"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

AProudLefty said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why? If the intelligence were sufficiently, well, intelligent, couldn't it make it look like it was not intelligently designed? You are using the McNamara fallacy. That is, you are saying if it can't be quantified or identified as intelligent while discounting any other explanations then it isn't intelligent design.

Intelligent design doesn't require Hoyle's fallacy either. Why? Because an intelligent designer over millennia might slowly change things bit by bit watching the outcome before moving to the next change. It doesn't have to occur all at once for intelligent design to be present.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Why? If the intelligence were sufficiently, well, intelligent, couldn't it make it look like it was not intelligently designed? You are using the McNamara fallacy. That is, you are saying if it can't be quantified or identified as intelligent while discounting any other explanations then it isn't intelligent design.

Intelligent design doesn't require Hoyle's fallacy either. Why? Because an intelligent designer over millennia might slowly change things bit by bit watching the outcome before moving to the next change. It doesn't have to occur all at once for intelligent design to be present.
Click to expand...

Then why posit a designer?
 
Perry Phimosis said:
True you wouldn't. But Ockham's Razor would suggest that it is not that.
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.
Click to expand...

You are making the same fallacy APL is. That is, the McNamara fallacy. You are claiming if it isn't quantifiable, measurable, and observable then it isn't happening. That's the problem here. You have no idea what an intelligent designer might be doing. If the changes were occurring slowly over millennia it might appear natural to the human observer. It's wrong to simply throw out the idea on the basis that it hasn't been observed by current means.
 
BidenPresident said:
Then why posit a designer?
Click to expand...

Why not? The idea has some merit. It doesn't deserve being made more than a very basic theoretical concept at this point however. Think about this. 100 years ago we had ZERO idea what the bottom of the oceans looked like. We had no idea about plate tectonics. The existence of other galaxies had yet to occur. Yet, you can't fathom that there could be something greater than us in the universe and that something is occasionally tweaking things here to go towards a planned outcome?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Why not? The idea has some merit. It doesn't deserve being made more than a very basic theoretical concept at this point however. Think about this. 100 years ago we had ZERO idea what the bottom of the oceans looked like. We had no idea about plate tectonics. The existence of other galaxies had yet to occur. Yet, you can't fathom that there could be something greater than us in the universe and that something is occasionally tweaking things here to go towards a planned outcome?
Click to expand...

You mean the God of the Bible? Yes, I learned that as a 12 year old. What about it?
 
BidenPresident said:
You mean the God of the Bible? Yes, I learned that as a 12 year old. What about it?
Click to expand...

No, I mean some generalized god or gods of some sort. Call them the Q if you want. I can conceptualize that there can and probably are intelligences within the universe that are greater than me and humanity in their ability to both think and manipulate things.

1703060-Arthur-C-Clarke-Quote-Any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is.jpg
 
BidenPresident said:
A logical fallacy is an error in inference. You are merely disputing what someone says.
Click to expand...

It is erroneous to entirely dismiss intelligent design as a concept. By doing so, you are committing a McNamara fallacy. You are saying intelligent design cannot be occurring or exist because you can't measure or observe it. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, only that you haven't got the means to recognize it is, if it is.
 
BidenPresident said:
No, I deny it is coherent or rational. It is possible the universe is sitting atop a giant tortoise, but why posit it if there is no way to discern if it is true.
Click to expand...

Then you deny the possibility. You are saying it's irrational and incoherent. It is neither. It isn't a provable theory, but then again, Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't entirely provable when he published it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then you deny the possibility. You are saying it's irrational and incoherent. It is neither. It isn't a provable theory, but then again, Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't entirely provable when he published it.
Click to expand...

What does Einstein have to do with the discussion? You say God designed the universe. I asked you, how we can investigate God? Every cause has to be demonstrable.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Why? If the intelligence were sufficiently, well, intelligent, couldn't it make it look like it was not intelligently designed? You are using the McNamara fallacy. That is, you are saying if it can't be quantified or identified as intelligent while discounting any other explanations then it isn't intelligent design.
Click to expand...

Is intelligence necessary in the study of the theory of evolution? Yes or no?

Intelligent design doesn't require Hoyle's fallacy either. Why? Because an intelligent designer over millennia might slowly change things bit by bit watching the outcome before moving to the next change. It doesn't have to occur all at once for intelligent design to be present.
Click to expand...

In other words, this "intelligence" keep imputing the changes in the evolutionary process.
 
BidenPresident said:
What does Einstein have to do with the discussion? You say God designed the universe. I asked you, how we can investigate God? Every cause has to be demonstrable.
Click to expand...

Now you are trying to poison the well by making claims about things I never said. All I claimed was that there is the possibility of a greater intelligence than us in the universe and that intelligence is in part guiding things on this planet. It is possible. It is also possible that it cannot be detected or measured by our current understanding and technology.

For example, in the fifth century BC, the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus postulated that matter--tangible stuff--was made up of invisible particles they couldn't identify. They called these atomos. It would be centuries before they were proven correct.

What's to say the same thing is true about an intelligent designer? As a theory, it holds credibility. Beyond that, it is not something that can be taught. Thus, the idea is valid, teaching it from a biblical standpoint would be wrong and ill-advised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top