Arguing with an ID fan

Shane Costello

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
1,232
Recently I got into a debate with an ID proponent on another forum I frequent. Basically it appears to me that arguing in favour of ID degenerates into begging the question very quickly "God must have designed living things because he must have, because he must have..." ad infinitum. The ID position also seems to be ultimately irrefutable. On the one hand, the design seemingly inherent in nature has to be evidence for a creator, but when you raise the failure of the cell control cycle that leads to tumour growth, or the disappearance of Neanderthal man (would the creator have designed a species of humanoids for the ultimate purpose of extinction?) and cancer then this is of course because death is an unfortunate yet integral part of life. I was directed to the following site. One consistent claim is that "macro-evolution" remains just a theory, rather than a fact. I could do with a bit of help refuting this one. I am vaguely aware that a few currently diverse species have some rather implausible common ancestors, but I'm hoping some of you here might be more up to speed than me on macroevolution. I did cite antibiotic resistance as a rather elegant example of evolution at work, but it appears the idea center differs on this too.
 
Suggestion: Ask him what sort of hypothetical evidence it would take to convince him that he's wrong. If he replies that nothing could convince him of that, then tell him he's close-minded because he's rendered himself immune to any evidence and isn't worth talking to. You might want to make sure you have some criteria for evidence against your undesigned universe null hypothesis, just in case he flips the question over to you.
 
Ask him what mechanism prevents microevolution from turning into macroevolution, for whatever definition of macroevolution he can come up with.

~~ Paul
 
Oh, and something that comes to mind: Dog shows. Just take a look at all the weird stuff we've been able to breed into them. Then tell him to imagine the process taking place over millions of years.
 
BronzeDog said:
Suggestion: Ask him what sort of hypothetical evidence it would take to convince him that he's wrong. If he replies that nothing could convince him of that, then tell him he's close-minded because he's rendered himself immune to any evidence and isn't worth talking to. You might want to make sure you have some criteria for evidence against your undesigned universe null hypothesis, just in case he flips the question over to you.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You believe you have good arguments that imply our universe has no design?
 
hammegk said:
Interesting. You believe you have good arguments that imply our universe has no design?
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely certain what you're asking. About the most I think I could claim is that I have yet to see any good arguments that the universe is designed. I'm just sticking with the null hypothesis- That the universe wasn't designed- until I see good arguments for design.
 
BronzeDog said:
I'm just sticking with the null hypothesis- That the universe wasn't designed- until I see good arguments for design.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I like my null hypothesis - Design is everywhere I look.

Where do you see your random mess of chaos?
 
hammegk said:
Hmm. I like my null hypothesis - Design is everywhere I look.

Where do you see your random mess of chaos?
Click to expand...

I fail to see how design is a null hypothesis. It's advocating the presence of something.

I don't see a random mess of chaos. Bits and pieces, here and there, but I also see order. I don't see design, though.
 
hammegk said:
Hmm. I like my null hypothesis - Design is everywhere I look.

Where do you see your random mess of chaos?
Click to expand...
Where do you see design?

It sounds like you are confusing 'order' with 'design' as Bronze Dog points out.
 
Ashles said:
Where do you see design?
Click to expand...
Beginning with the 19 or so "magic constants" that are necesary to allow our universe to be as it was, is and will be; then everywhere I look.


It sounds like you are confusing 'order' with 'design' as Bronze Dog points out.
Click to expand...
Or some are confusing random patterns with order rather than randomness.
 
hammegk said:
Beginning with the 19 or so "magic constants" that are necesary to allow our universe to be as it was, is and will be; then everywhere I look.
Click to expand...
I suspect you'll have to explain that to me.
 
hammegk said:
Beginning with the 19 or so "magic constants" that are necesary to allow our universe to be as it was, is and will be; then everywhere I look.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose everyone sees what they want to see.

You seem to be implying that there is some logical chain that shows that life could not have existed if certain constants (I'm asuming you mean things like the relative strength of gravity and electromagnetism, the much abused cosmological constant etc.) were different.
Absolutely not. You would need to show that other life would not have been possible with different constants. Of course no-one can do so.
Maybe many universes appear and disappear - we happen to currently be lucky enough to be in one where life is possible.
Maybe there is only one universe and the nature of matter is such that this is the only physically possible arrangement of constants.
Maybe all sorts of things.
But we certainly can't say we see Intelligent Design - all we can say is we see order which some people can choose to believe is due to Intelligent Design.

What we do know is that we are in a universe where life is possible, and it has arisen.
This does not logically lead to the conclusion that there was a deliberate intelligent design to create us.
In fact it seems like an almost childishly simple explanation.

Or some are confusing random patterns with order rather than randomness.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might want to elaborate on what you are trying to say there - it isn't at all clear.
 
hammegk said:
Hmm. I like my null hypothesis - Design is everywhere I look.
Click to expand...
Do you see God in the details? If not, resume existing, and we shall be on our merry ways.
 
hammegk said:
Beginning with the 19 or so "magic constants" that are necesary to allow our universe to be as it was, is and will be; then everywhere I look.
Click to expand...

The anthropic principle strikes again!
 
The ID position is unfalsifiable, it's really not worth debating with those nutballs after you've shown that their position IS unfalsifiable. You won't change their minds, but you can certainly plant a seed of doubt and hope it eventually grows.

Hammy, for example, is one of those closed-minded fools that doesn't understand that the ID position is ludricous and is demands the evidence. Evolution is proven. Whether an intelligent being caused it is irrelevant until there is evidence of design.
 
Shane Costello said:
Recently I got into a debate with an ID proponent on another forum I frequent. Basically it appears to me that arguing in favour of ID degenerates into begging the question very quickly "God must have designed living things because he must have, because he must have..." ad infinitum. The ID position also seems to be ultimately irrefutable. On the one hand, the design seemingly inherent in nature has to be evidence for a creator, but when you raise the failure of the cell control cycle that leads to tumour growth, or the disappearance of Neanderthal man (would the creator have designed a species of humanoids for the ultimate purpose of extinction?) and cancer then this is of course because death is an unfortunate yet integral part of life. I was directed to the following site. One consistent claim is that "macro-evolution" remains just a theory, rather than a fact. I could do with a bit of help refuting this one. I am vaguely aware that a few currently diverse species have some rather implausible common ancestors, but I'm hoping some of you here might be more up to speed than me on macroevolution. I did cite antibiotic resistance as a rather elegant example of evolution at work, but it appears the idea center differs on this too.
Click to expand...

Well, the underlying logic is very easy to grasp. Here are a couple of variants:

1) The universe is organized, ergo, someone organized it.

2) Everything seems designed, so, there should be a designer.

Still, this is an anthropomorphizing of the universe. We have, for example, fractals, some extremely complex "designs" emerges from easy math, but no one planned the final result, it is just "what happens" after the iterations. Did Mandelbrot "designed" the exact shape of set that have his name?
 
hammegk said:
Beginning with the 19 or so "magic constants" that are necesary to allow our universe to be as it was, is and will be; then everywhere I look.
Click to expand...
You are so right! And isn't it amazing how a hole is exactly the right shape to fit the puddle!
 
Yup, and chaos/strange-attractors/fractals/you-name-it!

Aren't you glad you're you, and I'm me -- out of all that math -- or is it all out of 'nothing'? Whatever floats your boat ... :p
 
Dragon said:
And isn't it amazing how a hole is exactly the right shape to fit the puddle!
Click to expand...

I LOVE that particular speech by DNA... it is what finally let me be comfortable with atheism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom