"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

T. A. Gardner said:
In defense of Intelligent Design, how do you who disclaim its possibility know for sure that some "God" for lack of a better term, isn't manipulating some aspects of evolution in such a way that it appears natural and random according to the rules science has produced? How would you know?

That isn't to say we show make much of ID, but dismissing out-of-hand is stupid too.
Click to expand...

It is not about "disclaiming" the possibility, it is about the necessity. If an "intelligence" is, in fact, directing the evolution, we would see some kind of evidence.

Consider the junkyard tornado, also known as Hoyle's fallacy.

If 747 is assembled, you can be certain intelligence was behind it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In defense of Intelligent Design, how do you who disclaim its possibility know for sure that some "God" for lack of a better term, isn't manipulating some aspects of evolution in such a way that it appears natural and random according to the rules science has produced? How would you know?
Click to expand...

True you wouldn't. But Ockham's Razor would suggest that it is not that.

That isn't to say we show make much of ID, but dismissing out-of-hand is stupid too.
Click to expand...

It is not a problem to not propose extraneous causal factors when the ones that are available and observable do everything you need.


When proposing "God" you can just as easily (and with EXACTLY the same level of evidence) propose that it is Larry The Interdimensional Toad who is running everything.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
significant that Miller-Urey was an experiment based on an incorrect assumption of what chemicals would have existed at the time they believe life formed......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#:~:text=The%20Miller%E2%80%93Urey%20experiment%20(or,of%20life%20under%20those%20conditions.

ultimately, all the experiment proved is that organic chemicals behave normally when combined......
Click to expand...

I know Miller-Urey experiment was based on flawed assumptions and it's results were limited to amino acids.

I don't need you to tell me something I already know.


What I actually wrote is that people can at least think up plausible ways to test the chemical cause of abiogenesis.

No one can think up a test for an deistic intelligent designer.
 
Cypress said:
I know Miller-Urey experiment was based on flawed assumptions and it's results were limited to amino acids.

I don't need you to tell me something I already know.
Click to expand...

however, I do need to tell the people who read what you posted, as you failed to mention it......

What I actually wrote is that people can at least think up plausible ways to test the chemical cause of abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

sorry but no......you've tested the existence of organic chemicals.......no test whatsoever has ever been proposed for this hypothesis of a "cause of abiogenesis"......and no one can think one up..........ironically, thinking one up would probably PROVE intelligent design was a requirement.......
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In defense of Intelligent Design, how do you who disclaim its possibility know for sure that some "God" for lack of a better term, isn't manipulating some aspects of evolution in such a way that it appears natural and random according to the rules science has produced? How would you know?

That isn't to say we show make much of ID, but dismissing out-of-hand is stupid too.
Click to expand...

Genetic drift and random genetic mutations seemingly discount the assertion that evolution is being directed by a higher power.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
however, I do need to tell the people who read what you posted, as you failed to mention it......



sorry but no......you've tested the existence of organic chemicals.......no test whatsoever has ever been proposed for this hypothesis of a "cause of abiogenesis"......and no one can think one up..........ironically, thinking one up would probably PROVE intelligent design was a requirement.......
Click to expand...

That's not the way science works.

No one designs one single grand test that will confirm or disconfirm, once and for all, a complex scientific problem.

Miller-Urey was a baby step, but a legitimate test to begin answering the questions concerning the cause of abiogenesis. However flawed the test was, it is significant that the building blocks of proteins - amino acids - were produced from only water, methane, and energy.

No one has ever thought up a legitimate scientific test to begin probing if God exists.
 
Cypress said:
In the context of this thread, I see origins being framed by the questions of why the Big Bang happened, and why intricately complex cellular life arose from inert chemicals.
Click to expand...

Yes. PiMP needs to explain what he mean by "origin" so we can have fruitful discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top