• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID theory

CFLarsen said:
If our eyes were intelligently designed, we would be able to see infrared and ultraviolet, too.

Cavemen with infrared goggles? No threat from dangerous animals anymore, and you could spot prey from far away.

But, nooooooooooo, we get p*ss-poor eyesight instead...
Click to expand...
As an astronomy buff I've sometimes thought that I would be willing to exchange some colour vision for just a little bit more light sensitivity. The sky would look so different if we could see to, say, magnitude 8. Okay, that's more than just a little bit more.

Thinking about this over the past week while repainting my entire house because Mrs Blondin was tired of the current colour scheme I think I realized another advantage of being colour blind... :D
 
sphenisc said:
c) requiring the assumption that the deity will be the traditional Christian fundamentalist one (individual IDers may do so, it is not, however, a requirement of ID theory.)
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, ID claims that life on earth is so complex that it cannot have evolved, but must have been designed.

This is where it maybe possible to apply reductio ad absurdum:
If there was a designer entity (or entities), who designed it (or them)? (Rinse, repeat)

Either there are a large number of sucessive designer entities, or there is a Creator entity that kicked things off. The funny this is that the former implies evolution (each "generation" of designer(s) design *slightly* more complex sucessor(s)), and the latter Creationism.
 
Blondin said:
As an astronomy buff I've sometimes thought that I would be willing to exchange some colour vision for just a little bit more light sensitivity. The sky would look so different if we could see to, say, magnitude 8. Okay, that's more than just a little bit more.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, the ability to spot prey from much further than we can? BIG advantage...
 
Pidge said:
In a nutshell, ID claims that life on earth is so complex that it cannot have evolved, but must have been designed.

This is where it maybe possible to apply reductio ad absurdum:
If there was a designer entity (or entities), who designed it (or them)? (Rinse, repeat).
Click to expand...

That reductio ad absurdum only works if the designer entity has to be complex. For hypothetical designers that are simply another part of this universe, like, say, alien astronauts, the reductio ad absurdum works pretty well, since even the aliens would have to conform to physical laws, and we have pretty good reasons to expect that the limitations of those physical laws would imply complexity. I won't go so far as to say that a designer that need not obey the laws of physics also need not be complex, but determining whether such a non-physical designer must be complex is a bear of a philosophical question.
 
If I remember correctly from high school (a long time ago), there are several steps in science before something is a theory.

1. Observation of data

2. Formulation of an hypothesis that would explain the data observed.

3. Use of the hypothesis to make predictions about further observations or tests.

4. Testing the predictions.

Seems to me that ID has barely made it to step two. That's a far cry from a scientific 'theory' and the fact that they even want to call it a theory in science is proof in itself that it's not (at least that's my theory).
 
Bob Klase said:
If I remember correctly from high school (a long time ago), there are several steps in science before something is a theory.

1. Observation of data

2. Formulation of an hypothesis that would explain the data observed.

3. Use of the hypothesis to make predictions about further observations or tests.

4. Testing the predictions.

Seems to me that ID has barely made it to step two. That's a far cry from a scientific 'theory' and the fact that they even want to call it a theory in science is proof in itself that it's not (at least that's my theory).
Click to expand...
Of course, they've only done step 1 in a superficial manner, and they've made an unfalsifiable, untestable hypothesis for step 2. :)
 
BronzeDog said:
Of course, they've only done step 1 in a superficial manner, and they've made an unfalsifiable, untestable hypothesis for step 2. :)
Click to expand...
And they've done step 2 without any real reference to step 1 (or at least to any data that didn't fit their hypothesis).
 
delphi_ote said:
So seeing color is not good for spotting prey?
Click to expand...

Prey has developed defenses against predators with color vision.

If a predator had IR vision, these defenses would be useless.
If a herbivore had IR vision, all those predators who hide, lure their prey into traps and/or sneak up on them would have no chance to catch it.

So, one wonder why the "intelligent designer" didn´t get THAT idea.
 
Is it definite that the Intelligent Designer is singular? Could it be a committee instead? I'm thinking trees, for example. Rubber, cork, balsa, maple syrup - all very useful things from various trees. The pohutukawa tree on the other hand, seems to be totally pointless, not much more than a giant fast growing weed. It makes bad firewood and spreads its horrible flowers everywhere.

Maybe the earth is a reality tv show for aliens, along the lines of Monster Garage.
 
The Whether Man said:
Is it definite that the Intelligent Designer is singular? Could it be a committee instead?
Click to expand...
That would explain* a lot! :D

But it wouldn't get around any of ID's problems.







*There's an even better explanation in Robert Sheckley's Dimension of Miracles.
 
Chaos said:
Prey has developed defenses against predators with color vision.

If a predator had IR vision, these defenses would be useless.
If a herbivore had IR vision, all those predators who hide, lure their prey into traps and/or sneak up on them would have no chance to catch it.

So, one wonder why the "intelligent designer" didn´t get THAT idea.
Click to expand...

Ah... but prey and preditors would develop defenses to IR vision, too. The more I think about it, the more I realize we need to genetically engineer an IR vision species right now, because those defense adaptations would have to be pretty dang cool.

What a minute. What are we thinking? Prey and preditors don't "develop" anything. It's all part of design! Nevermind... nothing to see here folks...
 
jjramsey said:
...I won't go so far as to say that a designer that need not obey the laws of physics also need not be complex, but determining whether such a non-physical designer must be complex is a bear of a philosophical question.
Click to expand...

How true :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom