Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

There was no deliberate change to my language, that is just your opportunistic bias, looking (in vain) for chinks in my argument or approach.

Why would you need to argue if you have real evidence. Why do I have to agree with your argument? Am I not allowed to think differently?

I am arguing because I am tired of theists saying stupid things on the forum. That makes it far harder to attract serious thinkers to the forum.

When people know MUCH more than you do about a topic, you would do well to shut up, listen and learn rather than pretend that you know the most. You do not know more about evolution than evolutionary biologists. In fact, you know vastly less than various forum members about evolution, so you should stay quiet and learn, or at least check their ideas against qualified evolutionary biologists. But that would take work and effort.

As I noted before, more sophisticated theists see evolution as part of God's larger design, but seems to have been "missed".

[Faustus5]

I am arguing because I am tired of theists saying stupid things on the forum. That makes it far harder to attract serious thinkers to the forum.

Alas, that is literally why I stopped posting here a year ago and now just lurk on occasion. Not enough folks serious and educated in philosophy, too many crackpots.

[Sy Borg]

I am arguing because I am tired of theists saying stupid things on the forum. That makes it far harder to attract serious thinkers to the forum.

Alas, that is literally why I stopped posting here a year ago and now just lurk on occasion. Not enough folks serious and educated in philosophy, too many crackpots.

Yes, it's disappointing. At times I have considered banning anyone who talks very, very obvious garbage, but then I am accused of bias in this post-modern rhetorical milieu.

I have no answer at this stage, so all suggestions gratefully received. By PM, if you prefer.

[3017Metaphysician]

I am arguing because I am tired of theists saying stupid things on the forum. That makes it far harder to attract serious thinkers to the forum.

Alas, that is literally why I stopped posting here a year ago and now just lurk on occasion. Not enough folks serious and educated in philosophy, too many crackpots.

Yes, it's disappointing. At times I have considered banning anyone who talks very, very obvious garbage, but then I am accused of bias in this post-modern rhetorical milieu.

I have no answer at this stage, so all suggestions gratefully received. By PM, if you prefer.

SB!

I would strongly suggest:

1. Refrain from posting in religious threads.
2. Start your own thread and support your assertions.

[Sy Borg]

I would strongly suggest that you:

1. Stop defending the indefensible.
2. Stop relying on sneaky ad hominem attacks.

[Count Lucanor]

The purpose of this thread it to bring forward all the arguments and evidence that we humans and the world around us is designed/created rather than the result of a process.


DNA is likely designed[...]
(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.  (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.  (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

That's just a misuse and abuse of the word "code", exploiting the naive analogy made by scientists for years, referring to codes and instructions. But DNA "code" is not a true code. Codes are made of symbols that replace other primary symbols (names), that replace real things, but the real things are not the codes.

Similarly, the word “Evolution” in the English language always refers to an intelligent process (in business, society, technology etc.) and the only usage in which it allegedly doesn’t is naturalistic Darwinian evolution. Why this exception?

That's another abuse of words. We also use the word evolution to refer to geological change: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCol ... 015709.pdf

All natural complex processes are irreversible - Entropy
what does this has to do with our subject?

According to Darwinian evolution, the necessities of the environment, random mutation and natural selection working together caused the antelope to grow a longer neck and become a giraffe.  Natural Selection is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again.
But most people will be very surprised to discover that no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it similar to entropy.
A Snowy TV In communication systems is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy.  Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. In a similar sense, random mutations will act the same way, thus random mutation is probably not the source of biodiversity. Not only that, but as mentioned previously, random mutation hasn't demonstrated the ability to create new information in a lab.

Since you think DNA is a code (information), I don't see how you can support the idea that a mutation in that code is not new information. DNA is not a real code, linguistically speaking, so the point is irrelevant anyway.

Fruit Fly [...]
In defense [...]

All of these point to the same old strategy of ID advocates: they never make a case for their intelligent creator, they just try to make a case against evolution, implying that once the theory of evolution by natural selection is discarded or becomes problematic, the god hypothesis prevails. That's a false dilemma. It is not "evidence of intelligent design", but just a bad excuse to promote the religious dogma they had already chosen to believe. The god hypothesis must stand on its own evidence, which right now is null.

Order versus Disorder. [...]
There are some things that we know happen constantly. Things tend to go from order to disorder.. Order can create order easily, (humans giving birth to other humans or creating codes as mentioned previously, music, structures like the pyramids of Giza..etc). Disorder can sometimes create order as well, but the probability for disorder to create order is very very very small.. Considering an intelligent being as orderly (or maybe order itself?), wouldn't the natural path to human existence and life itself (something orderly) come easier from something with orderly characteristics similar to its creation rather than disorder? (chance?)

That's just speculation, not evidence. Interestingly, you're willing to entertain the notion that an eternal, uncreated order (your "intelligent being") can exist on its own, yet you cannot accept that an uncreated order (the universe) could exist on its own.

Evidence in science and scientific theories
In science the primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof... and evidence has many forms. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists have to prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.

That's a long version of the "god of the gaps" fallacy, which is itself a form of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. Human knowledge is limited, but that which you can theorize to exist beyond the limits of our knowledge, does not get automatically a free pass in the world of possibilities.

There is no better theory?
So its puzzling to put is nicely as to why the currently accepted theory for our creation and everything around us is a process that starts from disorder and ends to order. It almost seems as if science goes backwards here. To believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!

It's not that we just believe it, but that we see the actual evidence of it happening. Even theists must accept the existence of nature, which implies processes with their own intrinsic laws, otherwise they would expect their intelligent being to direct every single instance of every interaction occuring in the universe. If that were the case, complete arbitrariness and disorder would be the only law, but since it still would be the intelligent creator's law, it would be its order, its absolute order made of absolute disorder, without the need of another non-arbitrary order, giving theists the problem of explaining why we actually see non-arbitrary order in the universe. Why the need to design if non-design could work perfectly too? Now, if it isn't the case that their intelligent creator directs every single interaction in the universe, but it is just the Prime Mover, the one that sets nature in motion, then all it has created is an autonomous system that can organize itself. Since by definition an autonomous system is not subject to laws external to itself, then creation implies no design. Even if there was a creator, there would be no designer.

To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?”  If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years and this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form.

You're implying everything in the universe is completely arbitrary and disordered, determined only by randomness and chance, and lacking any systemic processing. But that runs contrary to the notion that there's an order of things that requires a designer. In any case, even if evolution by natural selection was not true, it would not be evidence of an intelligent designer.

Order points to a designer everywhere
If you find a deck of cards, the odds of it being in any particular order are 1 in 10^68. So if it is a Jack of Spades, followed by a Queen of Hearts, followed by a 1 of Diamonds, the chances are not good enough to claim that someone did it. however, if you find it in order, we can safely say that we have more evidence that it was arranged by someone with the intent of ordering the cards numerically than saying it is there by chance. This is exactly how detectives solve crimes. They are looking for patterns of order and repetition to come to a conclusion and follow a path that will lead them to finding the murderer. Lets add another example. When you see the ancient pyramid, a structure with order. Do you assume it was randomly formed that way or do you assume that it is made by an intelligent civilization? So how come with evolution we conclude the opposite?

If you see order and patterns in nature, why do you claim everything in nature is determined arbitrarily by chance? Nature is a mixture of stochastic and non-stochastic processes.There are deterministic and non-deterministic systems. There are open and closed systems.

I will not go through the rest of your post because it is just more of the same: an attack on the theory of evolution. That's not evidence of an intelligent designer.

[EricPH]

You do not know more about evolution than evolutionary biologists.

This thread is not asking for evidence for evolution. The title of the thread is, Evidence for Intelligent design. this implies that nature could not achieve the complexity we see today without intentional help from a designer God.

You do not know more about evolution than evolutionary biologists.

And I wonder how much evolutionary biologists understand about design. I watched the Richard Dawkins video link you left, showing how a single eye lens might evolve. He seemed to have little understanding about design. The body is only a bunch of levers connected together to form movement, we have around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. Plus all the sensors and a control system. Blind biology would have to mutate incrementally to create essentially a complex mechanical structure.

I like this 240 year old automaton called the writing boy, made from about 6000 parts. I think it is an amazing example that shows the complexity of mechanising movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75CXFwgslsY

[Sculptor1]

I am arguing because I am tired of theists saying stupid things on the forum. That makes it far harder to attract serious thinkers to the forum.

Alas, that is literally why I stopped posting here a year ago and now just lurk on occasion. Not enough folks serious and educated in philosophy, too many crackpots.

Yes, it's disappointing. At times I have considered banning anyone who talks very, very obvious garbage, but then I am accused of bias in this post-modern rhetorical milieu.

I have no answer at this stage, so all suggestions gratefully received. By PM, if you prefer.

SB!

I would strongly suggest:

1. Refrain from posting in religious threads.
2. Start your own thread and support your assertions.

This is a thread about "evidence". Since when did religion ever rely on evidence?

[3017Metaphysician]

Alas, that is literally why I stopped posting here a year ago and now just lurk on occasion. Not enough folks serious and educated in philosophy, too many crackpots.

Yes, it's disappointing. At times I have considered banning anyone who talks very, very obvious garbage, but then I am accused of bias in this post-modern rhetorical milieu.

I have no answer at this stage, so all suggestions gratefully received. By PM, if you prefer.

SB!

I would strongly suggest:

1. Refrain from posting in religious threads.
2. Start your own thread and support your assertions.

This is a thread about "evidence". Since when did religion ever rely on evidence?

What kind of "evidence" is required, specifically?

[Belindi]

Yes, it's disappointing. At times I have considered banning anyone who talks very, very obvious garbage, but then I am accused of bias in this post-modern rhetorical milieu.

I have no answer at this stage, so all suggestions gratefully received. By PM, if you prefer.

SB!

I would strongly suggest:

1. Refrain from posting in religious threads.
2. Start your own thread and support your assertions.

This is a thread about "evidence". Since when did religion ever rely on evidence?

What kind of "evidence" is required, specifically?

Anthropologists go into 'the field' and research what is called by ht portmanteau term 'religion'. People who are the subjects of research report myths about ancestors, creator spirits, and spirits of place and specific powers. They report codified prescribed behaviour and punishments for unobservance. They report social rituals. This research does not have to be done in far- flung and hard to reach places but can be done in your own neighbourhood. As you know.

There is nothing else that can pass as evidence of the existence, composition, and classes of religion. Illustrations of these several religious phenomena are widely reported and personally experienced, but are not usually observed and reported by trained persons.

[3017Metaphysician]

SB!

I would strongly suggest:

1. Refrain from posting in religious threads.
2. Start your own thread and support your assertions.

This is a thread about "evidence". Since when did religion ever rely on evidence?

What kind of "evidence" is required, specifically?

Anthropologists go into 'the field' and research what is called by ht portmanteau term 'religion'. People who are the subjects of research report myths about ancestors, creator spirits, and spirits of place and specific powers. They report codified prescribed behaviour and punishments for unobservance. They report social rituals. This research does not have to be done in far- flung and hard to reach places but can be done in your own neighbourhood. As you know.

There is nothing else that can pass as evidence of the existence, composition, and classes of religion. Illustrations of these several religious phenomena are widely reported and personally experienced, but are not usually observed and reported by trained persons.

I think I'm following you, but not exactly sure. Is that a type of Kierkegaardian Subjectivity?

[Sculptor1]

Yes, it's disappointing. At times I have considered banning anyone who talks very, very obvious garbage, but then I am accused of bias in this post-modern rhetorical milieu.

I have no answer at this stage, so all suggestions gratefully received. By PM, if you prefer.

SB!

I would strongly suggest:

1. Refrain from posting in religious threads.
2. Start your own thread and support your assertions.

This is a thread about "evidence". Since when did religion ever rely on evidence?

What kind of "evidence" is required, specifically?

Please read the thread title, and stay on thread please, rather than command people to leave the thread.

[Sculptor1]

This is a thread about "evidence". Since when did religion ever rely on evidence?

What kind of "evidence" is required, specifically?

Please read the thread title, and stay on thread please, rather than command people to leave the thread.

I'm not following you there. Who is arbitrarily "commanding" people to leave the thread? Perhaps you're talking about people who troll threads because they have an axe to grind but no real import? Don't you just hate those kinds of philosophers!

And what you you take this sentence to mean?

I would strongly suggest:

"1. Refrain from posting in religious threads."

LOL?
If you have nothing to offer the thread, then maybe it is you who are trolling here?

[3017Metaphysician]

What kind of "evidence" is required, specifically?

Please read the thread title, and stay on thread please, rather than command people to leave the thread.

I'm not following you there. Who is arbitrarily "commanding" people to leave the thread? Perhaps you're talking about people who troll threads because they have an axe to grind but no real import? Don't you just hate those kinds of philosophers!

And what you you take this sentence to mean?

I would strongly suggest:

"1. Refrain from posting in religious threads."

LOL?
If you have nothing to offer the thread, then maybe it is you who are trolling here?

SB!

There you go again, making assertions based upon pure emotion rather than logic (not that that's necessarily a bad thing)! For some reason, and only you would know, you seem to struggle incessantly with basic cause and effect. For instance, the specific ability to see things, like the colors of things (qualities of a thing), and make emotional decisions based upon those qualities/colors, confers little if any Darwinian biological survival advantages. Specifically, those things that enhance one's own quality of life but are unnecessary for survival in the jungle.

But hey, not all is lost, emotions are actually a good thing! You know, people make all sort of decisions, even life and death decisions, based upon how a thing looks and the resulting feelings about them. Even music, people make decisions based upon how a musician may present herself and the feelings associated with that experience. Hence these random things, relating to quality-of-life stuff, have no survival advantages:

1. SB purchased shoes and a dress because it makes her feel and look good (and has causal effects on her self-esteem)
2. SB fell in love because her partner looks good (causally, certainly the partner can't look bad to her)
3. SB purchased a house because it looks good, and she feels good about it
4. SB wears makeup because it makes her look and feel good, and enhances her self-esteem
5. SB purchased a vehicle because it looks good, and consequently she feels good about it
7. SB purchased a CD, or otherwise likes or dislikes certain kinds of music because it feels good to listen to it

Isn't that a miracle!!

AND:



In its new form the argument is directed not to the material objects of the universe as such, but to the underlying laws, where it is immune from Darwinian attack. To see why, let me first explain the essential character of Darwinian evolution. At its heart, Darwin's theory requires the existence of an ensemble, or a collection of similar individuals, upon which selection may act. For example, consider how polar bears may have come to blend so well with snow. Imagine a collection of brown bears hunting for food in snowy terrain. Their prey easily sees them coming and beats a hasty retreat. The brown bears have a hard time. Then, by some genetic accident, a brown bear gives birth to a white bear. The white bear makes a good living because it can creep up on its prey without being noticed so easily. It lives longer than its brown competitors and produces more white offspring.

They too fare better and produce still more white bears. Before long, the white bears are predominating, taking all the food, and driving the brown bears to ex-tinction. It's hard to imagine that something like the foregoing story isn't close to the truth. But notice how crucial it is that there be many bears to start with. One member of the bear ensemble is accidentally born white, and a selective advantage is gained over the others. The whole argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar, competing individuals. ---physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God.


And so, SB, you need to tell us where all the information and instructions are, in nature, that has all the causal powers necessary to bring things into existence. And that includes not only material matter itself, but self-directed, self-organized biological creatures who propagate, think and feel!

I anxiously await your reply!!

[Sy Borg]

My reply is that your post is overly personal, makes silly non-applicable assumptions about me. I expect this has been driven by the emotionality that infects your views.

It is clearly an abrogation of intellect to insert the God of the Gaps into issues still under investigation.

Note that things are already changing for polar and grizzly bears:

https://people.com/pets/climate-change- ... zlt-bears/

Meet the "pizzly" bear! The animal is a hybrid created by the mating of a grizzly bear and a polar bear — a pairing scientists found could be happening more often due to climate change.

According to Live Science, more polar bears are migrating further south — where they encounter grizzly bears — because rising temperatures have thinned the Arctic sea ice, pushing polar bears into unfamiliar territory.

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change's effect on the bear species' habitats has also affected the animals' mating behaviours.

The universe very much seems to be self-organising. Looking for a divine creative agent that thinks like an enhanced human being as posited in iron Age mythology just adds an extra pointless layer. Take your pick.

1. The universe (including whatever preceded the state change known as the BB) appears to be both eternal and self-organising.

2. A deity created the universe (including whatever preceded the state change known as the BB) and it is both eternal and self-organising.

And that leaves the question, who or what created God? And the answer is always no one, God has always been here. Yet that answer works perfectly for a godless universe. Who or what created the universe? No one. It has always been.

As I say, the extra God layer is extraneous.