Posted on 04/16/2019 5:55:59 AM PDT by Heartlander
This is, and always has been, a ridiculous argument.
Darwin will eventually be superseded by something else.
That’s what happens to theories someone comes along with a better one that fits the known (at that time!) facts. And so it continues! If your explanation (theory) can’t be modified or replaced when new facts come along you don’t have a theory you have dogma!
P4L
On the micro evolution front yes, but as a way to explain life moving from primordial slime to high level sentient life forms not so much.
Then what is the point? Isn't the question of the the origins of life more important than speciation?
Hey, I don’t set scientific priorities.
I’m just enjoying the results.
I really don't get the idea of intelligent design. It just pushes the problem up a layer. If I understand the basic premise, life is too complex to be a random chance, so it requires an intelligence to have created it. But where did that intelligence come from? This question seems to be dismissed as unimportant, but it illuminates the soft underbelly of intelligent design. Either intelligence can arise without life, or intelligence requires intelligence to arise. So either intelligent design is based on a vague premise or a contradictory premise.
It seems laughable that people criticize evolution because it doesn't explain how life began, and then those same people don't explain how intelligence began.
Which seems more unlikely, spontaneous creation of life as a super simple level, or the spontaneous creation of intelligence capable of creating life.
Yep. Very difficult to prove or even imagine how the primordial soup,the atmosphere, temperature gradients and radiation came together, reacted and somehow ended up producing entities that lived and reproduced is not answered by Darwin or anyone else. But keep wondering, asking why and how and eventually the answers just might surprise you. If you are content with the explanation that it was all designed then enjoy your nap.
It also renders the concept of design moot.
I've yet to have an ID proponent identify anything in the universe that wasn't designed. If everything is designed then saying life was designed is a zero content statement.
For later
It also requires a new term. What exactly is the undesigned designer?
The question of 'who designed the designer' is most famously put forth by Dawkins in his book The God Delusion which fellow atheist Michael Ruse reviewed and stated, "would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing".
1. A known designer is not required by Intelligent Design - you don't need to know who designed the designer when you discover an arrow - you know it was designed. (Can be applied the the fine tuned universe, DNA, rare earth, consciousness, etc...) Intelligent Design is an inference - analogia, a fortiori and vera causa - same as Darwin used to form his theory.
2. We know the universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and if there was an infinite past we would never arrive at the present. Logical reasoning leads to the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an unmoved mover – the Prime Mover. If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes which is logically incoherent (who designed the designer). Furthermore, natural processes cannot create natural processes (circulus in probando). So we are logically left with ‘creation’ from outside of nature.
3. When postulating a creator outside of nature, asking who created the creator would be like asking 'how long did it take to create time' - 'how much area did it take to create space' - 'how much weight did it take to create matter'. Something that transcends time has no beginning(unlike our universe) - therefore no designer or cause. (It could literally have no beginning because there was no such thing as “before” or “beginning” or history when there was no time)
4. From a theological Judeo-Christian standpoint, the question becomes "who made God?" - which means you are reduced to thinking about created gods. I don't know any Christian who believes God was created. It just becomes an absurd question you might hear a child ask.
1) you don't need to know who designed the designer when you discover an arrow. Too simplified and assumptive.
2) We know the universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and if there was an infinite past we would never arrive at the present. There is so much we don't understand and never will understand. These types of statements are pure hubris and have no power to convince me.
3) When postulating a creator outside of nature. Ah ha! Now we're talking. So the undesigned designer is the same as the unmoved mover? This line of reasoning has never impressed me. It uses assumptions and logic to create an idea we are not allowed to question. Maybe I'm just part of the slow class.
4) you are reduced to thinking about created gods. Now God I don't have a problem with. He is outside of time, without beginning or end. I am happy to state that I can not understand His nature. But I thought the basis of intelligent design was that it didn't need a god. But if the intelligence of intelligent design is something that "transcends time" and "has no designer or cause", what can it be? Using philosophy to explain things we can't understand can not build a solid foundation, other than convincing people who choose the be convinced.
All that being said, I think that looking at the world from a designed viewpoint is a viable alternative to an evolutionary viewpoint. I just don't understand the holier than thou attitude of intelligent designers.
Darwin’s treatise; “On the Origin of Species” is of itself contradictory to his theory. If there is gradual change, there can be no distinct species. Think about it... If two fish exist, one which evolved from the other, then there should be everything in between the two. The other point is that biological evolution is competely moot now, because it happens on the order of millions of years, which is currently 6-7 orders of magnitude slower than man’s technological evolution. We are already developing Tsetse flies that don’t have wings, tomatoes that stay red longer, etc. Where will be in 100 years? It is further proof in my mind that man was created in God’s image. He is just like us, only much more technologically advanced.
Lol.. the other 2/3 have very serious cognitive dissonance problems with laws and logic.. AKA real science. They prob believe the hymalayas will melt by 2020 as claimed by science l.
Then it quotes a few selected (secret) ID-adherents in a way to make it look as though they were actually representative of that minority of "Darwinism-dissenters."
This article is designed to be read and swallowed by science-illiterates who couldn't tell their polypeptides from a hole in the ground who - the authors hope - will then regurgitate their "talking-points" to other laymen.
Regards,
“Sorry but Darwin’s insight is still the very best explanation to explain the diversity and complexity of multiple species other than a belief in mystical creation. “
What other non-”mystical creation” explanations are there?
“As I noted before...Darwin cannot address the origins of life.”
Of course it does.
I really don’t get the idea of intelligent design. It just pushes the problem up a layer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.