Re: The basic problem I have with Intelligent Design


"david ford" <dford3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dford3-1127765253.227189.181990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> VBM wrote:
> > I have read some of the intelligent design materials and it seems to be
> > saying that what we have now is uniquely and amazingly well-suited to
fit,
> > well, the way things are now. "If X was even very slightly different, we
> > would not be able to live on this planet", etc, etc. This makes a very
large
> > logical fallacy: that this end product was a necessity.
> >
> > They start with the current state of things as if this state of things
was
> > the ultimate goal, and then work backwards to show that everything fits
what
> > we now have perfectly, and the ODDS of things turning out this way is so
> > tremendously low, that it MUST have come about by design. The whole
> > watchmaker argument.
> >
> > Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything,
I
> > have to admit that the entire ID argument just doesn't hold up logically
> > without a pre-existing belief.
>
> There are ID arguments stronger than the flimsy things you presented.
>
> Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
> On the Origin of Life
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
>
> IDiotic creationuts
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127338201.763730.154090%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

I skimmed through those but do they not still come down to "here we are with
an end product that is so complex that the odds against it coming out this
particular way almost impossible"?

> > The presupposition is that the "current" was
> > the "goal" (a position that is not self-evident, but a matter of belief,
and
> > a belief which I happen to hold, btw). The response is obviously that
> > everything fits because if it did not fit, we would not be here and,
here is
> > the kicker, SOMETHING ELSE WOULD BE HERE! At each stage of
possibilities,
> > something else could have happened and the universe would then fit THAT
> > instead of what we have now.
> >
> > What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took,
> > everything would fit that path or it wouldn't be there.
> >
> > Now, I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. And I
DO
> > think that God designed every process that is now in place in this
universe
> > and He knew exactly how it would all turn out. And I also believe that
He
> > has purposefully intervened in His creation when and where it fit His
plan
> > to do so (a particular event 2000 years ago, for example), and that He
will
> > do so again. And yes, I can FEEL God in the many wonders of the universe
and
> > this planet.
>
> You aren't a blindwatchmakingist.
>
> concept of "blindwatchmaking"
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
> Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
> Views
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
>
> > But I also have to recognize that God very well may have created the
world
> > to work exactly as it would work without his Divine involvement. He
created
> > it so perfectly that He needs no "fine tuning" as the ID'ers like to
call
> > it.
> >
> > In short, the whole ID argument can only be convincing to those, like
> > myself, who already believe that this current state of the universe,
with
> > Man sitting here as we are, is how it had to end up. Thus, it is an
argument
> > that can only preach to the choir, but has no logical or persuasive
effect
> > to those who do not share this pressuposition. Atheists, I must
reluctantly
> > admit, are right to reject it.
>
> "Atheists... are right to reject" the flimsy claims you presented.
>
> > What I find most ironic about the Creationist support of the ID movement
is
> > that most ID scientists (upon whose ideas the entire movement is based)
> > accept that life developed over billions of years from earlier species,
very
> > much as evolution states it.
>
> Meaning of "evolution"?
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

There are two basic meanings for the word evolution in biological terms.
First, is the idea that existing species have descended from earlier
species. Second, is the mechanical explanation for that change (ie, natural
selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc).

> > The only real dispute they raise is over
> > whether this development could have occured by entirely natural
processes.
> > All they say is that God had to have directed this process or even, in
the
> > case of someone like Denton, embedded the "design" into the natural
process
> > so that it would then play out as intended in a way that "seems"
entirely
> > natural.
>
> ID + common descent: A Proposal
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404181835.d59cf7d%40posting.google.com

The question would be why would we have to impose a God of the Gaps
tinkering when none is necessary? Could not God have developed a natural
process that would bring about the necessary changes to adapt to new
environments without having to hop back in and turn the knobs a bit? Seems
like that is underestimating God's designing skills. Like creating a
machine that requires you to continually adjust in order to make it work.

I think God is perfectly capable of building a self-sustaining biological
process, and every example we have currently of the natural processes God
has put in place seems to support this.

> religious faith and common descent
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405051933.522f5d0e%40posting.google.com
> 1910s remarks by Caullery, Edmund B. Wilson, and Bateson on the idea of
> top-down unfolding/ [Bateson]"unpacking of an original complex which
> contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living
> things present"
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405161853.5f28f100%40posting.google.com
>
> Dobzhansky, 1900 Haeckel ("the law of the persistence of matter and
> force; that law knows nothing of a beginning"), and 1987 Dawkins reject
> the position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com
>
> > One thing I have to say for the leading ID proponents is that they find
> > Young Earth Creationism as unfounded, and ridiculous as the evolutionist
> > does.
>
> views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz (all creationists)
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980819011221.8126B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
>
> 1800s creationists came to accept that the earth is old; Raup
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10001161617160.1771572-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
>
> go away, young-earthism
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310190200530.8725-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
>
> > Personally, as a Christian, I have no problem whatsoever with evolution
> > having taken place over billions of years exactly as the evidence
indicates.
>
> Meaning of "evolution"?

See above.

> > I don't find it in conflict with any correct interpretation of Scripture
or
> > Christian belief. So, why should we not accept the explanation provided
by
> > the almost universal consensus of scientists, Christian and
non-Christian
> > alike?
>
> Which is what?

That the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is the best explanation
for the "fact" of evolutionary development of the species from common
ancestors.

> Macbeth on the illusion of the monolith
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981115234755.21390A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
>
> 1999 Leigh: "creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying"
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406141942.49257583%40posting.google.com
>
> > Why create a false dichotomy between evolution and Scripture which
> > does not exist?
>
> Meaning of "evolution"?

See above.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Quotes from Scientist and Astronomers Regarding Design of the Universe
    ... Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe ... certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. ... "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Quotes from Scientist and Astronomers Regarding Design of the Universe
    ... Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe ... certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. ... "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Quotes from Scientist and Astronomers Regarding Design of the Universe
    ... Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe ... certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. ... "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evolution = Atheism = objective fact.
    ... the evidence, it does not make statements about what the evidence can't ... The explanation of evidence in favor evolution exists within the ... People say they don't accept evolution largely because they are ignorant of the science involved, and they mistakenly believe that evolution denies God. ... The appearance of design in nature is not evidence that this appearance is genuine. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT - For those that like political discussion on rmr - you caneven discuss religion with
    ... You could teach it much like you teach evolution except that the underlying reason for the emergence of various species and why some may change is different. ... You could still teach the same basic life processes but just as little time is spent now in trying to explain the unexplained of how we came from nothing, whether that be the primordial soup struck by lightning or the big bang itself you can also spend a bit of time suggesting either aliensor even a God did it. ... I tend to subscribe to the bubble in a pot of boiling water theory,, that there are new universes springing out all the time out of a vaster greater sub universe of which we are all a part. ... Surely if life is too complex to have happened by chance, a being capable of manipulating everything in the universe at a whim is too complex to happen by chance. ...
    (rec.models.rockets)
Loading