I was trying to stop an irrelevant tangent before it got started. But, I accept the possibility of Design, because there is no absolute means of proving it impossible. There is, however, a mountain of positive evidence in support of evolution, and none supporting design -- which causes me to accept that evolution is a reasonably accurate theory of how life develops in this universe.
What a farce, logically speaking. The only evidence of design that the evolutionists would accept is having tea with a designer, and then they would still doubt that. My belief is that If a designer of the universe appeared before you for an entire day, then vanished, you would like chalk it up to some delusional experience on your part, as you couldn't prove your experience as legitimate to any one else. You couldn't provide a way for anyone else to test it. Even if it were your own direct personal experience, if you could not prove it to others, you would value their collective experience over you own. Secondly, there is no actual test of randomness, which of course is the underlying god of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary process is deemed as mindless random and accidental...all on the basis of ignorance actually. Lacking any way to exclude the logical possibility of design at work, design could easily be much too subtle for the human mind or the present tools we have of measurement. Things happen in the universe, simple fact of observation. Undeniable. Why things happen is the unknown, and unknowable scientifically and logically. It is so absolutely logically possible that all the "random" changes we see are a by product and direct result of programming as to bring into question the concept of random accidental to any thinking mind. I would think open minded people would begin to understand the essential problem with assuming undirected random accidental processes as necessarily that. What we have seen in the last half century in the area of computers and computer programming, would demonstrate that in theory a universe could easily have been programmed with algorithms at work that are far beyond the human mind's ability to comprehend. Is it real? Or is it digital? Is becoming a haunting question in many areas of our life, and the advancement of digital technology will only accelerate. Yes, this persistent notion, a genuinely primitive notion runs amok in the scientific community that there is no programming...that there could be no programming is held onto with faith as fervently as any theist...simply because they don't know the programmer and have no bloody clue as to how to know if there actually is a programmer or not, they have no test for a programmer but to cop out to limited instrumentation in measurements. Lacking all the facts does not yield a logical conclusion, it yields a conditional relative truth, and we have seen consistently such hard and fast truths crumble in the advancement of refinement of technology and the ability to penetrate deeper and deeper into the physical world. We have not even scratched the surface of understanding the mental world, which is our only actual conscious link to the physical phenomena. There is a mountain of evidence in support of what has been observed, and there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution when it comes to direct evidence, and any person of a truly scientific mind would have only one logical and rational conclusion: Agnosticism without bias in either belief in a design or non design, as neither can be ruled out at present. In addition, there is nothing at all logically impossible about a designer designing the processes we observe and then label as random evolution, which ultimately makes evolution a function of design itself. Science is a history of smug certainty at one time only to be revised with little apology for the smugness along the way. I would wish science would return to the state of agnosticism and open minded thinking to any and all logical possibilities.
kjkent1 wrote: Why do you continue to portray this debate as design versus evolution? Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.
Even though the ID 'er lives with design , a designer, and designers every day , as we all do ,. along with mountains of scientific evidence in support of design, the designer and the designers, the ID'er will deny them all. Not just for one "entire day", but continuously . They must deny it, they have to , for their ID argument can only remain with them if It is unprovable. A world full of testable verifiable factual substantive and substantial evidence of design designer designers, widely understood, but the ID'er will chalk it all up to a delusion, a belief , only faith. The reason ⦠that only an unknown which can never be proven to others, will allow the real designer any status . I understand that when a designer of the universe appears before you, even for a lifetime, , you would rather chalk it up to some flaw or mistake as you do not want anything to match a preferred personal delusion of one. You couldn't substantiate in any practical way or prove your speculations about an intelligent designer as legitimate to any one else. You couldn't provide a way for anyone to test it. Even though it is your own direct personal experience, if you could not prove it to others, you would rather value their collective experience with your own. to make similar speculations in order to draw comfort, but always with no confirmation of actuality to your own personal viewpoint. It makes no difference to the ID'er whether or not there are any actual tests for randomness or any thing else if it clashes with the idea of ID, This approach is of course is the underlying god of ID, which must at all costs remain unknown . Any process, scientific or not, logical or not, is deemed mindless unimportant and inappropriate...all on the basis that ID stays grounded in ignorance . Lacking any way to include a logical or factual or actual demonstration of design at work, the ID'er will insist design could so easily be much too subtle for the human mind or the present tools we have of measurement. Even when it is there, the design, designer and designers, right in view. Right there under their nose, the ID'er will refute the existence of it.. And then there is the absurd contradiction where the ID'er can know about what they insist must remain unknown and unknowable. With statements like " Why things happen is the unknown, and unknowable scientifically and logically." There the god of ID sits. In any gap or space that can be found or made for It so long as its the unknown. I would think open minded people would understand the essential problem with asserting undirected random accidental processes cannot amount to anything. Only arguing that the last half century in the area of computers and computer programming, has demonstrated to them that in theory a universe could easily have been programmed with algorithms at work that are far beyond the human mind's ability to comprehend. The ID'er merely suggests the computer needs a human computer builder , which in turn needs an Intelligent Design(er) - goes the analogy. Then ignoring the ramifications of that analogy, the ID'er doesn't trouble with the bleedin' obvious, that the Designer then too will require a Designer to Design Itself. Then there is always the sham argument in the ID tool chest. Trying to pick holes in science with ill-informed assertion, rather than anything to do with the terminal failure on their own part, the ID'er has this persistent urge to argue by any controversy he can drum up in that way. The genuinely primitive notion running rampant in the ID community is that there is programming...so there could be programming, which is held onto with faith as fervently as any evangelical...simply because from that they hold a blind belief there is a programmer, but have no bloody clue as to how to ever show if there actually is a programmer or not. They have no test for a programmer but just a cop out to limited thought and imaginations. Lacking all the facts the ID'ers lead themselves to what they call a logical conclusion, it yields a conditional relative so called truth, and we have seen consistently such hard and fast truths crumble in the advancement of refinement of technology and the ability to penetrate deeper and deeper into the physical world. Already with a conscious link to the physical phenomena, the ID'er will deny any ability is present to ever use it in a way which gives positive or firm indications proofs and information suggesting or confirming intelligent design is not observed to be present, nor is it required or essential in the world ,or in the universe , as they both appear. Even when knowledge is gained via that consciousness, is testable measurable and confirmable, the ID'r must always deny it and retain his god in any gap which he declares unknown. There is a mountain of evidence in support of what has been observed, but the ID'er will always make misleading generalizations in order to infer credence by default to his own baseless argument. With "There are gaping holes in the theory of evolution when it comes to direct evidence, and any person of a truly scientific mind would have only one logical and rational conclusion:" Gaping holes in scientific theory are claimed therefore by default, insufficient evidence for evolution , (even though evolution is provable a fact), ....therefore Designer God Diddit! An ID'er will ungratefully acknowledge and receive all and any benefit science provides him, nonchalantly waving through life saving health advancements ,via understandings of the world and universe which only science provides, whilst being the first to dismiss with the highest degree of hubris, anything that will ever even suggest his precious delusion be questioned in any way. Even when the designer is there, right in front of him all around, its all there ready to be readily denied at any cost.
When you ask ID critics what would cause them to merely suspect design they are stumped. They can only come up with things that amount to a proof of design. Since all investigations begin with suspicions it is no wonder that the ID critics think investigating ID is a waste of time. ID theorists, on the other hand, observe subtle clues that cause them to suspect design and they are willing to investigate and see if their suspicion can be strengthened and testable hypotheses generated that help them better understand biotic reality. I don't understand why the ID critics are so threatened by this.
It sounds as if you are the one being stumped.. Design is everywhere. On the other hand Intelligent Design causes very serious Designer problems which you constantly ignore. That's a pretty good thing to come up with. Better than the ID no proof and no evidence approach. I suspect Fairies design, I have no proof or evidence, just like ID. Do you think Fairies worth investigating yet. Your âbiotic realityâ is called science and biology. It will confirm your suspicions of design, but not intelligent design, because there is no sign of intelligent design whatsoever. Just as there is no sign of Fairies. even though they are suspected I suggest you don't want to understand...period
Proving design requires proof of the designer -- nothing else will suffice. We humans know that certain things are designed because we designed them -- that is scientifically verifiable. Inferential proof based on the perception of human observers -- the very observers who know for an absolute fact that they are not the designer -- is entirely circular, and proves nothing. This doesn't mean that the designer must necessarily be God. I don't foreclose the possibility of an alien intelligence seeding our atmosphere or messing with some prehistoric organisms. But, the ID community "does" foreclose such a possibility, because it wants God to be the designer and no other entity will cut it. The ID community refuses to search out a mortal designer, because it has a hidden, religious agenda. That's where the money for the design movement comes from. Otherwise, the Discovery Institute would be putting huge amounts of money into the search for extra-terrestrial life. And, that's why I continue to portray the debate as between design and evolution: because it "is." Otherwise, ID advocates would be arguing different proofs and attacking other scientific areas other than evolution.
Telo: >I don't understand why the ID critics are >so threatened by this. . Stu: >I suggest you don't want to understand...period Yep ... it's like Shoe asking the same answered question over and over and over -- eventually you decide the blindness is intentional. JB
Re the "Designer problem": Designer can't be understood by Designed ( We can't understand our Designer ). We humans can design computers. While many humans can understand the most sophisticated computer no computer can understand any human. This is because the human is on a higher plane of being than the computer. Similar is the relationship between God and human. No one supporting the Designer argument need define the Designer since the Designer would exist in a manner undefinable by any human; this indefinability would extend to explanations for the coming into being of the Designer. I await your response.