The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Intelligent design

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 12th, 2018, 3:29 pm

Syamsu wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 3:20 pm
Is just another atheist, materialist hack playing games. No meanigful argument will ever come from him. And you disallowed calling a generalized structure of creation theory, creationism. That's also just playing games.

Only creationists understand the procedure to prime emotions for honesty and fairness in debate, pay attention to it. Materialists ignore their own emotions, they just focus on the sceintific method. They bring reeking emotional attitudes to debate, they are totally controlled by their prejudices.
I do not think I've ever read such a blinkered bit of prejudice as this. What and idiot you are!
Does the phrase pot calling kettle black mean anything to you??
LOL

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 12th, 2018, 3:33 pm

Syamsu wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 11:31 am
Science is presently full of materialists ...
This is like saying that gymnastics is full of athletes, or that carpentry is full of people who know about wood.
Creationism is no longer science. It is a long discredited theory; about as useful as flat earth theory.

Syamsu
Posts: 2570
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Syamsu » October 12th, 2018, 3:34 pm

Well what procedure do you have to prime your emotions for honesty and fairness in debate? It is obvious you don't give a **** about your own emotions, and you don't prime anything.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Burning ghost » October 13th, 2018, 12:22 am

Will unlock tomorrow.

Just thought it would be a good idea to stop a pointless barrage of insults for a day or two.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Burning ghost » October 14th, 2018, 12:35 am

Unlocked
AKA badgerjelly

Jklint
Posts: 1342
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Jklint » October 14th, 2018, 4:53 pm

Intelligent design means only one thing, the ability of humans to design intelligently whatever their project or object. Only that and nothing more.

User avatar
Kevin Levites
New Trial Member
Posts: 15
Joined: April 25th, 2019, 11:25 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Kevin Levites » April 25th, 2019, 12:28 pm

Intelligent design has always been a touchy subject with me, as it leads to court battles, and arguments over what should and should not be taught in schools.

I simplify the matter by applying Occam's Razor in the following way (in conjunction with ideas from Issac Asimov and Carl Sagan):

If we assume that God (the intelligent designer) created the Universe, then we must ask who created God. If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, then why not simplify matters and assume the the creation of the Universe is an unanswerable question.

Or, if we decide that God has always existed, then we can skip a step and assume that the Universe (in one form or another) has always existed.

As for my take on it, if--indeed--despite this, we still ask who designed God, then we must ask who designed that which designed God, and so on for an infinite regression.

So, the simplest explaination is that there is no intelligent designer, and--therefore--no intelligent design.

Creationists like to hold up the watchmaker argument.

"A watch implies a watchmaker", and then they apply this argument to things like the bacterial flagellum (a kind of microscopic electric motor), and so on.

The problem with these arguments is--in my mind--a kind of "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. We don't know, therefore it must be divine.

It was Hippocrates (the founder of medicine) who said: "Men think eplilepsy divine. If men thought that everything that they didn't understand was divine, then there would be no end of divine things."

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Alan Masterman
Posts: 66
Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Alan Masterman » May 15th, 2019, 8:24 am

A scientific theory needs to address two questions. Does it explain the currently known data? And can it predict future outcomes?

Intelligent design theory fails on both counts.

"Why do fruit flies have two eyes?"

"Because they were designed that way."

"How many eyes will fruit flies have after being exposed to gamma radiation?"

"Umm...."

Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Chili » July 4th, 2019, 7:43 pm

This is similar to the question of intelligence itself. According to reductionist science, any seeming intelligent act - such as of a design - is actually the result of blind automatic chains of cause and effect. Therefore not even intelligent design is the result of intelligent design.

devans99
Posts: 275
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by devans99 » July 5th, 2019, 6:00 am

Kevin Levites wrote:
April 25th, 2019, 12:28 pm
Intelligent design has always been a touchy subject with me, as it leads to court battles, and arguments over what should and should not be taught in schools.

I simplify the matter by applying Occam's Razor in the following way (in conjunction with ideas from Issac Asimov and Carl Sagan):

If we assume that God (the intelligent designer) created the Universe, then we must ask who created God. If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, then why not simplify matters and assume the the creation of the Universe is an unanswerable question.

Or, if we decide that God has always existed, then we can skip a step and assume that the Universe (in one form or another) has always existed.

As for my take on it, if--indeed--despite this, we still ask who designed God, then we must ask who designed that which designed God, and so on for an infinite regression.

So, the simplest explaination is that there is no intelligent designer, and--therefore--no intelligent design.

Creationists like to hold up the watchmaker argument.

"A watch implies a watchmaker", and then they apply this argument to things like the bacterial flagellum (a kind of microscopic electric motor), and so on.

The problem with these arguments is--in my mind--a kind of "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. We don't know, therefore it must be divine.

It was Hippocrates (the founder of medicine) who said: "Men think eplilepsy divine. If men thought that everything that they didn't understand was divine, then there would be no end of divine things."

Truer words have rarely been spoken.
We do not need to ask who created God - God is a brute fact. He exists timelessly. He just 'IS' - there is no tense and nothing logically or temporally prior to God to cause him. Such an entity is a necessity - causality absolutely requires a first cause - else we end up in an infinite regress - an impossibility.

I do not defend intelligent design in the context of evolution - it seems to me that is an indefensible viewpoint, but I do believe that the universe as a whole has an intelligent designer who set the initial conditions of the universe such that it would (with the fullness of time) result in a life supporting universe.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 382
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 5th, 2019, 8:09 am

Syamsu wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:17 am
It is 100 percent proven fact that inteligent design can produce a complex functionally integrated object, as by example of a watchmaker producing a watch. If then we come across a complex functionally integrated object, such as organisms are, then it is reasonable to speculate it was created by intelligent design.
Yes but we are also able to judge the wisdom of a designer that was stupid enough to give men nipples, give all of us an appendix, bad backs, chronic illnesses; mutations. What about teratomas and a multitude of other weird and apparently accidental things.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 382
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 5th, 2019, 8:11 am

Some examples of God's creation.
I offer you the teratoma...

It's a sort of tumor

https://merlinsprague.com/2016/02/12/teratoma/

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 601
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Mark1955 » July 5th, 2019, 3:29 pm

devans99 wrote:
July 5th, 2019, 6:00 am
We do not need to ask who created God - God is a brute fact. He exists timelessly. He just 'IS' - there is no tense and nothing logically or temporally prior to God to cause him. Such an entity is a necessity - causality absolutely requires a first cause - else we end up in an infinite regress - an impossibility.
Well you obviously think so, some of us may choos to differ. The concept of 'first' anything is a product of a limited human consciousness that cannot think beyond the limiited sensory inputs except by describing things in the limited terms that it can perceive. If there was no begining and there will be no end then there is no need for a creator because nothing has been created just changed and our observations of physics and chemistry and biology show that lots of change is going on.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

devans99
Posts: 275
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by devans99 » July 5th, 2019, 3:48 pm

Mark1955 wrote:
July 5th, 2019, 3:29 pm
devans99 wrote:
July 5th, 2019, 6:00 am
We do not need to ask who created God - God is a brute fact. He exists timelessly. He just 'IS' - there is no tense and nothing logically or temporally prior to God to cause him. Such an entity is a necessity - causality absolutely requires a first cause - else we end up in an infinite regress - an impossibility.
Well you obviously think so, some of us may choos to differ. The concept of 'first' anything is a product of a limited human consciousness that cannot think beyond the limiited sensory inputs except by describing things in the limited terms that it can perceive. If there was no begining and there will be no end then there is no need for a creator because nothing has been created just changed and our observations of physics and chemistry and biology show that lots of change is going on.
My view is that every state of the universe is a function of the previous temporal state. If things have existed 'forever' then there is by definition no first state. If there is no first state, then the second state is undetermined, and the third, so by induction, the universe has no present state and does not exist.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 601
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Mark1955 » July 6th, 2019, 4:52 am

devans99 wrote:
July 5th, 2019, 3:48 pm
Mark1955 wrote:
July 5th, 2019, 3:29 pm

Well you obviously think so, some of us may choos to differ. The concept of 'first' anything is a product of a limited human consciousness that cannot think beyond the limiited sensory inputs except by describing things in the limited terms that it can perceive. If there was no begining and there will be no end then there is no need for a creator because nothing has been created just changed and our observations of physics and chemistry and biology show that lots of change is going on.
My view is that every state of the universe is a function of the previous temporal state. If things have existed 'forever' then there is by definition no first state. If there is no first state, then the second state is undetermined, and the third, so by induction, the universe has no present state and does not exist.
Maybe it doesn't.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

Post Reply