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: 1315
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: 3
Joined: Today, 11:25 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Kevin Levites » Today, 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.

Post Reply