Intelligent Design?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
The answer is "unknown"--ID doesn't clain to know what kind of intelligence did the "designing"--THAT is what science is all about: questioning and exploring new ideas.

The problem is the assumption of there being an intelligence. ID isn't a new idea, it's creationism with "God" crossed out and replaced with "some intelligent designer". The next step is "how about we call that designer, hmmm.... god?"

It's all based on an argument from incredulity. The world is complex, therefore it must have been designed.

Science is about questioning and exploring new ideas, you're right about that. It's also about being able to use the evidence to make real predictions based on it and developing theories (not hypotheses) that have real explanations for the phonomena explained.

If there is evidence for a real designer, there are millions who would love to see it.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
The problem is the assumption of there being an intelligence. ID isn't a new idea, it's creationism with "God" crossed out and replaced with "some intelligent designer". The next step is "how about we call that designer, hmmm.... god?"

It's all based on an argument from incredulity. The world is complex, therefore it must have been designed.

Scienc ...[text shortened]... f there is evidence for a real designer, there are millions who would love to see it.

ID'ers don't use evidence, they use assumptions.

Originally posted by KellyJayWe do not think of God or gods when we see an ant hill we know ants built it, we do not think of God or gods
when we see a birds nest we know birds built it, life is more complex
and to dismiss out of hand a possible cause because you have a
dislike for what it "could mean in your eyes" is foolish.
Kelly[/b]

So my question to you is:
Why do you think "Intelligence" when you see "design"? Clearly neither birds nor ants are particularly intelligent, yet birds nests and ant hills are quite clearly designed. The whole premise of ID is that you know what you are looking for (intelligence) and you look for evidence for it. If an ID person saw an ant hill and did not know about ants he would invoke intelligence - and then God. In fact, even with knowledge of the ant, you have invoked intelligence. I have no problem with you suggesting intelligence as a hypothesis, but to claim that your hypothesis has supporting evidence or that it is the best hypothesis for the observed facts is simply ridiculous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So my question to you is:
Why do you think "Intelligence" when you see "design"? Clearly neither birds nor ants are particularly intelligent, yet birds nests and ant hills are quite clearly designed. The whole premise of ID is that you know what you are looking for (intelligence) and you look for evidence for it. If an ID person saw an ant hill and did n ...[text shortened]... ting evidence or that it is the best hypothesis for the observed facts is simply ridiculous.

That's not the real issue, though. The question is where the heck is the evidence for seeing 'design'?

Originally posted by Palynka
That's not the real issue, though. The question is where the heck is the evidence for seeing 'design'?

I suppose you are right. An ant hill is actually not clearly designed without knowledge of ants. If I look at crystal structures that occur in nature and an ant hill without prior knowledge of how either was formed I would assume that the crystals showed more signs of 'design' than the ant hill. In fact if I only looked at the outer surface of the ant hill then a stalagmite looks more designed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
ID does not belong in Spirituality, it does not suggest God, gods just
because ID might be real, as was pointed out many life forms can
make things. Simply because life here might require direction with all
the things that are required to occur that does not mean it was God,
but it would mean it wasn't done without a plan, purpose, or design. If
you su ...[text shortened]... le cause because you have a
dislike for what it "could mean in your eyes" is foolish.
Kelly

So you are telling us that you believe in god AND intelligent design? And WE are to believe you don't connect the dots. Come on, how gullible do you think we are?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So my question to you is:
Why do you think "Intelligence" when you see "design"? Clearly neither birds nor ants are particularly intelligent, yet birds nests and ant hills are quite clearly designed. The whole premise of ID is that you know what you are looking for (intelligence) and you look for evidence for it. If an ID person saw an ant hill and did n ...[text shortened]... ting evidence or that it is the best hypothesis for the observed facts is simply ridiculous.

We are talking design the laws/forces of the universe can give us
patterns, things can just happen like snow flakes and rock layers and
so on, basically not hard see these are just the universe doing what it
does with the parts within it.

The idea behind ID takes things beyond what could happen with just
those laws of the universe, you just do not see twigs and other odds
and ends forming into bird nests up in trees due to wind, heat, cold,
gravity and so on, it requires a builder, someone or something to act
with intent along with things like our houses, and a linty of other
things that get built by living creatures. I'm amazed that you HAVE to
bringing God into this discussion, it is almost like you have to use
God to dismiss ID altogether. I don’t see why you do that either if you
can accept bird nests, ant hills, and other things are built why do you
think ID is such a subject of taboo? It cannot be true unless God did it
in your view?

“…but to claim that your hypothesis has supporting evidence or that it is the best hypothesis for the observed facts is simply ridiculous.”

Really, it is ridiculous why? If you accept living creatures do build, with
limited intelligence and greater intelligence what makes that
hypothesis ridiculous? We have agreed even a limited intelligence can
build with ID, so what is so ridiculous? Is it simply because it could
possibly go against your core beliefs that make it ridiculous to you?
On the face of it all I don’t see any reason to say such a thing except
for that reason given all the things we have agreed on so far.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking design the laws/forces of the universe can give us
patterns, things can just happen like snow flakes and rock layers and
so on, basically not hard see these are just the universe doing what it
does with the parts within it.

The idea behind ID takes things beyond what could happen with just
those laws of the universe, you just do not se ...[text shortened]... say such a thing except
for that reason given all the things we have agreed on so far.
Kelly

All well and good, where is the proof? Where is the evidence? The idea that it 'Just Had To Be That Way, Don't You See The Obvious' line of reasoning is just that, a rational, not evidence, Look-all-around-you is not evidence, it's your feeling and your feeling only. For you, it boils down to an emotional argument with no facts to back it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why don't you spend more time worrying about the topic than me?
Have I ever treated you the way you have me here?
Kelly

OK no problem, but in many threads you side step and misdirect to avoid answering questions.

You stop side stepping and we will stop calling you on it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking design the laws/forces of the universe can give us
patterns, things can just happen like snow flakes and rock layers and
so on, basically not hard see these are just the universe doing what it
does with the parts within it.

The idea behind ID takes things beyond what could happen with just
those laws of the universe, you just do not se say such a thing except
for that reason given all the things we have agreed on so far.
Kelly

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

That's ID in a nutshell. It's based on this logical fallacy. If they were to propose some experiments or legitimate mathematical analysis, it would be different, but they don't. They did try a mathematical "proof" but it was not rigorous or valid. It used lots of incorrect assumptions.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No evidence for it? I dont think so, all the evidence is there, the point
is if it means what we think it does.
Kelly

Evidence? Please provide some, anything if you can?

No one has managed to do this since the pseudo-religious movement that ID encompasses began, you will be achieving something great to succeed where all others have failed.

There are enough scientists here to conduct the standard peer review process, which all of our evidence is put through. Lets see how good your evidence is.

Try hard not to side step and actually answer the question.

What evidence for ID do you believe is credible?

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]
you just do not see twigs and other odds and ends forming into bird nests up in trees due to wind, heat, cold, gravity and so on, it requires a builder, someone or something to act with intent along with things like our houses, and a linty of other things that get built by living creatures.

None of your examples are living (birds nests and houses)
None of your examples have parts with a natural affinity to each other

You are re-dressing the "hurricane in a junkyard creates a 747" analogy. I don't expect more from you KJ, but really this is a dead point with no correlation to the point you are trying to drive.

Originally posted by timebombted
None of your examples are living (birds nests and houses)
None of your examples have parts with a natural affinity to each other

You are re-dressing the "hurricane in a junkyard creates a 747" analogy. I don't expect more from you KJ, but really this is a dead point with no correlation to the point you are trying to drive.

That's all he is constitutionally able to come up with, the 'look all around you at the immensity of it all' argument. I think everyone here has called him on it at one time or another, myself at least 5 times, but he has a short memory and is like a recording, not an intelligence. I don't know who it was designed him, but there wasn't much intelligence evident in it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That's all he is constitutionally able to come up with, the 'look all around you at the immensity of it all' argument. I think everyone here has called him on it at one time or another, myself at least 5 times, but he has a short memory and is like a recording, not an intelligence. I don't know who it was designed him, but there wasn't much intelligence evident in it.

I've called it twice and given up. If it could just be acknowledged that it's not a science based argument, it's an argument from incredulity and should be kept from a science forum then I personally would be happy to leave it at that...... Hey KJ can you admit that its just that?

Originally posted by Mexico
I've called it twice and given up. If it could just be acknowledged that it's not a science based argument, it's an argument from incredulity and should be kept from a science forum then I personally would be happy to leave it at that...... Hey KJ can you admit that its just that?

Yeah right.