Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US

    Intelligent Design Dead End

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Steerpike, Dec 12, 2013.

    In this short video, the presenter not only provides a strong bit of evidence for evolution, but also highlights a problematic response that I find people commonly use on behalf of I.D., which is that whenever there is some piece of evidence that it only explainable by evolution, they just say "Well, god made it that way."

    In other words, if they think they can make a rational explanation that allows I.D. to fit the evidence, they do that, and when I.D. can't fit the evidence, they fall back on "that's how god did it." It's not very rigorous, if you really want to put I.D. on a scientific footing, and it is ultimately more than a little disingenuous.

     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  2. Simpson17866
    Offline

    Simpson17866 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,694
    Likes Received:
    1,244
    I'm a Catholic, and I think the world looks more beautiful when we know how it works, not less.

    Creationist talking about a Rational: "You look at a cloud, and you don't see the majesty of the God that put it there, you don't see the beauty of the world He's made, you just see the calculations about how various water droplets are moving."

    Creationist talking about himself: "I look at a cloud, and I see how beautiful it is; I see how majestic the God must be that created it."

    Rational talking about a Creationist: "You look at a cloud, and it doesn't mean anything to you because it isn't anything. It's just a blotch of white on a canvas of blue that God happened to drop in place on a whim.

    "I could do that too. I could hold a piece of paper against the sky and say that it's the same thing as the cloud. You could call it blasphemy that I would dare to see a blotch of white where God did not want there to be one already, but if it doesn't matter what the cloud and the paper are, if the only question is 'who put that blotch of white up' instead of 'what is the difference between the two blotches,' then God is not an Almighty Creator in your mind, He's just a better bully than you are."

    "How can you say, 'I love God and all of His works,' if you spend your life ignoring the people who try to show you what He has worked?"

    Rational talking about himself: "I look at a cloud, I see flying water, and I know that I can't do that. I can not swim in a lake, think 'this would be more fun if the lake was miles in the air,' and then expect it to happen! That is beautiful in my mind: not obedience, reality."
     
    123456789 likes this.
  3. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    What is Intelligent Design?
     
  4. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    The theory that an intelligence, namely god, must have designed the universe, created life, and so on. The argument the proponents make is that an intelligent creator is the best explanation, as opposed to evolution by natural selection, for example.
     
  5. JJ_Maxx
    Offline

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    501
    If you could 'prove' that the world was created by an intelligent force, i.e. God, there would be a lot more religious people in the world, as faith would be unneccesary.


    I believe this applies to both sides, honestly.

    As an example, it used to be taught that humans and primates were genetically different by only 1%, and this fact was used as a strong argument for evolution. As we now know, this fact just isn't true, and the actual difference is five times more than was originally thought.

    This didn't change their minds, it just weakened the particular argument.

    Both sides have beliefs, and act appropriately considering how strong they believe in those beliefs.
     
  6. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    The degree of relatedness doesn't really hurt the argument. The relatedness is still there, even though as we sequence more and more of the genomes the numbers might change. The argument in the video really kills I.D. unless you think god is the type to do something like that to deliberately trick people.
     
  7. Aled James Taylor
    Offline

    Aled James Taylor Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2013
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    462
    Location:
    UK
    The difference is that the beliefs of scientists are backed up by evidence and logical argument and the beliefs of religious people are backed up by wishful thinking.

    Scientists look at the universe and ask, 'what story does this tell?' and they find that it tells a story of billions of years and gradual change. You may argue that an all powerful god could have created it this way but if that is the case then the universe would be fundamentally deceptive in nature (appearing to be something that it is not) and that would make it's creator a deceiver. But isn't 'deceiver' the title normally associated with the devil.
     
  8. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    But what about religious people who are scientists? And not every atheist/agnostic is a scientist.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  9. JJ_Maxx
    Offline

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    501
    This is not true. There are countless peices of evidence for creation. It may be your opinion that creationism has no evidence, but it's not a fact in the slightest.

    Deceptive? Not quite. If we assume that God created all the biological processes in the Universe, one would have to believe that He created them in mid-process, with the ability to adapt and continue on their own. He didn't create a bunch of seeds in the ground and wait around for them to grow, he created full grown trees and forests with the capability and processes to be self-sustainable.
     
  10. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    On second thought, why the hell do we even care? Its kind of ridiculous that we spend SO MUCH time on this, yet we have countless diseases and social injustices that no body has bothered to cure or work on.
     
    Aled James Taylor likes this.
  11. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    What evidence? Seems to me it is a matter of faith.
     
  12. JJ_Maxx
    Offline

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    501
    It would be impossible for me to give you any sort of comprehensive list, but things such as irreducibly complex systems, like flagella in bacterium is an example.
     
  13. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    :confused:What is flagella? o_O
     
  14. Cogito
    Offline

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    35,935
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    A single celled organism that propels itself by means of a whip-like appendage.
     
  15. JJ_Maxx
    Offline

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    501
    From Wikipedia:

     
  16. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    A flagellum is a structure in certain bacteria and other cells that allows them to move along. It spins kind of like a propeller.

    @JJ_Maxx - that's not really evidence of Creation. It's basically just taking a lack of explanation (assuming there isn't an adequate explanation) and saying that since we can't explain it, it had to be Created. What I am asking is whether there is any affirmative evidence of Creationism, not just an inference from a lack of other explanations.
     
  17. Andrae Smith
    Offline

    Andrae Smith Gone exploring... in the inner realm... Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Location:
    Wandering
    Another thread on evolution/science vs. religion? One day we'll get burnt out on this debate (I hope)... :p

    No offense to the original poster or anyone participating. We've just seen this quite a bit in the last few months-- that is, if my memory serves me right.
     
    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh likes this.
  18. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    It is worth noting, also, that there are evolutionary explanations for flagella based on other, what might be precursor structures seen in some organisms.

    But the reason I don't like the "we can't explain it any other way, so it had to be god" arguments is that's always how the transition from religion to science has worked. At one point, storms were the work of god, because people couldn't explain them any other way. Now we can explain them. Illness was considered to be an act of god, because there was no explanation. Now we understand disease. So even if we don't have another explanation for something now, that doesn't mean it isn't explainable by science and that god must necessarily be resorted to.

    I'd like to see Creationists offer positive proof of Creationism, where the evidence affirmatively supports the hypothesis.
     
  19. JJ_Maxx
    Offline

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    501
    That's not what I'm saying at all. It is a positive argument for my beliefs, not a negative argument against evolution.

    You do realize there is no positive proof of evolution, where the evidence affirmatively supports the hypothesis, right?

    Let me ask you this, what evidence would you require to 'prove positive' creationism? I honeslty don't think you can give me an answer because any answer, no matter how concrete, will be waved away with the 'we don't know yet' adage.
     
  20. JJ_Maxx
    Offline

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    501
    That's my problem is that people say, 'I don't know what this is, but I know it isn't God.'

    Two heads of the same coin.
     
  21. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    That's not the case. Evolutionary theory has been very successful, and there is a lot of evidence to support it. What you may mean, and what is true, is that there is no direct observational evidence regarding the initial evolution of life, but as far as evolutionary processes go, there is a lot of observation, prediction, and so on that supports evolutionary biology. In fact, the video I linked gets at one prediction that was confirmed by observation.
     
  22. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    I don't think it is quite the same. On the one hand, someone says "I don't know, but I have this piece and that piece and this other piece of scientific evidence, and based on that I'm going to extrapolate and say it is X."

    In the other case, someone says "I don't know, and based on no evidence whatsoever I'm going to say it is Y."

    Both are talking about things they don't know the answer to with absolute certainty, but one is making a better case in my view. Even if they are both wrong, one is likely closer to the truth than the other. There are degrees of wrongness. If I say 2+2=3.9 and you say 2+2=green, we're both wrong, but I'm on the right track :)
     
  23. JJ_Maxx
    Offline

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    501
    But there is evidence, that's what I'm saying and what you don't understand.

    I believe in adaptation of species and biological changes over time, I just don't believe in the theory of evolution as an origin of species, that's all.

    I say, 'I believe God created the Universe and everything in it and here is my evidence...' and I give my evidence for my beliefs. Now you will attempt to refute my evidence and we will eventually have to decide personally which side we believe.

    In the end nobody knows and evidence, as history has shown repeatedly, is open to change, interpretation and bias.

    Only thing we can do is decide is what we believe and respect those who don't.
     
  24. Garball
    Offline

    Garball Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand. Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    2,846
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Location:
    S'port, LA
    I believe people who take the creation story literally are limiting God due to lack of understanding. There are tons of parallels between the first three paragraphs of Genesis and the Cliff's Notes to the Big Bang when you take the timeline out of the story.

    Imagine what it would be like trying to explain to somebody thirty-eight hundred years ago how to get from Paris to Albuquerque. They did not have the julian calendar to denote times and lengths of days. The units to measure distance were different. What the fuck is an airplane?

    What is amazing is actually how close a four thousand plus year old story is to how scientists best understand how the universe began. If you believe in God and you are here today, you are evidence of creation. Who cares how He did it, just care that He did.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  25. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    I don't know if I will. I haven't seen the evidence yet.

    But one thing I wonder about Creationists is why not be content with saying it is a matter of faith. Why not just say you believe god lies in the gaps of our understanding and leave it at that? Why the attempt to turn creationism into a kind of science and inject it into science class (not saying you're doing that, just that there are those who do).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page