting but that's another story) upright. For our more quadrapedally-inclined ancestors, the hole was at the front...which of course brings me to another everyday clincher for evolution - backache...I'm sure everyone can figure out how that relates to bipedalism and gravity...or are we dismissing gravity as "only a theory" as well?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I wonder how many times people need to be told that NO, the theory most definitely DOES NOT propose abiogenesis, before they get it.
Regardless of what you say, virtually all macro evolutionists are atheists who adopt abiogenesis. So, by pretending that they have no relationship, you are attempting to quarantine evolution from abiogenesis, because abiogenesis is unproven pap. So, trace this alleged line of continually improving organism;s backward to the line's very beginning, and you begin with a mystical beast that created itself, or do you propose that the beginning of the evolutionary process is not to be considered ? So for those macro evolutionists who believe the beginning of the process was not a self created organism kudo's. For those who do not, but won;t address the issue, I know why you try the quarantine project
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Wow, are you totally uninformed ! The number of scientists who adopt ID increases each year and includes physicists, cosmologists, chemists astronomers, biologists, bio chemists and many many more. As science advances, more problems with the theory of evolution are identified, and unanswered.
Please try not to label anybody as "totally uninformed." I can't speak for @Jose Fly, (though I suspect he's well-informed enough) but there's nothing particularly uninformed about me.

The very vast majority (over 95%) of all scientists in the relevant sciences accept evolution as fact, and argue only about some points of how it works. They accept, however, that it DOES WORK.

Now, unless you can provide us with the names and specialities of some of these "scientists who adopt ID," then I have no reason to accept your statement.

And beware! I know the theistic versus non-theistic evolution gambit. There are indeed scientists who believe that there was some kind of theistic creation -- but having said that, they also accept evolution as presented, after that supposed creation. And for the record, though some 40% of scientists accept theistic evolution (and 55% accept undirected evolution), that still leaves you with 95% who accept evolution.

(Edited to add: those numbers are in the US. The rest of the western world is somewhat less religiously intoxicated, and the percentage of those who accept theistic evolution over undirected drops precipitously.)
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Shmogie - whilst it is most kind of you to speak on behalf of "virtually all" of the people you most disagree with, I have to declare myself without your description - I do believe (if that's even the right word for acceptance of an established fact) in both evolution and unproven pap, but I am not an atheist. However, being of average height and build I am not sure whether I should be classed as a "macro" or "micro" evolutionist. Perhaps I am one of those "transitional forms" that are so hard to find in the fossil record that we are forced to the conclusion that it all began with a "mystical beast that created itself" - interesting way of describing God I thought.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The real point of any science is to try to find rational ways to explain what we see and experience. Gravity helps explain why we don't fly off this spinning ball, but then it also (almost magically) explains why and how planets orbit stars and satellites orbit planets and a whole lot of other things (including our sense of balance).

The Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory, attempts to explain our trillions of actual observations of what life is, what forms there are, how they are related, what forms there were (i.e. exist as fossils only, with no living examples), and how all this happens. It also tries to explain why the fossils of life forms past appear only separately in the geological strata -- the "written history" of the earth itself.

For most (actually, nearly all) people in the sciences, ToE does this with absolutely stunning accuracy. That makes it -- for them at least -- kind of compelling.

So, let's allow, for the sake of discussion, that ToE is wrong and Intelligent Design is the correct "scientific theory." Well, how might we examine that? We could, of course, do what science always does, and ask, "how does ID explain those things that we observe?"

So, let's propose some questions to see how well it might do that -- and alternately, whether it might not do it very well. I'll post some, and encourage others to think of more in this thread -- but most of all, I'm hoping that the supporters of ID, instead of saying "ToE is impossible" (which is what we always get), instead try to live up to their own belief in their theory, and actually try to answer the questions asked.

I'll start with one of the most obvious questions that I think needs explaining if ID is true:
  1. There are literally thousands of life forms that by their very nature cause immense suffering -- and death -- to many other life forms (including humans, guilty and innocent, very young and very old) quite apparently at random. The list is simply enormous and the suffering often terrible beyond description. So, I ask myself, why would a Designer fashion me -- and at the same time something that can cause me unbearable agony and eventually destroy me? And not just me -- the newborn child who can't possibly be guilty of anything warranting such pain, not to mention the grief of family. If you accept ID, there must be an intelligent, or intelligible answer to this. The theory of ID should be able to explain it. The ToE, by the way, can explain it with almost trivial ease.

easy one;

God created a world with no suffering, no pain, no fear, hate, grieving or challenges of any kind, and this world still exists today.. for jellyfish. And hence they experience no joy, love, learning, progress, appreciation of life either.
Would you trade?
Me neither

Somebody, earlier in this thread, said something like "if ToE is true, then we would have an appendix or wisdom teeth." Apparently this means he thinks that those are artefacts mandated by the Intelligent Designer. There are many other things that are sub-optimal about our design(eyesight and blind spot, dangers of giving birth to a large-brained baby, etc.), and yet an Intelligent Designer should not be expected to choose bad designs, and a perfect designer should select only optimal designs. This is clearly not the case with the human body. Blind selection by ToE would be expected to produce frequently optimized designs, but hardly ever optimal ones -- which is exactly what we see. So, how does ID explain why we are as we are?

Volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes used to be claimed as evidence of 'bad design' before we appreciated their crucial role in supporting life on Earth.
There will always be things we don't understand- where we can point and claim 'bad design'- atheism of the gaps?

  1. The question of why the evidence of life that has existed is so stratified cannot be ignored. Layers happen in chronological order, and nobody gets to insert one geological layer underneath another one crust of the earth. And the fossils found in those layers -- all over the earth -- show a clear progression of species. So, if ID is true, we need an explanation for why the Designer tried so very hard to fool us. ToE, of course, provides a perfectly rational explanation, but does ID?
I will have more questions as the thread progresses -- I hope others will, too!


Yes, if we dig back down through history, we see layers of progression in form and function, various branches, shared traits, some dead ends and regressions, but a general tendency towards bigger and better, greater complexity.

Am I talking about fossils or an auto- junk yard?

I don't know either, because none of these observations support the conclusion that every significant design improvement was an accident. The opposite argument can be made at least as well.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Wow, are you totally uninformed ! The number of scientists who adopt ID increases each year and includes physicists, cosmologists, chemists astronomers, biologists, bio chemists and many many more. As science advances, more problems with the theory of evolution are identified, and unanswered.

Only one of those fields actually matter in regarding to the subject, that is biology. Sadly for your claim the number of biologists supporting ID is very low compared to support in other fields. Look up Project Steve
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes used to be claimed as evidence of 'bad design' before we appreciated their crucial role in supporting life on Earth.
There will always be things we don't understand- where we can point and claim 'bad design'- atheism of the gaps?

These examples of bad design as these an not mechanics which are controlled variables. A number of which can not only destroy a species but millions of species. A design, which is merely a plan, that can be disrupted so easily is not a good plan.

No just you not bothering to understand the topics you bring up.



Yes, if we dig back down through history, we see layers of progression in form and function, various branches, shared traits, some dead ends and regressions, but a general tendency towards bigger and better, greater complexity.

We get to TOE being developed and ID become what it is, religion.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
There are literally thousands of life forms that by their very nature cause immense suffering -- and death -- to many other life forms (including humans, guilty and innocent, very young and very old) quite apparently at random. The list is simply enormous and the suffering often terrible beyond description. So, I ask myself, why would a Designer fashion me -- and at the same time something that can cause me unbearable agony and eventually destroy me? And not just me -- the newborn child who can't possibly be guilty of anything warranting such pain, not to mention the grief of family. If you accept ID, there must be an intelligent, or intelligible answer to this. The theory of ID should be able to explain it. The ToE, by the way, can explain it with almost trivial ease.
easy one;

God created a world with no suffering, no pain, no fear, hate, grieving or challenges of any kind, and this world still exists today.. for jellyfish. And hence they experience no joy, love, learning, progress, appreciation of life either.
Would you trade?
Me neither
Goodness me, you consider that an adequate answer to that question? You are suggesting -- whether you can see it or not -- that this world was originally created, and created by God, for jellyfish. Not for us. Do you have access to the original plans? Was mankind not in the original? That was some sort of ad hoc decision made later?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes used to be claimed as evidence of 'bad design' before we appreciated their crucial role in supporting life on Earth.
There will always be things we don't understand- where we can point and claim 'bad design'- atheism of the gaps?
This is clearly false. The original life on earth arose in an environment wildly different from the one that now supports life -- in forms that did not exist at first, but which created the environment in which our life grew. Volcanoes may provide some volcanic ash to nourish soils in some limited areas, but this not general. And undersea volcanoes provide the nutrients that support some very weird life forms that you find no place else, and which play no part in most of what happens on the planet. Meteors and earthquakes play no role in supporting anything, and earthquakes, which result from tectonic shifts (natural, but adding no particular value) have never been known to do anything but cause destruction and death.
Yes, if we dig back down through history, we see layers of progression in form and function, various branches, shared traits, some dead ends and regressions, but a general tendency towards bigger and better, greater complexity.
Now explain how you can say that without actually and quite clearly by implying evolution?

But please note, I really don't think that your contention is supportable, especially after the Jurassic period. The largest animal to ever live on earth still does -- the blue whale -- but there is nothing on land as large as all sorts of dinosaurs. In fact, much megafauna all over the world has disappeared entirely due to human activity, and as you can find in the papers just today,more than half of all primates presently alive are in very real danger of disappearing completely -- and not in the far distant future. More than half of all apes, monkeys and other primates at risk of extinction
Am I talking about fossils or an auto- junk yard?

I don't know either, because none of these observations support the conclusion that every significant design improvement was an accident. The opposite argument can be made at least as well.
But you didn't make it! You wrote as if you accepted the "accident" conclusion -- which is vaguely like what evolution proclaims. (Evolution doesn't say "accident," it says "undirected and natural.")
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Goodness me, you consider that an adequate answer to that question? You are suggesting -- whether you can see it or not -- that this world was originally created, and created by God, for jellyfish. Not for us. Do you have access to the original plans? Was mankind not in the original? That was some sort of ad hoc decision made later?

I think you missed the point a little there!

I believe God made the world with humanity as the primary intended beneficiaries, which is why he gave us so much more than he did Jellyfish.

humanity being some arbitrary meaningless afterthought of nature is the position of Darwinism is it not?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I think you missed the point a little there!

I believe God made the world with humanity as the primary intended beneficiaries, which is why he gave us so much more than he did Jellyfish.

humanity being some arbitrary meaningless afterthought of nature is the position of Darwinism is it not?
So then, when you said, "God created a world with no suffering, no pain, no fear, hate, grieving or challenges of any kind, and this world still exists today.. for jellyfish..." must I assume that you left out, "...and then he created another one for us, with lots of suffering, pain, fear, hate, grieving and challenges?"
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
This is clearly false. The original life on earth arose in an environment wildly different from the one that now supports life -- in forms that did not exist at first, but which created the environment in which our life grew. Volcanoes may provide some volcanic ash to nourish soils in some limited areas, but this not general. And undersea volcanoes provide the nutrients that support some very weird life forms that you find no place else, and which play no part in most of what happens on the planet. Meteors and earthquakes play no role in supporting anything, and earthquakes, which result from tectonic shifts (natural, but adding no particular value) have never been known to do anything but cause destruction and death.


what created this 'awful' place? The entire Earth would have none of it's dynamic variety of habitats and life without it's design being specific to that end

Hawaii_Diamond_Head-680x330.jpg




Now explain how you can say that without actually and quite clearly by implying evolution?

[/quote]

That would be my point, it sounded like I was implying evolution (to you), yet this description of natural history works just as well for the history of automobiles- i.e. nothing about this suggests the millions of significant design improvements are blundered upon by accident.

But you didn't make it! You wrote as if you accepted the "accident" conclusion -- which is vaguely like what evolution proclaims. (Evolution doesn't say "accident," it says "undirected and natural.")


same again, those observations may imply accident to evolutionists, but I am demonstrating that this is a fallacy. Intelligent design leaves a practically identical record re. these observations.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I receive some deep space radio waves through some old fillings I have in my teeth. I was going to have the new composite, tooth colored ones put in but then I'd lose the treasure trove of knowledge.

Ah, that explains it, then. I was worried you might have some crackpot explanation instead.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
what created this 'awful' place? The entire Earth would have none of it's dynamic variety of habitats and life without it's design being specific to that end

Hawaii_Diamond_Head-680x330.jpg




Now explain how you can say that without actually and quite clearly by implying evolution?
And if I post pictures of spectacularly inhospitable places (also caused by volcanoes) what would you tell me that makes your picture more representative?
That would be my point, it sounded like I was implying evolution (to you), yet this description of natural history works just as well for the history of automobiles- i.e. nothing about this suggests the millions of significant design improvements are blundered upon by accident.
It never ceases to amaze me what evolution deniers can't grasp. If I leave two automobiles out in the back lot, I'm not going to come back and find 3 or 4, nor 2, 1 or 0. There'll still be 2. They won't be better, worse (maybe rusting, if I've waited long enough).

But leave two cats in the back yard, and come back a while later -- there might well be more. And there might be one with 2 faces. Same with garter snakes, only you could get a rare one with 2 heads. Who is doing that? Nobody is doing that. It is just nature, doing its thing with no intervention from anywhere (unless you are prepared to make a case for god whipping up a 2-faced cat or 2-headed snake, both of which will suffer and die -- possibly for his own amusement?)

Nor will your cars, if there's a lot of smog leaving soot all over everything, darken. And yet, you can find moths whose offspring -- under those very circumstances -- will do precisely that -- for the simple reason that the darker ones, on soot, are harder for predators to see and leave more offspring. This is a true and well-verified fact. (Look up "peppered moth.")
same again, those observations may imply accident to evolutionists, but I am demonstrating that this is a fallacy. Intelligent design leaves a practically identical record re. these observations.
Well, not to me, who is aware of things like the peppered moth....
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
So then, when you said, "God created a world with no suffering, no pain, no fear, hate, grieving or challenges of any kind, and this world still exists today.. for jellyfish..." must I assume that you left out, "...and then he created another one for us, with lots of suffering, pain, fear, hate, grieving and challenges?"


cmon Evangelic, it's the same world- which is very cushy for jellyfish and very challenging for us folks, we agree on which one we prefer I think?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
cmon Evangelic, it's the same world- which is very cushy for jellyfish and very challenging for us folks, we agree on which one we prefer I think?
Yes. Both the jellyfish and I prefer the world we evolved to inhabit -- even though, as you say, it is the same one. And we both prefer it for the very simple reason that we are both different creatures.

The jellyfish is neither happy nor sad, fearful nor hopeful, because it is does do cognition. I do. You do. I recognize my world -- and yes I prefer it, probably because I can't have any other -- but I know it for what it is, too. I could be diagnosed with prostate cancer tomorrow, or my lover could be hit by a bus. You children could be taken and raped by Boko Haram, or a particularly virulent flu strain could easily take out 50 million people world-wide. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Good people will suffer unimaginably, and really, really bad people will die, contentedly rich, beside their young mistress in their own bed. Donald Trump, Kim Jong-In or one of those looney Ayatollah's in Iran (or India and Pakistan) could start a nuclear war that would kill millions and devastate our planet for centuries.

If you put all of this under the control of a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient "creator," then I'm afraid I have to tell you that I think you are afflicted with some really, really severe cognitive dissonance. If I call it all "natural," because my observation says "this is the way it's always been, because we evolved in a world in which every creature competes for limited resources," I think that I am probably on firmer ground.

I may be wrong -- but I don't think so.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
And if I post pictures of spectacularly inhospitable places (also caused by volcanoes) what would you tell me that makes your picture more representative?

They both are, we have learned much from those inhospitable places, they give us insight into that very delicate engineering that makes our existence possible, they tell us about the rest of the universe. And to appreciate the fact that nature is not a bouncy castle play pen! Challenges are what drives us

It never ceases to amaze me what evolution deniers can't grasp. If I leave two automobiles out in the back lot, I'm not going to come back and find 3 or 4, nor 2, 1 or 0. There'll still be 2. They won't be better, worse (maybe rusting, if I've waited long enough).

I am thinking of the most successful and populous design in the US within a certain set, that design thrived and multiplied by virtue of it good design, which survived where others dwindled, to be replicated, reproduced in many future generations

Am I talking about the Ford F150 series pickup truck- the most popular vehicle in the US, or ants?

hmm another tough one!

But leave two cats in the back yard, and come back a while later -- there might well be more. And there might be one with 2 faces. Same with garter snakes, only you could get a rare one with 2 heads. Who is doing that? Nobody is doing that. It is just nature, doing its thing with no intervention from anywhere (unless you are prepared to make a case for god whipping up a 2-faced cat or 2-headed snake, both of which will suffer and die -- possibly for his own amusement?)

Does a two headed animal arouse your curiosity? Does it strike you as inherently wrong? And so did they help us understand the importance of maintaining a healthy body and habitat when having our own children? some insight into the formation of new lives?

easy one this time!

Nor will your cars, if there's a lot of smog leaving soot all over everything, darken. And yet, you can find moths whose offspring -- under those very circumstances -- will do precisely that -- for the simple reason that the darker ones, on soot, are harder for predators to see and leave more offspring. This is a true and well-verified fact. (Look up "peppered moth.")

Well, not to me, who is aware of things like the peppered moth....

camouflage is a useful and intelligent design feature where one want's to be concealed yes, am I talking about this
peppered-moth.jpg



, or this?

bv-206d-camo.jpg


I'll give the peppered moth more credit for way more intelligent camouflage in this case though :)
 
Top