The flaws in Intelligent design

[dianaiad]

Surely god is not afraid to reveal itself in front of me and few other people. If other people see god too, then I would know I wasn't see things that wasn't real.

Would you believe the testimonies of those who have had that precise experience?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Would you believe the testimonies of those who have had that precise experience?

Can the experience be reproduce? If not then it is subjective, coming from the mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you believe the testimonies of those who have had that precise experience?

Would you believe the same sort of testimonies by those that claim to have been abducted by aliens?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can the experience be reproduce? If not then it is subjective, coming from the mind.

What is rather amazing is that theists see the problem with that sort of evidence when it is given by those in other religions, but cannot see the problem when it comes from their own religion.

 

[JChnsc19]

When it comes to design, we decide what’s designed by contrasting nature against design. My prob with ID is:

1. We have no other designed planet, similar to Earth, to compare & contrast it to &
2. Even if our world was designed doesn’t tell us who or WHAT designed i

Waste of time IMO

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

What is rather amazing is that theists see the problem with that sort of evidence when it is given by those in other religions, but cannot see the problem when it comes from their own religion.

That is the truth in a nutshell. They all think their religion is the one true religion.

 

[Bear Wild]

As usual the lack of evidence for intelligent design in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution has left its supporters to desperate statements. They cannot show how an intelligent designer continuously redesigns life on the earth nor can they show any evidence for the intelligent designer. There true intent is so clear which is to revert the intelligent designer back to the bible despite attempts to separate the too. It always comes out in time the real motive.
What bothers me is the misuse of scientific information misrepresenting new genetic research. As demonstrated no clear evidence of any kind to support intelligent design. Time to shed the human centric attitude and embrace the natural world. The intelligent designer never existed except in the imaginations of humans who want desperately to believe they are special in the image of their god. In reality the intelligent designer is just imagination from a lack of understanding of the natural world.

 

[dianaiad]

Can the experience be reproduce? If not then it is subjective, coming from the mind.

Pretty much all evidence for deity is subjective. Evidence for every philosophy is subjective, come to think of it.

the problem is, 'subjective' is not a dirty word. Love is subjective. So is joy. So is grief. Most human reactions to the world around them are internal and, er....subjective.

that doesn't mean that those things are not 'real.' Just that they are personal and...subjective.

 

[Polymath257]

Pretty much all evidence for deity is subjective. Evidence for every philosophy is subjective, come to think of it.

the problem is, 'subjective' is not a dirty word. Love is subjective. So is joy. So is grief. Most human reactions to the world around them are internal and, er....subjective.

that doesn't mean that those things are not 'real.' Just that they are personal and...subjective.

When I ask if a deity exists, I am not talking about whether such exists in some subjective sense. I am asking about whether it exists in some objective sense.

And yes, it is the subjectiveness of much of philosophy that is what makes it questionable in my mind. truth, in my mind, means something that is objective. Opinions are the subjective version.

And yes, as you have pointed out, opinions are often of great value and meaning. Often more than truth. But sometimes I am interested in truth.

 

[Bear Wild]

Pretty much all evidence for deity is subjective. Evidence for every philosophy is subjective, come to think of it.

the problem is, 'subjective' is not a dirty word. Love is subjective. So is joy. So is grief. Most human reactions to the world around them are internal and, er....subjective.

that doesn't mean that those things are not 'real.' Just that they are personal and...subjective.

Subjective is personal experience. It is a part of human experience and is valuable to understanding our relationship with each other and with nature. It is useless when trying to explain how life came about on earth. Everyone's subjective is personal and should be enjoyed as personal but to use it to propose the existence of an intelligent designer in the face of all of the evidence to support evolution leads us to incorrect conclusions and worse intentionally creating misleading information in the disguise objective information to deceive others into a personal opinion. This is what makes the proponents of "intelligent design" so inappropriately deceiving. One of the website is called evolutionnews.org. which is an attack on evolution yet the title suggest otherwise. Misleading information is the only tactic "intelligent design" proponents have for their support and that is not so intelligent.

 

[dianaiad]

Would you believe the same sort of testimonies by those that claim to have been abducted by aliens?

Well now, I would expect that alien abduction would have some sort of objective proof. Aliens are not, after all, supposed to be creator deities, are they?

However, if, say, fifty or sixty people witnessed an alien abduction, and they all told the same story, and they weren't all members of the 'Heaven's Gate" group, I might think about taking it a little seriously.

My claim here isn't that "Intelligent Design" (i.e., God) is provable by empirical means. It's not. My problem is that for some reason those who insist that there can't BE a God, even though you can't prove that there can't be one for the same reasons you can't prove that there is one,..and therefore anybody who believes that there is, or might be, shouldn't be allowed to practice science and examine the universe through scientific means: that somehow one of the qualifications for scientists is that they take the same untenable position on the other side of this issue that you insist cannot be taken on the 'yeah, there is one' issue.

I am not arguing that one can simply say "God did it" and call it good. Science is about examining the processes of the universe, whether God did it or not. The only thing that ID folks can say is 'yeah, God did it...now let's find out how," and their results and examinations will be precisely the same as those scientists who leave God out of it.

Those who attempt to prove God aren't going to be able to do it.

And those who insist that because there IS no God that nobody who believes in one should be allowed anywhere near scientific examinations of anything are projecting. They are committing the same fallacy that they accuse the ID believers of committing.

And they will end up pulling a Fred Hoyle; so afraid that some discovery might just support the idea of ID that they refuse to accept facts; real, empirical, objective, facts.

The Big Bang MIGHT support a Creator...but then, it might not, too. Now me, I figure that if there is a Creator God, the Big Bang would be a pretty efficient way to start everything up.

Or not. Doesn't matter. Science is about investigating what happened and how things work, not 'who did it."

ID believers will ALWAYS be able to 'kick the can down the road." that is, if we end up finding a cause for the Big Bang that does not necessarily involve God, well then, what (or who) caused THAT cause?

Those who are so convinced that God does not exist will view every new discovery with a 'Fred Hoyle" eye...anything that they think theists MIGHT be able to use to say "God did that..." must be incorrect. Not because the science behind it is wrong, but because since God does NOT exist, then nothing that even seems to support that idea can possibly be true.

Fred Hoyle.

I suggest that you are being just as irrational in your insistence that there is no God, and because there cannot be one, nobody who believes in one should examine any part of the universe through science. I could say the same about those who insist that there cannot be a God; they are, in fact, more likely to screw up their data and the science than believers. Believers may leave God out of the science (as they should) but they are ALSO not likely to pull a Fred Hoyle. That level of atheist (the ones who are 'strong' atheists, claiming that there cannot be a God) is a lot more likely to get tunnel vision and to not accept data that messes with their world view.

I will say this...or rather, repeat this, since you seem to keep missing it in all my posts; Intelligent Design is a religious position. It belongs in church.

So does the idea that there cannot be a God. Neither idea belongs in astrophysics or geology or whatever field of science is under discussion, because one cannot prove either position empirically.

 

[dianaiad]

When I ask if a deity exists, I am not talking about whether such exists in some subjective sense. I am asking about whether it exists in some objective sense.

Well, if He does, then He exists in both subjective and objective senses....but at least right now we cannot prove, objectively, that He does. We can't prove that one doesn't, objectively, either. The whole thing is up to subjective opinion.

And do remember that since we cannot prove that god does NOT exist, then your position that he doesn't is just as irrational as any theist's position that one does.

And yes, it is the subjectiveness of much of philosophy that is what makes it questionable in my mind. truth, in my mind, means something that is objective. Opinions are the subjective version.

Nothing wrong with that.

And yes, as you have pointed out, opinions are often of great value and meaning. Often more than truth. But sometimes I am interested in truth.

I'm always interested in truth. However, I don't believe that I have to throw Truth (subjective opinion) out of my life in order to deal with 'truth,' or objective facts. Those who don't leave room for both are either sterile robots (or hypocrites who claim to hate subjective opinion but love their families and have fun anyway) or wild eyed idiots whose entire lives are based upon imagination and are usually housed in mental institutions (or else they too are hypocrites who claim to be guided entirely on feelings....but know how to fix their cars anyway).

 

[dianaiad]

Subjective is personal experience. It is a part of human experience and is valuable to understanding our relationship with each other and with nature. It is useless when trying to explain how life came about on earth.

Well, it's useful for the 'primal cause,' but not so much for examining what happened AFTER that. As I wrote earlier, Theists can always kick THAT can down the road.

Everyone's subjective is personal and should be enjoyed as personal but to use it to propose the existence of an intelligent designer in the face of all of the evidence to support evolution

Wait. I know that a bunch of theists believe in the 'Godidit' instead of evolution, but most of the ID folks I know figure that evolution works just fine in view of an Intelligent Designer. Are you thinking about "Creationists?" they aren't quite the same thing as "Intelligent Design" believers.

...leads us to incorrect conclusions and worse intentionally creating misleading information in the disguise objective information to deceive others into a personal opinion. This is what makes the proponents of "intelligent design" so inappropriately deceiving. One of the website is called evolutionnews.org. which is an attack on evolution yet the title suggest otherwise. Misleading information is the only tactic "intelligent design" proponents have for their support and that is not so intelligent.

Well, like I said, most of the "Intelligent Design" believers I know don't have any problems with evolution. Or the age of the earth. Or even how life may have begun on the planet. I think you have the groups mixed up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well now, I would expect that alien abduction would have some sort of objective proof. Aliens are not, after all, supposed to be creator deities, are they?

However, if, say, fifty or sixty people witnessed an alien abduction, and they all told the same story, and they weren't all members of the 'Heaven's Gate" group, I might think about taking it a little seriously.

My claim here isn't that "Intelligent Design" (i.e., God) is provable by empirical means. It's not. My problem is that for some reason those who insist that there can't BE a God, even though you can't prove that there can't be one for the same reasons you can't prove that there is one,..and therefore anybody who believes that there is, or might be, shouldn't be allowed to practice science and examine the universe through scientific means: that somehow one of the qualifications for scientists is that they take the same untenable position on the other side of this issue that you insist cannot be taken on the 'yeah, there is one' issue.

Aliens are just like God when it comes to evidence. They are so advanced that we don't expect to see evidence if they do not wish to leave any. But you brought up a good point. Unfortunately it goes against your claims. The claims of alien abduction tend to have more consistency than claims of evidence for God. And the evidence required for alien abductions should be less than the evidence required for a god. We know that life on planets is possible. We do not know that the existence of a god is possible.

I am not arguing that one can simply say "God did it" and call it good. Science is about examining the processes of the universe, whether God did it or not. The only thing that ID folks can say is 'yeah, God did it...now let's find out how," and their results and examinations will be precisely the same as those scientists who leave God out of it.

Those who attempt to prove God aren't going to be able to do it.

Hold it it seems that you have contradicted yourself here. Now it appears that you are saying a god was not necessary for life to evolve.

And those who insist that because there IS no God that nobody who believes in one should be allowed anywhere near scientific examinations of anything are projecting. They are committing the same fallacy that they accuse the ID believers of committing.

And this is a strawman. Almost no one is insisting that in the world of science.

And they will end up pulling a Fred Hoyle; so afraid that some discovery might just support the idea of ID that they refuse to accept facts; real, empirical, objective, facts.

Which is why almost no one makes such claims.

The Big Bang MIGHT support a Creator...but then, it might not, too. Now me, I figure that if there is a Creator God, the Big Bang would be a pretty efficient way to start everything up.

Or not. Doesn't matter. Science is about investigating what happened and how things work, not 'who did it."

ID believers will ALWAYS be able to 'kick the can down the road." that is, if we end up finding a cause for the Big Bang that does not necessarily involve God, well then, what (or who) caused THAT cause?

Those who are so convinced that God does not exist will view every new discovery with a 'Fred Hoyle" eye...anything that they think theists MIGHT be able to use to say "God did that..." must be incorrect. Not because the science behind it is wrong, but because since God does NOT exist, then nothing that even seems to support that idea can possibly be true.

Fred Hoyle.

I suggest that you are being just as irrational in your insistence that there is no God, and because there cannot be one, nobody who believes in one should examine any part of the universe through science. I could say the same about those who insist that there cannot be a God; they are, in fact, more likely to screw up their data and the science than believers. Believers may leave God out of the science (as they should) but they are ALSO not likely to pull a Fred Hoyle. That level of atheist (the ones who are 'strong' atheists, claiming that there cannot be a God) is a lot more likely to get tunnel vision and to not accept data that messes with their world view.

I will say this...or rather, repeat this, since you seem to keep missing it in all my posts; Intelligent Design is a religious position. It belongs in church.

So does the idea that there cannot be a God. Neither idea belongs in astrophysics or geology or whatever field of science is under discussion, because one cannot prove either position empirically.

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence for ID. The proponents of it do not use the scientific method. That is why their work is rejected by all well respected professional peer reviewed journals. You will find their work only in fake peer review set up by creationists or in the vanity press.

To have scientific evidence one must be willing to take the chance that one is wrong and I have never seen a believer in ID do that.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, if He does, then He exists in both subjective and objective senses....but at least right now we cannot prove, objectively, that He does. We can't prove that one doesn't, objectively, either. The whole thing is up to subjective opinion.

And do remember that since we cannot prove that god does NOT exist, then your position that he doesn't is just as irrational as any theist's position that one does.

That's where I disagree. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist, but I don't believe in them. The burden of proof, as always, is on the side making the positive existence claim. Otherwise, the default position is non-existence.

I'm always interested in truth. However, I don't believe that I have to throw Truth (subjective opinion) out of my life in order to deal with 'truth,' or objective facts. Those who don't leave room for both are either sterile robots (or hypocrites who claim to hate subjective opinion but love their families and have fun anyway) or wild eyed idiots whose entire lives are based upon imagination and are usually housed in mental institutions (or else they too are hypocrites who claim to be guided entirely on feelings....but know how to fix their cars anyway).

See, I woulsn't put the capital T on 'Truth' for the subjective version. If anything, I would use the capital with the objective version. And I don't call the subjective version 'truth' at all. I call it Opinion. Now, as you say, Opinions are very important in life. My Opinion that my wife is wonderful is very central to my life. But it isn't 'Truth'. It is my Opinion.

Yes, both Truth and Opinion are needed in life. But I also think it to be a mistake to use the same word for them both.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Pretty much all evidence for deity is subjective. Evidence for every philosophy is subjective, come to think of it.

the problem is, 'subjective' is not a dirty word. Love is subjective. So is joy. So is grief. Most human reactions to the world around them are internal and, er....subjective.

that doesn't mean that those things are not 'real.' Just that they are personal and...subjective.

Subjective is a good word. Thank you for being honest about the lack of objective evidence for a god. There are a lot of subjective things we deal with in life. But, subjective evidence doesn't prove a god.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Well, if He does, then He exists in both subjective and objective senses....but at least right now we cannot prove, objectively, that He does. We can't prove that one doesn't, objectively, either. The whole thing is up to subjective opinion.

And do remember that since we cannot prove that god does NOT exist, then your position that he doesn't is just as irrational as any theist's position that one does.



Nothing wrong with that.



I'm always interested in truth. However, I don't believe that I have to throw Truth (subjective opinion) out of my life in order to deal with 'truth,' or objective facts. Those who don't leave room for both are either sterile robots (or hypocrites who claim to hate subjective opinion but love their families and have fun anyway) or wild eyed idiots whose entire lives are based upon imagination and are usually housed in mental institutions (or else they too are hypocrites who claim to be guided entirely on feelings....but know how to fix their cars anyway).

Does god live outside of space and time?
Does god live in another dimension?
Science is not in the business of finding a god or gods. If science looked for a god and didn't find one, would you stop believing there was a god?

 

[dianaiad]

Aliens are just like God when it comes to evidence. They are so advanced that we don't expect to see evidence if they do not wish to leave any. But you brought up a good point. Unfortunately it goes against your claims.

OK, stop. That's so....

What the heck do you think my claims ARE, SZ? How you figure that my 'point' goes against my claims is utterly beyond me.

The claims of alien abduction tend to have more consistency than claims of evidence for God. And the evidence required for alien abductions should be less than the evidence required for a god. We know that life on planets is possible. We do not know that the existence of a god is possible.

Actually, given the number of planets out there (you have been keeping up with the count, yes?) the odds that there is life on at least one other of them reaches darned near 100%. Whether or not intelligent beings who can travel faster than light (or can handle the time it takes to travel at speeds lower than that) is less likely, but hey. Who knows? Whether you are correct that the threshold for evidence for them is lower than that for deity may be questionable....after all, proof is proof...it's also true that people are more likely to consider the evidence of fifty eye witnesses to aliens more than you are likely to consider eye witness testimony to God. We do have that, after all. You just don't believe any of 'em.

Hold it it seems that you have contradicted yourself here. Now it appears that you are saying a god was not necessary for life to evolve.

again, what claims do you think I have been making, SZ? I have never claimed that a god was necessary for life to evolve. I think that One was required to start it up in the first place, perhaps, but that One is required to micromanage evolution? I've never claimed that. Nor, even if God did start life, is science about proving that He did. Science is about examining HOW He did; the process. One does not need to know who baked a cake in order to reverse engineer the recipe.

And this is a strawman. Almost no one is insisting that in the world of science.

YOU are. It's the whole point of your argument.

Which is why almost no one makes such claims.

Again, you are. Certainly that's the argument you are making with me, along with assuming all sorts of claims I have not made.

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence for ID.

OK.

The proponents of it do not use the scientific method.

Of course they do. Well, the ones I know do. There are, of course, folks who let their assumptions form their conclusions and ignore the middle, but then that's what you are doing here, it seems. I see no difference between the folks who assume that God did everything and that they can stop there.........and the folks who assume that no God exists, so anything that MIGHT seem to support the idea must be false. Both groups are missing the whole point of science. They are allowing their subjective beliefs regarding God to mess with their examination of data.

That is why their work is rejected by all well respected professional peer reviewed journals. You will find their work only in fake peer review set up by creationists or in the vanity press.

To have scientific evidence one must be willing to take the chance that one is wrong and I have never seen a believer in ID do that.

I have news for you, SZ. I have written before that believers in ID (and I know quite a few of those, living where I do) can always 'kick the can down the road." No matter where science leads them, God can always be the 'next' step, or the next one. Evolution? Fine. That's why we have such a variety of life on the planet. I can't think of a single thing that science could come up with that would DISPROVE God, and we don't have to mess with the facts in order to keep it that way. Belief in God is SUBJECTIVE. Always possible. Never IMpossible.

Are there proponents of ID who don't get that? Sure. I'm not talking about them. They have abandoned science and are dealing in religion. I'm considerably more worried about folks like you, who also abandon science for basically the same reason, but excuse it because, being atheists, y'all aren't a religion.

Except that you are. I mean, really....isn't your whole mindset that because there is no God, nobody who believes in one has any business in your 'church?" To you, it's a binary set; one can be a scientist OR believe in God, but not both.

Now if you were to separate the groups...there are ID proponents who are thinly disguised creationists.

And then there are the ones like my father, who firmly believe in God, but who also believe that God wants us to figure out how He did it; to suss out the 'laws,' to figure out the processes, and NEVER accept 'God did it" as the final answer. He would never have thrown something out because it seemed to support 'no God,' and he certainly wouldn't have figured that he could prove that God existed through his own investigations.

Either God designed the universe or He didn't. If He did, He certainly doesn't need us to protect that idea, and He doesn't need anybody to tweak the evidence His way. Things are what they are. Let's just look at those things and not worry about whether God did it.

And that includes you.

 

[dianaiad]

Does god live outside of space and time?
Does god live in another dimension?

I have no idea.

Science is not in the business of finding a god or gods.

No. it is not. Science is about examining the creation (if it is a creation), not the Creator.

If science looked for a god and didn't find one, would you stop believing there was a god?

Hmmn...I guess you haven't been reading my posts.

No. And 'science' probably won't find Him. As you just wrote, that's not what science is in the business of doing.

 

[dianaiad]

That's where I disagree. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist, but I don't believe in them. The burden of proof, as always, is on the side making the positive existence claim. Otherwise, the default position is non-existence.

"I don't believe in them" is a very subjective statement. I 'don't believe' in unicorns either. I think I'm glad about that. There is just something about the idea of unicorn poop ice cream that makes my nose itch.

that said, since when is it a requirement for one field of study that the investigator claim that s/he 'doesn't believe' in the subject of another? that's what at least one poster in here is claiming; that it is a requirement for scientists to deny the existence of deity in order to BE scientists. One shouldn't mix science and religion--but one need not deny the value of one in order to study the other.

See, I woulsn't put the capital T on 'Truth' for the subjective version. If anything, I would use the capital with the objective version. And I don't call the subjective version 'truth' at all. I call it Opinion. Now, as you say, Opinions are very important in life. My Opinion that my wife is wonderful is very central to my life. But it isn't 'Truth'. It is my Opinion.

Ah...well, your opinion is yours. I use the capital T for "Truth" to apply to all philosophical and religious views because it is historically done that way. The capital T indicates a 'loftier,' more poetic view of grand ideas...very Romantic (in the poetic and literary sense...Emmerson and such). Truth with the lower case t, however, is more practical and alludes to facts that can be proven, not just eligized. I use the two conventions because, well...most people understand the convention.

Yes, both Truth and Opinion are needed in life. But I also think it to be a mistake to use the same word for them both.

Well, (using my own convention here) Truth is considerably more grand than individual opinion. One can spread stars around with Truth, but opinions are considerably less, er, lofty. IMO, of course.