| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dan Clore" |
| Date: |
25 Nov 2005 09:40:50 AM |
| Object: |
"Theory of Intelligent Design" |
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 06:39:51 AM |
|
|
"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
That's granting it more credit than it desserves. Fact is, there
is no "Theory" of intelligent design. Period. All they've got
is some wishful thinking.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 03:45:29 PM |
|
|
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
I do not know what "god" is (no one else does either), but Intelligent
Design refers to the belief that unknown alien beings from outer space
created life on Earth, and that they did a shitty job of it (just ask
any prey animal).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 04:00:16 PM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> said:
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
I do not know what "god" is (no one else does either), but Intelligent
Design refers to the belief that unknown alien beings from outer space
created life on Earth, and that they did a shitty job of it (just ask
any prey animal).
I asked a turkey yesterday and it had no real answer.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 07:30:33 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> writes:
I asked a turkey yesterday and it had no real answer.
And how went the disposing of the body?
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 07:48:41 PM |
|
|
Desertphile wrote:
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
I do not know what "god" is (no one else does either), but Intelligent
Design refers to the belief that unknown alien beings from outer space
created life on Earth, and that they did a shitty job of it (just ask
any prey animal).
The "Intelligent Design" that started this mess is a substitution of the
words "Intelligent Design" for "God" in a textbook. The supreme court said
creationism could not be taught in schools so they changed the wording
before publishing.
This came up early in the Dover trial.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BS" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 04:13:49 PM |
|
|
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
While it's enjoyable to make fun of the idiots who think ID should replace
evolution in the science textbooks, I would have hoped for more model
agnosticism out of this group about both theories.
Uncle Bob recently wrote in very careful E-Prime:
"I also suspect that this world shows signs of intelligent design, and I
suspect that such intelligence acts via feedback from all parts to all parts
and without centralized sovereignity, like Internet; and that it does not
function hierarchically, in the style an Oriental despotism, an American
corporation or Christian theology."
I always think it's quaint to hear Bob using Internet without the definite
article. Anyways all I'm saying is that it seems worth it to me to leave
open the possibility of some sort of intelligent design until enough data is
in to make more robust models about all of these "philosophical" questions.
BS
SF, CA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 07:32:32 PM |
|
|
"BS" <smi23le@sbcglobal.net> writes:
While it's enjoyable to make fun of the idiots who think ID should replace
evolution in the science textbooks, I would have hoped for more model
agnosticism out of this group about both theories.
Why? Do you maintain agnostic about the geocentric theory of
the solar system?
Anyways all I'm saying is that it seems worth it to me to leave open
the possibility of some sort of intelligent design until enough data
is in to make more robust models about all of these "philosophical"
questions.
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
No matter what we bring up, the retort is "the designer wanted it that
way." That's not science; it is not worthy of "agnoticism" toward the
subject.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
27 Nov 2005 07:55:32 PM |
|
|
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design." No
matter what we bring up, the retort is "the designer wanted it that
way." That's not science;
I agree with you. Any scientific theory must say what is likely to
happen, and what is forbidden to happen or exceedingly rare. The
absense of any theory give you "anything can happen, I have no idea
what it might be, nothing is excluded". ID is like that, allowing
anything, exclusing nothing, so it's indistinguishable from having no
theory at all.
Challenge to IDiots: I have a theory, which I call "braindeadism". This
theory says that I have no idea of anything, no reason to predict what
might happen, no reason to exclude anything from happening. You have a
theory you call "intelligent design", wherein you claim anything can
happen, nothing is excluded. How is your theory any different from
mine?
Challenge to omnipotent-god Theists: I have a theory, which I call
"braindeadism". This theory says that I have no idea of anything, no
reason to predict what might happen, no reason to exclude anything from
happening. You have a theory you call "omnipotent God", wherein you
claim God can do anything He wants, we can't predict what He may or may
not do, nothing is excluded from what He can do and might actually do.
How can your theory be distinguished from mine? What evidence could
ever show that yours is correct and mine wrong, or vice versa?
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BS" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 12:01:37 AM |
|
|
Why? Do you maintain agnostic about the geocentric theory of
the solar system?
Actually, I do and about the more prevailing heliocentric one too. That
does NOT mean that since I am agnostic about Copernicanism that I am
enamored with the writings of Ptolemy and "believe" that the sun goes
around the earth. It does mean that I am humble enough to say there may be
and likely are entire disciplines of physics which may not be discovered for
days, weeks, months, years, centuries, millenia, etc that will show that we
have an incomplete picture of the nature of the juxtaposition of bodies.
In the same way, I'm intrigued by Bob Wilson's suspicion that the world
shows signs of Intelligent Design. I see those signs as well. Neither of
us is dogmatic that that means there's a "designer" in any anthropomorphic
sense just that we have far too little evidence to say conclusively that
there is no possibility of intelligent design.
That said, there's zero question in my mind that there's far more evidence
now for the evolutionary model than for the Intelligent Design model and
that the evolutionary model should be taught in science classrooms.
BS
SF,CA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
27 Nov 2005 08:41:19 PM |
|
|
That does NOT mean that since I am agnostic about Copernicanism that
I am enamored with the writings of Ptolemy and "believe" that the sun
goes around the earth. It does mean that I am humble enough to say
there may be and likely are entire disciplines of physics which may not
be discovered for days, weeks, months, years, centuries, millenia, etc
that will show that we have an incomplete picture of the nature of the
juxtaposition of bodies.
That's a true fine agnosticism! Indeed the 3-d Universe we seem to
observe may actually be a projection from a two-dimensional hologram.
In the same way, I'm intrigued by Bob Wilson's suspicion that the world
shows signs of Intelligent Design. I see those signs as well. Neither of
us is dogmatic that that means there's a "designer" in any anthropomorphic
sense just that we have far too little evidence to say conclusively that
there is no possibility of intelligent design.
But here you're falling into a trap of mixing different definitions of
words, and thereby creating a circular argument, and then needing to go
against that argument and thereby seem self-contradictory. The word
"design" can mean "a product which somebody designed", or can merely
mean "any complicated pattern" which has no such implication of
resulting from any designing process. Thus cloud patterns often form a
pretty "design" in the second sense, even though they are not the
result of any designing process as with the first sense.
Living things clearly have lots of complicated designs, in the second
sense, and if you would just point out the evidence supports only that
second sense of the word, there's no reason to introduce the first
definition at all, hence no reason to argue against the designer
implied by the first definition. You avoid the whole debate by making
it clear from the outset that evidence supports only "design" in the
second sense.
The circular argument is to take as a premise that living things
exhibit design in the first sense, which presumes they are the product
of some designing process, i.e. somebody designing them, then to argue
that therefore there must have been a designer involved. Well yes, if
you posit that something is the product of a designing process, a
process whereby somebody designs them, then of course something must
have carried out that designing process, and whatever that was, we call
it a designer.
Note that there are at least two kinds of "design" in the second sense:
Artistic, and functional/utility. Artistic "design" is whatever we
admire when we look at it, such as snowflakes, clouds, polarized light
images of crystals of amino acids (which appeared in an advertisement
in _Science_ for several months in early 1999), Autumn leaves, Diane
Keaton's face, ... Functional design is whatever happens to "work" in
the sense of doing something useful, such as sexual reproduction
(meiosis + fertilization), DNA replication, circulatory system,
bacterial flagellum (one way to move around), cell wall, Kreb's cycle,
photosynthesis, ...
That said, there's zero question in my mind that there's far more
evidence now for the evolutionary model than for the Intelligent
Design model and that the evolutionary model should be taught in
science classrooms.
I've never seen any ID model which is any different from the null
model/theory, which says anything can happen, nothing is excluded. If
you know of any ID model which actually says something specific, saying
what's likely to be observed vs. what's impossible or at least very
unlikely, please cite the URL where I might read it. In the absense of
any such ID model that is different from the absense of any model, it's
impossible for there to be any evidence whatsoever in support of such
(null) model, so your statement of more evidence for evolution than for
the (null) ID model is vacuuos, like saying there's far more life on
Earth than the null set.
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 02:08:06 AM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
No matter what we bring up, the retort is "the designer wanted it that
way." That's not science; it is not worthy of "agnoticism" toward the
subject.
The design of the human back falsifies intelligent design.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 06:14:13 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
No matter what we bring up, the retort is "the designer wanted it
that way." That's not science; it is not worthy of "agnoticism"
toward the subject.
The design of the human back falsifies intelligent design.
Also high on the list is:
Elbow.
Brain location, container and attachment to the spinal column.
Rapid death of heart and brain. You can cut off a finger, sew it back on
hours later and gain use of it.
The heart and brain die in a few minutes.
Air and food intake in the same column.
Sex and excretion from the same tool - and yet kissing a penis is cleaner
than kissing a mouth.
It's a long list.
But skin is good. It's so good that I'd suspect the designer school drop-out
who did the human body to have stolen the idea from the smart guys.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
27 Nov 2005 05:55:34 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
No matter what we bring up, the retort is "the designer wanted it
that way." That's not science; it is not worthy of "agnoticism"
toward the subject.
The design of the human back falsifies intelligent design.
Also high on the list is:
Elbow.
Brain location, container and attachment to the spinal column.
Rapid death of heart and brain. You can cut off a finger, sew it back on
hours later and gain use of it.
The heart and brain die in a few minutes.
Air and food intake in the same column.
Sex and excretion from the same tool - and yet kissing a penis is cleaner
than kissing a mouth.
It's a long list.
But skin is good. It's so good that I'd suspect the designer school drop-out
who did the human body to have stolen the idea from the smart guys.
Unfortunately for the fools who believe that ID will prove their Christian
beliefs, the human suggests creation by a large bureaucracy rather than an
individual.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
27 Nov 2005 09:05:50 PM |
|
|
But skin is good. It's so good that I'd suspect the designer school
drop-out who did the human body to have stolen the idea from the
smart guys.
You seem to be posting from CHICO internal SBC06910622000023040426230910
in San Francisco. What is that, a private company that hires only people
who not only don't have acne and never did but in their entire lives
have never seen anybody with acne and aren't aware acne even exists?
And the perpetual fog in SF prevents you from getting sunburn even if
you go outside once a year, so you aren't aware of sunburn either?
Wait until you get to the ripe old age of 30 and you "disappear" to
protect the other employees from seeing the effects of aging on skin.
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 06:29:54 AM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
No matter what we bring up, the retort is "the designer wanted it
that way." That's not science; it is not worthy of "agnoticism"
toward the subject.
The design of the human back falsifies intelligent design.
Also high on the list is:
Elbow.
Brain location, container and attachment to the spinal column.
Rapid death of heart and brain. You can cut off a finger, sew it back on
hours later and gain use of it.
The heart and brain die in a few minutes.
Air and food intake in the same column.
Sex and excretion from the same tool - and yet kissing a penis is cleaner
than kissing a mouth.
It's a long list.
But skin is good. It's so good that I'd suspect the designer school drop-out
who did the human body to have stolen the idea from the smart guys.
Skin also produces polyps, malignant melanomas, doesn't heal well from burns,
and reacts to stress by becoming dry and flaky. Those who think skin is an
unqualified success are genetically lucky.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - Cicero
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
27 Nov 2005 05:13:45 AM |
|
|
In article <dm8vd1$283s$3@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
John Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
No matter what we bring up, the retort is "the designer wanted it
that way." That's not science; it is not worthy of "agnoticism"
toward the subject.
The design of the human back falsifies intelligent design.
Also high on the list is:
Elbow.
Brain location, container and attachment to the spinal column.
Rapid death of heart and brain. You can cut off a finger, sew it back on
hours later and gain use of it.
The heart and brain die in a few minutes.
Air and food intake in the same column.
Sex and excretion from the same tool - and yet kissing a penis is cleaner
than kissing a mouth.
It's a long list.
But skin is good. It's so good that I'd suspect the designer school
drop-out
who did the human body to have stolen the idea from the smart guys.
Skin also produces polyps, malignant melanomas, doesn't heal well from burns,
and reacts to stress by becoming dry and flaky. Those who think skin is an
unqualified success are genetically lucky.
Still we are much better off with skin than without. Anyway we know that
God is a civil engineer, no one else would put the toxic waste dump in
the playground. And God is not a man, otherwise semen would taste like
chocolate.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
.
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
27 Nov 2005 05:49:15 AM |
|
|
Walter Bushell wrote:
Still we are much better off with skin than without.
Can't beat it for keeping your insides in. Say, doesn't that make us
irremaginably complex?
CT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
28 Nov 2005 01:42:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:49:15 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis@yippee.com>
wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
Still we are much better off with skin than without.
Can't beat it for keeping your insides in. Say, doesn't that make us
irremaginably complex?
Like if we were sentient being on a water world and had scales?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
28 Nov 2005 01:51:55 AM |
|
|
Steve Knight <wooly@sonic.net> wrote in
news:ftnko1lo2r2j2jm2a86b8dlrpqvkvliqea@4ax.com:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:49:15 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis@yippee.com>
wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
Still we are much better off with skin than without.
Can't beat it for keeping your insides in. Say, doesn't that make us
irremaginably complex?
Like if we were sentient being on a water world and had scales?
We couldn't brew beer or cook over charcoal. What would be the point of
being sentient? Couldn't print Gideon Bibles, I guess that'd be some
small compensation.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.musings.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
And if you believe in that supreme power, you have to believe that *it*
came from nothing? Which is harder: to believe that a super-simple
universe, emergent from nothing, iterating simple algorithms billions of
times, brought about all the wonderful complexity you see around you, or
that a super-complicated and mightily all-powerful God built a simple and
undignified little universe of pain and sorrow, leaving no coherent
explanation whatsoever?
-- Elf M. Sternberg
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
27 Nov 2005 06:43:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:49:15 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis@yippee.com>
wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
Still we are much better off with skin than without.
Can't beat it for keeping your insides in. Say, doesn't that make us
irremaginably complex?
To aficionados of that sort of classification, we are clearly the *most*
irremaginable.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Those who reject biological evolution do so, usually,
not out of reason, but out of unjustified vanity.
- Isaac Asimov -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SquareKnot" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 11:36:30 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
"BS" <smi23le@sbcglobal.net> writes:
While it's enjoyable to make fun of the idiots who think ID should replace
evolution in the science textbooks, I would have hoped for more model
agnosticism out of this group about both theories.
Why? Do you maintain agnostic about the geocentric theory of
the solar system?
Anyways all I'm saying is that it seems worth it to me to leave open
the possibility of some sort of intelligent design until enough data
is in to make more robust models about all of these "philosophical"
questions.
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
It is not intelligent design that requires falsification.
What requires falsification is the null, "There is no Intelligent Designer."
See: http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 03:39:30 AM |
|
|
SquareKnot <sk@nospam.net> writes:
Anyways all I'm saying is that it seems worth it to me to leave open
the possibility of some sort of intelligent design until enough data
is in to make more robust models about all of these "philosophical"
questions.
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
It is not intelligent design that requires falsification. What
requires falsification is the null, "There is no Intelligent
Designer."
Intelligent design is not allowed to discuss the designer. The
designer is assumed as a given in their story. The premise of *design*,
however, cannot be falsified.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 05:49:53 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Intelligent design is not allowed to discuss the designer. The
designer is assumed as a given in their story. The premise of *design*,
however, cannot be falsified.
Design as no meaning in the absence of a designing agent. If something
is designed then there is a designer that designed it.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 03:16:52 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2005-11-25, SquareKnot <sk@nospam.net> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
"BS" <smi23le@sbcglobal.net> writes:
While it's enjoyable to make fun of the idiots who think ID should replace
evolution in the science textbooks, I would have hoped for more model
agnosticism out of this group about both theories.
Why? Do you maintain agnostic about the geocentric theory of
the solar system?
Anyways all I'm saying is that it seems worth it to me to leave open
the possibility of some sort of intelligent design until enough data
is in to make more robust models about all of these "philosophical"
questions.
What data would be necessary to falsify "intelligent design."
It is not intelligent design that requires falsification.
What requires falsification is the null, "There is no Intelligent Designer."
What requires falsification is the null, "There is no Santa Claus".
See: http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
27 Nov 2005 07:18:21 PM |
|
|
it seems worth it to me to leave open the possibility of some sort of
intelligent design until enough data is in to make more robust models
about all of these "philosophical" questions.
I agree. There's no evidence of any such intelligent design prior to
human's intelligent design of computer algorithms and robots. In
particular the origin of the present variety of life is adequately
explained by random mutation and natural selection plus neutral drift,
with no evidence whatsoever for any intelligent design. But yet all of
the following remain as possibilities whereby ID/IT is responsible for life:
- Space aliens tinkered with life on earth, to serve their future needs.
- All major evolution occurs on other planet. We're just a zoo of their life.
- Colonies of bacteria tinkered with other life, to serve their needs.
- Omphalos (a supernatural being faked all the evidence).
- Solitary nihilism (Only I exist. I imagined you and everything else).
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BS" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 06:48:16 PM |
|
|
Both of the responses to my post appear plagued with the "is of identity",
to me.
BS
SF, CA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 04:30:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:13:49 GMT, in alt.atheism
"BS" <smi23le@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1LGhf.18340$BZ5.8052@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
While it's enjoyable to make fun of the idiots who think ID should replace
evolution in the science textbooks, I would have hoped for more model
agnosticism out of this group about both theories.
Uncle Bob recently wrote in very careful E-Prime:
"I also suspect that this world shows signs of intelligent design, and I
suspect that such intelligence acts via feedback from all parts to all parts
and without centralized sovereignity, like Internet; and that it does not
function hierarchically, in the style an Oriental despotism, an American
corporation or Christian theology."
I always think it's quaint to hear Bob using Internet without the definite
article. Anyways all I'm saying is that it seems worth it to me to leave
open the possibility of some sort of intelligent design until enough data is
in to make more robust models about all of these "philosophical" questions.
There's no real point in that approach. There are all sorts of claims
that people make, say astrology, that can defend themselves in exactly
the same manner. It isn't the responsibility of science to disprove
every crackpot claim and crackpot claims don't have more validity just
because the crackpot is able to come up with an assertion that has
nothing to do with evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
25 Nov 2005 04:37:46 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2005-11-25, BS <smi23le@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
While it's enjoyable to make fun of the idiots who think ID should replace
evolution in the science textbooks, I would have hoped for more model
agnosticism out of this group about both theories.
That would require the theory of intelligent design to be, well, a theory.
Uncle Bob recently wrote in very careful E-Prime:
"I also suspect that this world shows signs of intelligent design, and I
suspect that such intelligence acts via feedback from all parts to all parts
and without centralized sovereignity, like Internet; and that it does not
function hierarchically, in the style an Oriental despotism, an American
corporation or Christian theology."
I always think it's quaint to hear Bob using Internet without the definite
article. Anyways all I'm saying is that it seems worth it to me to leave
open the possibility of some sort of intelligent design until enough data is
in to make more robust models about all of these "philosophical" questions.
Intelligent design is a philosophical argument. No evidence could be
found to falsify it in its general form, and where it gets specific, it
pretty much relies on personal incredulity.
Mark
BS
SF, CA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 02:19:33 AM |
|
|
Dan Clore wrote:
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
Wrong, ID says _nothing_ about God. I would agree that ID
is about the aftermath of creation, since it occured in the past.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: "Theory of Intelligent Design" |
26 Nov 2005 05:43:10 AM |
|
|
In article <1132971573.596088.66460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Dan Clore wrote:
The "theory of intelligent design" refers to the belief that
God is not intelligent enough to design a universe in which
evolution occurs.
Wrong, ID says _nothing_ about God. I would agree that ID
is about the aftermath of creation, since it occured in the past.
Then who does it suppose does all this intelligent creation? Jerry Lewis?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
