It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an "intelligent designer"?
It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that "design" proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of "designing" the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own "designer." If "design" can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian "designer" would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another "designer." One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.
Ken Miller and Rick Wood (skeptic and host of the radio program audiomartini) claim to have more respect for young earth creationists than ID proponents because “at least they are upfront about what they believe.” According to them, everyone knows what the real purpose of ID is: it is to advance belief in God. What, then, is the problem with acknowledging it? So why not just be up front and put to rest the accusation of dishonesty?
Here is why in fictional monologue:
ID scientist, (insert Behe, Minnich, Dembski, anyone) is it true that you are a Christian and believe in God?
Is it true that one of the tenets of Christianity is to make disciples of all nations?
Although I acknowledge your claim that ID does not say who the designer is, you do in fact have a personal belief that it is God, correct?
Although I can agree that you are attempting to make observations and religiously neutral hypotheses, the conclusions ultimately will point to a supernatural intelligent designer correct?
Then even though you claim to be using science alone, I don’t believe that your motivation is only to advance science but instead are only hiding your real motivation to convert people.
Points 4 and 5 are problematic. Let’s cut to the chase: Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY.
To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.
For instance, just because I hold to both Christian theism and ID doesn’t mean that God directly designed and implemented the bacterial flagellum by specifically toggling its components. It could well have happened by a process of natural genetic engineering of the sort envisioned by James Shapiro. The design would be no less real, but God’s role in the design would be distant, not proximal.
Philosophers have long distinguished between primary and secondary causes. The problem is that under the pall of methodological naturalism, secondary causes have been identified with purely materialistic processes. But it’s perfectly legitimate for secondary causes to include teleological processes. I develop all this at length in THE DESIGN REVOLUTION.
Originally posted by exsmokingman
oh , the evolutionists , sad little pseudo-scientists descended from rats; can't see them creating anything besides tall-stories
Originally posted by exsmokingman
far from it, their ideas are even sillier than yours. intelligent design by persons unknown........
Originally posted by vuoto
"THE" flaw??? We're talking about a theory that has an invisible guy who lives on a cloud who made the Universe in 6 days and you say "THE" flaw??
Feynman, the great physicist, says that making a theory that's based upon no evidence is no different than superstition.
We're only having this discussion as a reaction to an effort to give creationism the cachet of science. We're dancing to the tune of people who are desperate to make patriarchal religious beliefs a little less primative.
You don' t really have to rebut a theory that's so flimsy. It's too easy, and you're never going to convince the true believers anyway. And finally, that's why it can never be science. Because even if an experiment could be designed that would prove there is no "intelligent designer" it wouldn't convince the believers. And if no such experiment can be designed, then it's definitely not science.
Behe's notion of IC does indeed help us to effectively rule out some of the Darwinian pathways, as admitted by T&U. What is most relevant is that the pathways ruled out by IC are also those best supported by example/evidence and those that are most persuasive in explaining apparent design. The traditional examples of Darwin's finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, antibiotic resistance, and the darkening wings in moths give us no reason to think IC systems were generated by the RM&NS. The remaining explanations for IC are indeed possible, but without evidence to support them, there is no reason to seriously embrace them. Neither explanation constitutes a better general solution to IC than intelligent design. What's more, both explanations seriously weaken the overall appeal of the standard non-teleological explanations, as they resurrect a prominent role for pure chance in the origin of apparent design and/or rely on complicated initial states that may lend themselves more readily to a teleological cause.
Without realizing it, T&U have made a significant contribution to ID.
My suggestion is that if we want to maintain any veneer of a search for truth that we not be quite so willing to engage nonsense. How much different is the Intelligent Design debate from the Serpo Project debate?
You're saying that a concept like irreducible complexity can't be falsified... care to elaborate? How exactly is the naturalistic (Darwinian) model falsified?
External Source BBC Horizon Website
In 2005, the school board of Dover, a small farming community in western Pennsylvania, became the first in America to adopt the theory of intelligent design. The move divided the community and the small town became the centre of national attention. The school board voted to teach the ninth grade biology class that there are gaps and problems with the theory of evolution and to present intelligent design as an alternative.
Dover science teacher Bryan Rehm and his wife Christy believed that this new policy was not only anti-science, but religious and therefore unconstitutional. By promoting religion it was a violation of the law passed in 1987. The Rehms and nine other parents and teachers filed a law suit against the school board. Neighbour was pitted against neighbour in the first legal challenge to intelligent design.
After 40 days of trial, Judge John E Jones III ruled against the school board, stating: "We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Originally posted by Ravenmock1
I think creation was done by pure thought from my Father in Heaven. There is your designer of the design.
It was done by pure thought which modern man to this date has been unable to measure or break down into a science.. Or, has a scientist broken down thought by using math?
With your bright minds, try taking the exponential view instead. So, try starting with mere "thought". Hey we all have it, Right? Its that voice in our heads when we read to ourselves, talk to ourselves and the voice we use to rationalize what are next decision is going to be. Right? I mean nobody even starts their car to go to work without "thought". It's the first thing we wake up with in the mornning. Right?
Now. Is thought energy? Because I do not know.
Can thought be "broken down" into a micro-science? Because I do not know.
Is the mind energy? Because I do not know.
Does the mind and thought create anything or propogate anything. Yes! Ideas! From there I am a blank.