Intelligent Design

[codeblue]

Some people have asked if there was some kind of criteria for determining intelligent design. So I thaught I would post this link.

It's a long read but it's full of math and philosophy!

You know, the stuff you guys love.

Anyway, fire away! http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign2.html

 

[MRC_Hans]

*Yawn* Lots of, correct, babble about probability etc. etc. Used to mask a few, incorrect, assumptions that purport to denounce evolution. Notice that this guy, like any other ID proponent, is not able to provide support for ID, and consequently has to make do with trying to attack evolution.

However, this snippet says it all (my bolding):

What then is information? The fundamental intuition underlying information is not, as is sometimes thought, the transmission of signals across a communication channel, but rather, the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others.

In other words: Evolution.

Thank you Mr. Dembski, for proving our point .

Hans

 

[SezMe]

Or take this snippet:

Consider, for instance, the following individuation of poker hands:

(i) A royal flush.
(ii) Everything else. To learn that something other than a royal flush was dealt (i.e., possibility (ii)) is clearly to acquire less information than to learn that a royal flush was dealt (i.e., possibility (i)).

No, that supposes that one is playing poker or a similar variant. If one is playing a game where 4,7,10 of hearts and deuce and trey of spades is a perfect hand, then he is wrong.

Thanks, codeblue, for providing us with yet another steaming pile.

 

[Iacchus]

And what if the notion of an Intelligent Desiger is not wrong? How far would we have to go exactly, to find all these "steaming piles?"

 

[CFLarsen]

And what if the notion of an Intelligent Desiger is not wrong? How far would we have to go exactly, to find all these "steaming piles?"

Not far at all. Evolution is extremely easy to disprove.

Just find a human skeleton in the same strata as a dinosaur.

How far are you able to go?

 

[Iacchus]

*Yawn* Lots of, correct, babble about probability etc. etc. Used to mask a few, incorrect, assumptions that purport to denounce evolution. Notice that this guy, like any other ID proponent, is not able to provide support for ID, and consequently has to make do with trying to attack evolution.

So, in relation to that which is "irreducibly complex," did the laws of physics just invent themselves? Meaning, did the Big Bang occur of its own accord (from out of nowhere) without any pre-existing principles set in place to govern its behavior? And, if you believe in this "steaming pile" (of nonsense), might I suggest it reflects how terribly ignorant you are?

So, is it possible that the laws of physics have always existed and, they are just not evident until they are put into effect, through the construction of a material Universe?

 

[MRC_Hans]

And what if the notion of an Intelligent Desiger is not wrong? How far would we have to go exactly, to find all these "steaming piles?"

First of all, intelligent design and evolution are not logical opposites. In other words, intelligent design can be true, and evolution still posible, and evolution can be impossible, and intelligent design still wrong.

Thus, trying to prove ID by attacking evolution is logically irrational. Whenever you have a logical argument for ID (not one against evolution), come back.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So, in relation to that which is "irreducibly complex," did the laws of physics just invent themselves?

What is irreducibly complex?

Meaning, did the Big Bang occur of its own accord (from out of nowhere) without any pre-existing principles set in place to govern its behavior?

1) Any reason it should not?

2) Discussion about creation of the universe is irrelevant to discussing evulition contra ID. As is discussing abiogenesis.

And, if you believe in this "steaming pile" (of nonsense), might I suggest it reflects how terribly ignorant you are?

Which steaming pile do you suggest I believe in?

So, is it possible that the laws of physics have always existed and, they are just not evident until they are put into effect, through the construction of a material Universe?

If the universe does not exist, neither does time, so it is moot to discuss what is prior to the universe, however, the basis for the creation of the universe may well transcend the universe itself.

Hans

 

[Iacchus]

Thus, trying to prove ID by attacking evolution is logically irrational. Whenever you have a logical argument for ID (not one against evolution), come back.

Which is to say we all evolved from a "steaming pile" of randomness? This is an argument "for" intelligent design, not evolution.

 

[Mercutio]

Which is to say we all evolved from a "steaming pile" of randomness? This is an argument "for" intelligent design, not evolution.

This is not an argument "for" ID at all. Evolution proposes a mechanism, does ID?

Until you have positive evidence, until you have something more than "not evolution", you have no evidence "for" ID whatsoever.

 

[Mojo]

Evolution proposes a mechanism, does ID?

Yup: goddiddit!

 

[Iacchus]

What is irreducibly complex?

The laws governing the nature of existence.

1) Any reason it should not?

Any reason why it should? If you're not sure, then go ask Merc.

2) Discussion about creation of the universe is irrelevant to discussing evulition contra ID. As is discussing abiogenesis.

Are you suggesting evolution does not follow a "predefined course" (meaning there are laws governing its development), as did the creation of the universe? Or, are we speaking of something which occurs outside of universal bounds?

Which steaming pile do you suggest I believe in?

Well, we certainly can't escape the fact that we exist can we?

If the universe does not exist, neither does time, so it is moot to discuss what is prior to the universe, however, the basis for the creation of the universe may well transcend the universe itself.

If there was no physical universe, there would be no perception of time. However, does that mean time does not actually exist? If you answer yes, then you are saying time (as a mechanism) has "never" existed.

 

[Iacchus]

This is not an argument "for" ID at all. Evolution proposes a mechanism, does ID?

Really? And which "mechanism" is that? Anything based upon the notion that things happen at random, and without design?

 

[Mojo]

Really? And which "mechanism" is that? Anything based upon the notion that things happen at random, and without design?

Strawman.

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not suggest that evolution is random.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

His assertion that information cannot evolve is refuted by Schneider's Ev program.

Anyone who suggests that evolution is a purely random process is either stunningly ignorant or a liar.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are you suggesting evolution does not follow a "predefined course" (meaning there are laws governing its development), as did the creation of the universe? Or, are we speaking of something which occurs outside of universal bounds?

Do not use the term "predefined course" to describe something that obeys natural laws. First of all, the laws allow such complex possibilities that the word "predefined" is misleading. Second, there is a random component to almost every natural phenomenon.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Also, please, if you are going to bandy about the term "irreducibly complex," understand what Behe means by it. That is, if you can determine which definition he currently holds. In particular, the term does not apply to natural laws.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Strawman.

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not suggest that evolution is random.

Which is to say that everything happens within the boundaries of Universal design then, correct? If something can occur at random, without cause in other words, how can it orginate from within the Universe?

 

[Iacchus]

Anyone who suggests that evolution is a purely random process is either stunningly ignorant or a liar.

So, what's the difference between randomness and "pure" randomness? Are you saying it's possible to be "a little bit pregnant?"

 

[Iacchus]

Do not use the term "predefined course" to describe something that obeys natural laws. First of all, the laws allow such complex possibilities that the word "predefined" is misleading. Second, there is a random component to almost every natural phenomenon.

Neither should you misconstrue your inability to comprehend something with something which simply may not be.