Who's Intelligent Design ? ? ?

Religion and Secularism
1

Since this is really a commentary on “Intelligent Design” I’ve decide to correctly slot it into the “Religion and Secularism” although thinking about it, in some ways it would fit even better under “Humanism” .

This thread started in reaction to a silly who was trying to explain that the Cambrian “explosion” was physically impossible and required ‘outside tinkering’.

To take that position the Faith-shackled depended on some self-certain assumptions, among them:

All the biological diversification occurred over an exceedingly short time.

That there is no evidence of diversification earlier in time.

That it’s physically impossible for these changes and developments to have happened.

They also are dependence on ignoring the environmental influence on biology.

(Yet only through understanding environments, and how they have changed through time, can we appreciate why a species is what it is, or diversifies.

Only through understanding the natural physical building blocks available can we appreciate what those building blocks helped create.).


In the scientific discussion the monster in the closet that’s rarely mentioned is Intelligent Design - and when it is, it’s beaten right back into the closet.

I believe that’s a mistake. I think rational people need to acknowledge and openly address the intuitive pull for some sort of touch-stone when dealing with the fantastical complexities of evolution.

I believe it would be valuable for scientists to acknowledge our humanity and our mind’s constant wondering about the ‘origin’ and ‘why’ questions - and that we do possess little voices in our heads constantly prattling on.

When seriously learning about evolution, particularly lay-people with no formal deep understanding of the ways of science, it gets overwhelming. The impression of a grand directed pageant is overwhelming and magnificent - that is where the Intelligent Designer comes into play. It helps our minds process the truly overwhelming information we are constantly hit with when studying evolution, or biology, particularly at the molecular level.

I believe that needs to be acknowledged. Besides what does science have to fear, it already has an Intelligent Designer at hand, Mathematics. Don’t we? Why not celebrate that!?

Another matter, much is made of “randomness” by Creationists, yet as I learned more and grew, it becomes ever more clear that “Randomness” doesn’t exist in the natural universe, or evolution. There are constraints that begin with the Big Bang and are further amplified through biology and evolution. Why not celebrate that?

They say people need stories and myths to make sense of the world around them - Why not supply some fact based stories, that are so much more satisfying that dogma driven myths, since they enable a life time of nonstop learning and personal discovering regarding the existence beyond us.

What does the Christian offer? A demand for obedience and constant obsessive worship? Seriously what else do the loud mouthed phony Christians offer?

Me, not only do I have a speck of dust that wanted to be more, I have a worm with no big plans, but boy did her kids go far.

How do we get from a simple worm to all this complexity?

September 30, 2019

Martin Smith - Origins Ecdysozoan Body Plans - What a scientist sounds like.

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/09/martin-smith-origins-ecdysozoan-body.html

 


 

2

The inherent need for an explanation of why we’re here and what started life and the universe, might not be inherent at all.

In the past we thought that supernatural beings were the cause of everything and we only had religion as a possible answer. Now that science explains it better (and is getting even better every day), we have two options, science and religion. If the religion option went away, no one would choose it and science would win the day.

There’s no inherent desire for the answer to be supernatural, there’s simply an inherent desire to have answers. People can only choose from the options available. Show one option to be irrelevant and ineffective, and you’ll be left with the option that works (who needs more than that?).

Why not supply some fact based stories, that are so much more satisfying that dogma driven myths, since they enable a life time of nonstop learning and personal discovering regarding the existence beyond us.
Exactly.

Fortunately many are trying, but there has been millennia of religious integration into society, so it’ll be a long and difficult process.

3
Now that science explains it better (and is getting even better every day), we have two options, science and religion. If the religion option went away, no one would choose it and science would win the day.
I see no evidence for that, but I do see evidence against it. That religions like Raelism have been created or that paganism has come back. I agree that if you somehow wiped out Christianity it would not return in its current form. In fact, its current form is not what it was 100 years ago. But science is by definition counter intuitive. The language of math cuts across cultural barriers, but it does not cut into the human need for simple explanations. To wipe out religion, you would have to wipe out all references throughout history, which means almost all of archaeology and most documents, then laws would need to be passed to prevent any new woo-woo being discussed.
4

@3point14rat, exactly! Except for this:

》Now that science explains it better (and is getting even better every day), we have two options, science and religion.《
I disagree that everyone has to choose between the two. Really, it's only Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity that's in conflict with science, because it requires a literal reading of Genesis. Worldwide, the majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims interpret the Biblical creation story as metaphor; in non-Abrahamic religions, the issue's irrelevant.

For the same reason, only Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity “needs” Intelligent Design. ID is a specific thing. For most theists, god/gods could have utilized natural selection, if he/she/they wanted to.

This brings me to my Huge Issue with ID. It isn’t that it includes a Creator. It’s this mindset:

》a silly who was trying to explain that the Cambrian “explosion” was physically impossible and required ‘outside tinkering'《
As I said above, Intelligent Design is a specific thing. It involves "irreducible complexity," the idea that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection.

In other words, at a certain point in scientific exploration of a biological process, ID puts up a “wall” that essentially says, “after this point, it’s too complex for science to figure out (therefore God did it).”

But at what point does the wall go up? What if the basic concept had been articulated and applied to all scientific endeavors, worldwide? What would have happened to scientific curiosity?

In the past, we humans attributed EVERYTHING we couldn’t understand — night and day, the seasons, natural disasters, birth, sickness and death — to supernatural sources. In the West, the Church did, in fact, discourage certain scientific exploration, because certain things were meant to stay “mysterious” (because they threatened theology).

Suppose, though, everyone would have had the “irreducible complexity” mindset all along. Suppose questions like “Why do things fall to the ground?” or “Why is it cold sometimes and hot other times?” had been met with

 

¯_(ツ)_/¯ " (something like irreducible complexity)"

 

… then what? Would we have ever discovered gravity, atmospheric pressure, the vacuum, gasses, a thousand other things? Because so much of what we consider “common sense” today isn’t innate; we learned it from science.

An example. Below is a very basic timeline of medicine:

1200×960 202 KB

Galen, in the 2nd century, was the first to really study the circulatory system, nervous system and respiratory system. Among many other things, he discovered that the arteries carry blood, not air. That seems obvious to us, but actually, it isn’t. It had been taught that the arteries carried air for 400 years … until Galen studied it.

But what if Galen had never asked the question? Because religious prohibitions against scientific study are one thing; they don’t quell curiosity. But the mindset behind irreducible complexity. I mean: air, blood, stuff goes in, stuff goes out, God does it, the end. What would have happened if the science would have just “stopped” at that point?

5

Okay, I’ll fess up. It was me. I designed everything. Sorry about the whole butthole thing. Not sure what I was thinking there. Nobody’s perfect, I guess.

6

I think that the butthole design is fine. Although hemorrhoids are a major screwup.

7

@widdershins You idiot. You put the gross, smelly asshole right near the …

 

Never mind.

8

I’m in a discussion on Creationism/Intelligent Design on Twitter right now, and someone jokingly posted the 2006 Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron banana video

(yes, it was meant to be serious. It argues that the banana was clearly designed for humans to eat, Therefore God … what is the name of this fallacy again? Argument from anthro-something or…? I forget.)

Anyway, in response, I made this:

 

1066×664 643 KB

9

Funny enough, Ray Comfort didn’t realize bananas have been GMO for a long time. It was one of the first things we genetically manipulated. It didn’t start out in the shape it is. Humans made it like that. Yeah, I had to look it up when I first heard about it.

10

I just love “Then why we still got monkeys?” That’s a classic anti-evolution argument. I hate that guy so much.

11

This is from the rules

(h) Threads that consist of repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling and may be locked or deleted at the Moderators’ discretion.
I'm a moderator now, so I read them and sometimes remind people of them. You can start a thread in "Issues and Complaints" if you'd like to discuss it.
12

Yes Sherlock, you’re posts are repetitive

13
There’s a definite smug tone of superiority amongst many devotees of Darwinism here.
Right there, in your first sentence, you are already setting up the dishonesty which will frame the rest of what you're going to say. People who refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" are attempting to conflate the theory with the man. Darwin had some pretty shitty ideas, socially speaking. But he was brilliant besides. His scientific work and his personal beliefs are separate things.

And also, there are no “devotees” of the theory of evolution here. We trust in science. We trust that the people trained to know more than us about a given subject actually know more than us about that subject because of the training intended to teach them more than we know about that subject. It’s not rocket science to say, “I’ll leave the expert opinion giving to the actual experts”. It’s actually pretty ignorant to believe that you have an opinion to give which is equal to that of the experts.

So in your first sentence you are trying to insinuate that we are sycophants for our acceptance of evolution when the reality is we just trust science in general. I have no special love for evolution theory. I don’t get off to drawings of DNA strands or pictures of transitional fossils. Truth be told I’d rather look at pretty much anything the Hubble telescope generated. And YOU accept almost as much science as I do. You accept all the sciences you don’t have a personal grudge against just fine. You trust science when you get in your car, when you go to sleep in your house, when you buy a coat, when you get on a plane, when you eat a meal, when you get a drink of water, when you buy new shoes, when you go to the doctor, when you feed your pets, when you turn on your lights, when you plug something in…you trust science every bit as much as I do literally hundreds of times a day without even thinking about it. You just don’t trust the ones that don’t say what you want to hear. I am no “devotee of Darwinism”. I just don’t have a personal grudge against any particular science like you do. I am not the sycophant here, you are. I am not picking and choosing what sciences I will accept and what sciences I will not, you are. Evolution is not my holy crusade, it’s yours.

14

Temper, temper.

Holmes: Go **** yourself man.
Are you feeling victimize again? Why? Because we're expecting some real responses rather than your canned shit.

You can start with tackling this:

Widdershins observes: So in your first sentence you are trying to insinuate that we are sycophants for our acceptance of evolution when the reality is we just trust science in general.

I have no special love for evolution theory. I don’t get off to drawings of DNA strands or pictures of transitional fossils. Truth be told I’d rather look at pretty much anything the Hubble telescope generated. And YOU accept almost as much science as I do.

You accept all the sciences you don’t have a personal grudge against just fine. You trust science when you get in your car, when you go to sleep in your house, when you buy a coat, when you get on a plane, when you eat a meal, when you get a drink of water, when you buy new shoes, when you go to the doctor, when you feed your pets, when you turn on your lights, when you plug something in…you trust science every bit as much as I do literally hundreds of times a day without even thinking about it.

You just don’t trust the ones that don’t say what you want to hear. I am no “devotee of Darwinism”.

I just don’t have a personal grudge against any particular science like you do.

I am not the sycophant here, you are. I am not picking and choosing what sciences I will accept and what sciences I will not, you are.

Evolution is not my holy crusade, it’s yours.

15
Sherlock: ...so you are seeking to construct a case against me...
The construction is all yours. All Lausten is doing is pointing to it.

Martyrs impress me only if they are genuine. You’re working way too hard to be one. Don’t rush it. Your ideas are so weakly supported that if you keep trying to advance them you will inevitably be written off in due course, no need to force issue. And the more time you invest the more weight your martyrdom will have.

Thomas More, Socrates, and other martyrs spent ages fighting for their cause, while you’ve been dumping words on here for only a few months. Patience is the friend of martyrs, even fake ones such as yourself.

 

16

Whoa, did not see that coming. This is the guy who posted the 1948 Russell-Copleston debate and said it’s the kind of discussion he wanted. My hopes for that were quickly dashed when he never really tried.

Yes, Sherlock, repetitive posting is something that is done by other people. That’s why I only mentioned it, in a gentlemanly manner. I didn’t threaten you with anything. I only pointed out that this is not some dark web unmoderated free for all. So, let’s get back on track.

I edited out the obvious infraction above, but I’m not the only moderator so I can’t speak for what others might say or do about posts like that.

17
I see, so you are seeking to construct a case against me...
It always amuses me when people think that moderators have to justify themselves. This isn't a democracy with a constitution and a set of laws, it's a dictatorship. And it's that way because this forum isn't a country, it's property. Lausten does answer to higher ups here who he answers to, but the mods. in general, don't need to "build a case" and then prosecute you under the law. The mods could ban me right now just because they don't like me. They don't have to build a case, they don't have to explain themselves, it is their right to control who is on their property, the end. People on these forums often mistake their freedom of speech in American law as extending to every aspect of their lives, including to the point of overriding the rights of others to control what they own. It's simply not true.

And Lausten has proved himself to be anything but ban-happy. He gave me a very gentle warning when I went overboard. As far as reprimands go, it was quite pleasant. And we disagree a lot. And in the one ban I’ve seen him even discussing, he gently suggested that it might be time to start looking at considering to think about taking some action. It was another moderator who actually said, “I was thinking the same thing” and made the decision, I’m pretty sure.

What you are seeing here is not an attempt to build a case against you. It’s a gentle warning to change the behavior which is a violation of the posted guidelines. He’s telling you that you’re being annoying and it’s time to quit before he is forced to do something I think it’s pretty obvious he does not relish doing. I don’t personally know Lausten and we don’t chat much on here, but from what I’ve seen of his behavior here I would place any wager you like on the fact that he’s more the “gentle nudge” type than the “ban hammer” type.

18

These are valid points. If this was my personal forum, I would act much differently and have many more comments on these behaviors. But then, it would be a very different forum. I participated in a StackExchange experiment about religion, and they shut it down after a few months, declaring it is not possible to tightly moderate that discussion. I’m not about to try to be a one-man show that can somehow get these conversations working when they’ve been stalled out for centuries.

My opinion is that internet forums are successful when they find a mix of fun with the dry logic and facts. This includes some creative language. It helps to have skin that is not terribly thin. I’m here to click a button that deletes the spam and occasionally copy and paste from the rules. I hope it remains rare that lines get crossed and the 7 words you can’t say on TV get used.

I won’t respond directly to long lists like this with no links. That’s asking me to go searching for the context and find patterns. If I saw those patterns I would have already said something.

19

ID uses an intelligent designer to explain the origin of the universe and life. This designer must:

  • be outside of time and the universe (omnipresent),
  • be powerful enough to do anything within our universe (omnipotent),
  • know everything about the universe and life (omniscient)
Is there any way to describe the intelligent designer that ID requires and not describe God?
20

Actually, that third point isn’t actually necessary. Were the universe created it could potentially be done by just “kicking things off” and letting what may happen on its own. People actually do that today. We can “created” new elements, but a whole lot of other stuff happens when we do it that we don’t fully understand.

And the second point doesn’t necessarily need to be true either. You are assuming a single creator, but there is no reason to assume that. All complicated “creations” we have actually observed are the work of groups, not single individuals. Henry Ford didn’t design his car, smelt the steel, forge the steel and assemble the parts all himself, using materials he mined himself and machines he likewise designed and constructed himself. And his car was simplistic by today’s standards. I don’t believe I have ever seen a single argument which even remotely suggests that any “creator” cannot be a group rather than individual.

And the word “designer” in that argument is really a lie. A “design” is useless until you “create” it. The word “design” is just to hide the creationism they’re actually talking about. Designer and creator are interchangeable. When you use one, the other is assumed.