Skip to comments.
What is wrong with intelligent design?
EurekAlert! ^
| 22-Feb-2007
| Suzanne Wu
Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 641-649 next last
To: Boxen
Someday we'll all find out.
Till then, what I think about it has no function.
21
posted on
02/22/2007 6:56:32 PM PST
by
Ramius
([sip])
To: festus
"...there is [a] thing I've never been able to explain.
Al Gore.
Seems to contradict the whole thing"
You can think of him as of a well designed object lesson. Alternatively, as a freak of evolution. I'd go with the latter explanation.
22
posted on
02/22/2007 7:09:02 PM PST
by
GSlob
To: Boxen
I try to delve into that discussion of competing theories and have to conclude the article is a bunch of superficial hooey. I am never impressed when scientists go beyond what they actually can determine, and start debating the philosophical reasons a theory should be accepted or rejected.
I thought intelligent design was a theory that certain designs were put in place at the beginning so that the universe tends toward certain results - life, intelligence, etc. Not that God specifically designed a panda's thumb, or the bamboo the panda eats.
This universe seems to tend toward life and awareness, two very great mysteries. The scientists say this is all just the result of random physical interactions, and I say hooey. A universe that can be aware of itself is more than random.
23
posted on
02/22/2007 7:09:05 PM PST
by
Williams
To: Boxen
"Hey, Mr. Stephen Jay Gould, you egghead, God too smart for ya?"
24
posted on
02/22/2007 7:10:43 PM PST
by
rusureitflies?
(OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD! There, I said it. Prove me wrong.)
To: Rudder
A third and valid criticism is that Intelligent Design has no empirical data to support it.All complex biological structures are emperical data supporting ID. Complex structures do not, however, support TOE. There is nothing in TOE to require change from simple to complex. All such arguments are based on assumptions that can only be explained by ID.
25
posted on
02/22/2007 7:11:33 PM PST
by
Louis Foxwell
(here come I, gravitas in tow.)
To: Boxen
Ah, yes.
Everything came out of Nothing from Nowhere for no apparent Reason.
Life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing, uncaring Cosmos.
When we die, we are just so much compost.
So the best thing we can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction.
Lovely belief system, that.
In a different day and age it would be called Nihilistic Hedonism, or is that Hedonistic Nihilism.
I can't really quite remember, but it doesn't matter because even my Logic is the result of chance, random collisions of unthinking atoms having no design or purpose.
.
26
posted on
02/22/2007 7:13:14 PM PST
by
Westbrook
(Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it!)
To: Boxen; WestVirginiaRebel; Sopater; Coyoteman; Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek; rickdylan; ExtremeUnction; ...
My friend Stan Tenen, someone who definitely believes in one God, has made the best argument against "Intelligent Design" on the basis that ID is anti-one-God.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN -- INTELLIGENCE vs. INFORMATION
Here is a little bit of his argument:
Intelligent Design claims that cellular structures cannot have evolved, because they are too complex, and require simultaneous mutations.
This claim is specious. There are two fundamental problems. First, it's bad science; and second, if the logic presented is followed through on, it inevitably leads to a compound god (incompatible with the Unique God of the Ten Commandments). Opponents of Intelligent Design claim it is a stand-in for either "creationism" or "alien" design.
With regard to the appearance of impossible simultaneous coordinated developments -- sadly, the cell biologists and bio-chemists have not kept up with developments in physics and math. Only a few years ago, mathematicians thought it was impossible to produce Penrose tilings, because they required simultaneous coordinated developments. It was thought that there was no possible way for different parts of a developing crystal, for example, to coordinate with other parts, so that the overall structure would be complete without fissures, defects, and faults.
As it turned out, even after the mathematicians had cautioned that these patterns could not occur in nature, they were discovered in nature. And no "intelligent designer" was required. The Penrose tilings are naturally adjacent in a higher dimension -- which is apparently where they organize. So the impossible became possible.
. . . some good stuff left out ...
In Jewish tradition, Hashem/Elokim ("Lord God") is undifferentiated and utterly Singular. This is the proclamation of the Sh'ma: "Hear, O Israel, Hashem is our God, Hashem is One". (Hashem="The Name"=Lord; Elokim=Elo-him="God"). This ideal "Echad" ("One"; singular, unique Unity) tolerates no differentiation ("a jealous God"), and no qualities knowable to us (beyond Singular All-Inclusiveness).
In Torah tradition, the information gradient that leads the natural world to the evolution of life (and us) derives directly from the fact that Hashem/Elokim is undifferentiated. If there were any differentiation, then the negentropic information gradient would be degraded, and we wouldn't have "All-there Is". There would be gaps in reality, and gaps in nature. It is only because Hashem/Elokim is utterly Singular and Unique that the universe can contain the full span of diversity. (What I mean by this is that there is a complementary transform relationship between the singularity and the spectrum.**)
Intelligent Design requires god to apply a structured logic to the world, in order to force evolution. This structured logic, which is claimed to lead to the logic of DNA, must come from a structured logic. Logic has components, or it's either trivial or not logical. The proponents of Intelligent Design are thus attempting to walk us down a garden path to an embodied (compound) god.
God is the source of information -- and this information*** is the fuel of intelligence.
Bible tradition -- monotheism -- requires a Singular and unembodied (non-compound) God.
I think it's important to discuss the implications of Intelligent Design, because Intelligent Design is now being promoted by the President of the United States. Science classrooms all over the country are being assaulted with what amounts to a teaching that claims that one belief system is scientifically true, and the public -- almost all non-scientists -- is buying it.
This is an assault on science, which means it's also an assault on the future of our society -- and on the true roots of our traditions of faith. The fact is, when all is said and done, Intelligent Design "damns by faint praise."
(c) 2005 Stan Tenen
------------------------
My take is that the world is much weirder than anyone can imagine, but it is our job to try and figure it out.
27
posted on
02/22/2007 7:14:02 PM PST
by
SubMareener
(Become a monthly donor! Free FreeRepublic.com from Quarterly FReepathons!)
To: Sopater
I don't bother bumping crevo threads. Foregone conclusion they'll still be active fir at least a few days.
To: Amos the Prophet
A third and valid criticism is that Intelligent Design has no empirical data to support it and, thus, has generated no hypotheses nor has it published any scientifically-generated results in scientific journals.
29
posted on
02/22/2007 7:18:02 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: SubMareener
One could argue that a divinity could not spontaneously appear, but had to be designed/imagined by humans, and not too intelligently at it.
30
posted on
02/22/2007 7:20:28 PM PST
by
GSlob
To: rickdylan
An evolutionist is somebody who could open the hood of a car, look at the engine, and say to himself: "Gee, isn't that a hell of a thing for all that aluminum, steel, porcelain and rubber and what not to have gotten blown into something that looks like that!!"And to the evolutionist this would deny ID in the case of the engine since it fells falsification since they went out and found one that actually ran.
To: SubMareener
An evolutionist is somebody who could open the hoods to TWO cars, a Ford and a Chevy, and figure the engines in BOTH of them just kind of drifted together. The question of who or how many people or what kinds of people it takes to make Ford or Chevy engines is pretty irrelevant, neither one of them just happens.
To: Boxen
"What is Wrong with Intelligent Design,"
ID is thought to be the opposite of evolution. What's wrong with evolution guided by ID? It seems that those who object to the concept of ID do so because to accept ID opens up a pandora's box.
After having accepted ID question #1 has to be "Who is the Practitioner of the ID?". To do so the questioner already admits that there is a BEING superlative to the questioner whose actions transcends all knowledge he/she possesses up to that point.
Things are now getting slippery. Question #2 will be "What does this BEING want from me and how will I know when IT contacts me?" For many it is easier, at this point, to end the search for truth and turn to the concept of evolution because the latter is easily more acceptable.
33
posted on
02/22/2007 7:24:09 PM PST
by
353FMG
(I never met a liberal I didn't dislike.)
To: Boxen
Why do people assume "intelligent design" refers to some god? Space aliens are as likely a source of the intelligence as a god. Or does the ID theory specify "god"? I've heard of ID but have not read about it and I'm curious to know if a god is the only assignee of the intelligence behind intelligent design
To: Boxen
What is wrong with Intelligent Design?
Its based on a fable, relies on blind faith, is untestable and non verifiable, and there is no body of evidence in existence to prove it.
35
posted on
02/22/2007 7:26:31 PM PST
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
To: Boxen
I post these articles with the aim of spurring intelligent, thoughtful debate. Yet all to often, these threads descend into name-calling and irrelevant discussion.
I look at this thread, and I am disgusted. I get the feeling that many of you see "intelligent design" in the title and go into some sort of battle mode. This article is not about god or godlessness or even Stephen J. Gould. It's about testability, falsifiability, and Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. That is all.
36
posted on
02/22/2007 7:29:33 PM PST
by
Boxen
(Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
To: rickdylan
A creationist would open the hood of the car and say "I can't explain it, its a MIRACLE"
37
posted on
02/22/2007 7:29:39 PM PST
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
To: rawcatslyentist
Well what has god like genius Gould created?..... Thought so! Has Gould ever proclaimed himself a creator? Moot point.
38
posted on
02/22/2007 7:31:14 PM PST
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
To: Panzerfaust
Intelligent Design seems to have several flavors. The intelligent design that this author speaks of does not specify an intelligence.
39
posted on
02/22/2007 7:31:32 PM PST
by
Boxen
(Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
Comment #40 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 641-649 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson