The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker

RussP.us ^ | 2006-01-06 | Russ Paielli

[RussP]

If you like this article, please send the link to your friends. Thanks.

[RussP]

Darn, I forgot to put the link for the article:

http://RussP.us/Dawkins.htm

[Restorer]

I liked the part about SNR. I hadn't heard it explained that way before, but it makes a lot of sense.

[somniferum]

bump for later

[Eagles6]

Bump.

[Lakeshark]

ping to you before the evo nazis get here.

This guys work is pretty impressive, very intelligent and thoughtful........so before you write ID off, actually read about it for a change.

[phantomworker]

Sharkey, this article is silly. What do you want to discuss?

[RussP]

Thanks. I'm sure all the evolutionists will agree. 8^)

[Coyoteman]

evo nazis

This thread got all the way to post 6 before "nazis" was used. Can Hitler, Stalin and the rest be far behind?

[Servant of the 9]

Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ...

Tell that to the child with serious birth defects, or cancer.

So9

[phantomworker]

I am an evo naz! I am waiting for your challenge! LOL!!!

Where'd you go, Sharkey? I just had a shower, turned on some groovy tunes and was waiting for your first question... ;)

Ok, I'll start. Why do you call us nazis?

[spetznaz]

Question: Let me ask a question about ID. As I understand it, the premise is that there is an intelligent designer behind creation. Now, does this mean that there is an intelligent designer who created, say the Lemur, through a process that took eons; or does it mean an intelligent designer who created the world and all that is in it in 6 days? In essence, does ID say an intelligent designer basically directed and channeled the process over time, or does it espouse that he created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago (some creationists claim the world was created 6,000 yrs ago).

Which is which? Is ID basically the theory of evolution with an ‘intelligent designer’(read: God) behind it, or is it basically creationism (6 days, 6000 yrs ago) with a different name?

[phantomworker]

You can't really believe all that stuff about ID, can you? All those models and simulation they talked about in the article are unrealistic.

Don't hate because I am beautiful! ROFL!!!

[RussP]

"Is ID basically the theory of evolution with an ‘intelligent designer’(read: God) behind it, or is it basically creationism (6 days, 6000 yrs ago) with a different name?"

No, ID is not just the theory of evolution with an intelligent designer behind it. That wouldn't make much sense considering that the theory of evolution explicitly rules out the need for a designer.

And no, despite the claims of evolutionists, ID is not *necessarily* creationism either. As I see it, creationism implies ID, but ID does not necessarily imply creationism.

What then is ID? It is the idea that life cannot be explained without intelligent design. Nothing more, nothing less.

Think about what would happen if SETI received an indisputably intelligent message from deep space. It would prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence even if the actual source was never located or identified.

[spunkets]

"Is ID basically the theory of evolution with an ‘intelligent designer’(read: God) behind it"

ID says that the 4 forces of physics are insufficient to govern the world and that a fifth force exists which directs all the others. That fifth force is intelligent, so it acts according to whim and is unobservable, except by those that can discern it's presence through the insight of revelation, common sense and similar means of perception.

Evolution occurs, but the hidden 5th force directs it. The extent of direction depends on individual insight and thus, the motivations behind that insight. IOWs, the fifth force acts according to particular individual claims.

[RussP]

"Evolution occurs, but the hidden 5th force directs it. The extent of direction depends on individual insight and thus, the motivations behind that insight. IOWs, the fifth force acts according to particular individual claims."

Small minds think alike.

I suggest you check into the scientific accomplishments of Lord Kelvin, who did not share your cynical view. Or Louis Pasteur.

[spunkets]

"Small minds... I suggest you check into the scientific accomplishments of Lord Kelvin, who did not share your cynical view. Or Louis Pasteur."

Your appeal to authority is very selective. It means nothing. Refute what I said.

[JCEccles]

Dawkins is a transparent fraud. His METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL demonstration, proffered as an argument against intelligent design, is about as perfect a proof of intelligent design as there is. The program he wrote would never yield his intended endstate but for his meticulous pre-planning to get it there.

Are his supporters so stupid that they cannot see this? Apparently so.

[spunkets]

"Dawkins is a transparent fraud. His METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL demonstration, proffered as an argument against intelligent design, is about as perfect a proof of intelligent design as there is."

The typing excercise is the creationist/ID claim. It is the arguement they use against evolution.

"The program he wrote would never yield his intended endstate but for his meticulous pre-planning to get it there."

The program was not pre-planned. The program was written according to the laws of nature. Dawkin's model represents reality. The typing model of the creaitonist/IDer doesn't.

[RussP]

I am always amazed at how evolutionists sneer at the notion of intelligent design, comparing it to belief in ghosts and such. Do they not understand the concept of intelligence itself?

Do you acknowledge that intelligence exists? If so, how do you define it, and how to you recognize it? Is your method for recognizing intelligence "scientific"?

It is? Wait, how could that be? Do you mean to tell me that intelligence can be identified scientifically?