What mixture of “design” and “evolution” is possible as the IDM collapses?

This offers the simplest “neutral” colloquial mixture of “design” and “evolution” that I’ve seen in a long time. The site is no longer maintained, but the language persists.

“As a designer it is important to understand where design came from, how it developed, and who shaped its evolution. The more exposure you have to past, current and future design trends, styles and designers, the larger your problem-solving toolkit. The larger your toolkit, the more effective of a designer you can be.” http://www.designishistory.com/this-site/

Here, the term “evolution” as used just meant “history”. The author was not indicating “design theory evolution”, but rather instead the “history of designs” themselves, which have been already instantiated.

The topic “design is history” nevertheless enables an obvious point of contact between “evolution” and “design”. They both have histories that can be studied. Present in the above meaning of “design” are the origin, processes and agent(s) involved in the “designing”. This differs significantly from the Discovery Institute’s version of “design theory”, when it comes to history, aim, structure and agency, since the DI’s version flat out avoids discussion of design processes and agent(s). The primary purpose of the DI’s “design theory”, meanwhile, is USAmerican religious apologetics and “theistic science”.

The quotation above likely didn’t come from an IDist, and it isn’t referencing “Intelligent Design” theory as a supposed “scientific theory”. The “designer” in the quotation above is a (more or less intelligent) human designer, not a Divine Designer. This fact distinguishes it “in principle” from the Discovery Institute’s ID theory, which is supposed to be (depends on who you’re speaking with in the IDM) about first biology, then informatics, and statistics. The DI’s ID theory is not actually focused on “designing by real designers”, but rather on apologetics using “design” and informational probabilism.

The Discovery Institute’s failure to distinguish or even highlight the differences and similarities between human design and Divine Design, and instead their engagement in active distortion, equivocation, double-talking, and obfuscation between them, are marks of its eventual downward trend to collapse.

1,506 thoughts on “What mixture of “design” and “evolution” is possible as the IDM collapses?

  1. And then of course there’s always Darwin himself:

    That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor.

  2. dazz,

    He’s smart enough. It’s a priority issue for him. And he’s doing it awkwardly in an unnecessary way. It’s “design universalism”. This is his evangelicalistic apologetic raison d’etre; his mission in life. He cannot turn against it, even though it is “just a theory”.

    Just as you live to upset his “creationism”, dazz, and can’t seem to let it rest. So he lives to convert you to evangelicalism. It’s a curious IDist/creationist + atheist/agnostic/evolutionist dance for us “normal person” onlookers to watch happening time and time again!

  3. Gregory: Above you just scholar bluffed with an article that turned out to prove nothing. Now, without answering to that, you just flip out another one.

    You seemed to put far too much stock in the use of scare quotes.

    Do you really think that I cannot find instance after instance of scientists in the realm of biology speaking of design and design principles? Design that does not have it’s origin in humans. Perhaps you should adopt a different line of argumentation.

    🙂

  4. phoodoo: What color hair did the designer have?

    I think Alan will be fascinated by that question. I think the designer must have had blonde hair, and that it was very long, like Samson. How else could he lift those big rocks?

  5. dazz,

    You essentially admitted to ID not being science when you agreed that everything is “evidence” for ID (everything is designed). It’s not my fault if you’re not smart enough to figure out why

    Everything is ultimately designed. Science is modeling this design. An example is Einsteins theory of general relativity models how matter bends space time. It does not account for that matter in the first place.

    ID is simply looking for direct evidence of the design and assigning design as the observed cause based on evidence.

    Evolution is building models of how designed biological organisms adapt and change. Evolution tells us nothing about how life started and tells us very little about complex adaptions such as an eye or a flight feather. This is my view.

  6. colewd This is my view.

    Liar For Jesus Bill never tires of telling us his ignorance based personal opinion. He’ll lie about science, run from scientific evidence he can’t explain, pimp pseudoscience pushing charlatans like his boyfriend Behe, bitch about “materialism” but can’t explain how to allow for supernatural intervention in scientific research. All to rack up those Get Into Heaven points. Right Bill?

  7. Gregory: He’s smart enough

    I don’t think so, but I have no personal experience with anyone exhibiting Bill’s level of delusion, so you could be right.

    Gregory: Just as you live to upset his “creationism”, dazz, and can’t seem to let it rest. So he lives to convert you to evangelicalism. It’s a curious IDist/creationist + atheist/agnostic/evolutionist dance for us “normal person” onlookers to watch happening time and time again!

    It’s not like you’re not pushing your own ideology here, right? And it’s also not working for you, is it?. I guess we are all guilty of not letting go even though we all know nobody’s convincing anyone.

    I’ve been ignoring the Bills and Nonlins here lately. Not sure why I thought it was a good idea to engage Bill again, knowing I would only get the same old irrational and robotic bullshit from him in return, as we all do.

  8. Mung: But if everything evolved, that’s curtains for the “science” of Evolution.

    Ha.

    I think if some things evolved and some things didn’t evolve, that is also curtains for the science of evolution.

  9. dazz: I’ve been ignoring the Bills and Nonlins here lately. Not sure why I thought it was a good idea to engage Bill again, knowing I would only get the same old irrational and robotic bullshit from him in return, as we all do.

    There’s always the outside chance someone new may be reading and not know Bill’s sordid history of lies and misrepresentations of science for his religion. I love how he won’t say anything negative against the DI despite admitting all they produce is worthless anti-science propaganda. Bill has a serious man-crush on Behe (“Mike” as Bill affectionately calls him) so won’t even consider the evidence he’s seen how Behe is just as disreputable as all the other DI clowns.

  10. colewd,

    Congratulations on early retirement! Hopefully your investments are making a difference for the better.

    “we agree on the basic principles of the issue”

    Good. So you agree that the basic principle of conflating human design & Divine Design is not welcome, but that the DI does it continually? It is bad theology from what many theologians say. Perhaps the outlier here is your local congregational leader, Bill?

    Can you imagine the possibility that ID theory makes bad (evangelicalistic) theology, from your evangelical “point-of-view”? I was frankly surprised that some of the IDists I met at the DI simply had blinders on. IDists simply don’t realize they are fanatics and ideologues. Thus, Bill’s continued sales pitch for “ID theory”, as if the Emperor’s actually wearing any clothes.

    “let’s do a strengths and weaknesses analysis”

    Of the Discovery Institute, IDM & ID theory – really? Ok, then let’s. I bet you’ll quickly quit in an executive way. Anyone putting up odds on Bill Cole admitting ANY weaknesses of the IDM, DI & ID theory beyond “sometimes poorly thought out material”? ROTFL!! And the Washington Wizards are going to win the NBA bubble tournament in October.

    “The weakness is they sometimes put out poorly thought out material.”

    The Discovery Institute has only one weakness, apparently. = P

    No, seriously Bill. If you’re really going to do a strengths/weaknesses analysis, you should be able to at least come up with 5 weaknesses. It would not be difficult at all for me to identify 10 weaknesses of the the DI, IDM & ID theory in 30 minutes. I could come up with 5 strengths of the DI. They’d be comparatively weak “strengths”, but they’d be “strengths” to some.

    Could you not come up with at least 5 weaknesses of the DI, IDM & ID theory? You defense of IDism has always seemed to me unconvincing here & at Peaceful Science where you’ve been thoroughly rocked into (hopefully at least some) humility. Nevertheless, you could redeem your badly damaged integrity somewhat by actually coming up with decent criticism of the DI, IDM & ID theory’s weaknesses.

    In your early retirement, can you still learn to escape from an ideology that has infected you, Bill? Or are you instead a willfully- IDist apologist as your life’s calling, to the detriment and distortion of your evangelical Christian faith?

    I’d guess that a fraction of what you’ve invested in the Discovery Institute and it’s undeniably tricksy message could have been put to better use for many times the gain for humanity, including the “renewal of spiritual culture” that the DI has now actually made worse with its piously probabilistic polemics. But you’re on the right side, Bill, aren’t you?

  11. colewd: The strength is that they are a counter to pro materialist/atheist marketing organization like the NCSE that are pushing bullshit science on students.

    Nope, they’re just ensuring that no bullshit is introduced into the science curriculum. They do not decide what’s taught, they show why bullshit like ID should not be introduced. Same goes for other kinds of bullshit, like “vanti-vaxxerism”. I’m amazed that you don’t know what they do, yet you feel justified in judging them as if they were the DI. Please have some sense of irony and self-respect.

  12. colewd:
    Everything is ultimately designed.

    That’s what you believe Bill. That’s all. However, it’s not possible. Where would designers come from if everything was designed? You’re proposing an infinite regress. Then you’d get mad if asked who designed the designers.

    colewd:
    Science is modeling this design.

    Nope. Science models whatever data we come across.

    colewd:
    An example is Einsteins theory of general relativity models how matter bends space time. It does not account for that matter in the first place.

    It doesn’t account for the matter because that’s not what it models Bill. A model about where the matter came from belongs to a different set of phenomena. You cannot ask a model for one thing to “account” for another. Don’t be silly.

    colewd:
    ID is simply looking for direct evidence of the design and assigning design as the observed cause based on evidence.

    Bullshit. ID is trying hard to make fools out of people to try and get religion taught in the science curriculum.

    colewd:
    Evolution is building models of how designed biological organisms adapt and change.

    Nope. Evolutionary theory models the changes and adaptations of diverging organisms, independently on whether they were designed or not.

    colewd:
    Evolution tells us nothing about how life started

    Because evolution is not a theory for the origin of life Bill. As above, you cannot ask a theory for one thing to explain another thing. Come on.

    colewd:
    and tells us very little about complex adaptions such as an eye or a flight feather.

    It actually tell us a lot about how to approach the problems, and where to look. The suggested approach works in figuring out the evolutionary histories of those features Bill. Your ignorance notwithstanding.

    colewd:
    This is my view.

    You should then grow up a little bit. You should not allow yourself to remain ignorant and look that foolish for so long. You’ve been exposed to pretty good explanations, ones where I’ve learn quite a bit, yet you show no learning whatsoever. Up to you to continue looking ignorant and foolish. Just know that it doesn’t do any good.

  13. dazz,

    “I have no personal experience with anyone exhibiting Bill’s level of delusion.”

    Well, let’s call it “enthusiasm” (for IDism), so as not always to act and appear like a jerk, ok?

    “It’s not like you’re not pushing your own ideology here, right? And it’s also not working for you, is it?”

    Yes, I am “pushing” or “displaying” (a bit nicer, which doesn’t seem to be your forte) the ideologies I hold here on this Forum. But it seems you do not actually know what’s working and what’s not. The not-really-atheist, but not-really-religious-either posturing you’ve been doing is surely only “working” with the easily amused or bored.

  14. Gregory,

    Congratulations on early retirement! Hopefully your investments are making a difference for the better.

    Thanks so far we have been able to put people to work and have built some good careers. Unfortunately on the public side you only play a small role in this.

    Can you imagine the possibility that ID theory makes bad (evangelicalistic) theology, from your evangelical “point-of-view”? I was frankly surprised that some of the IDists I met at the DI simply had blinders on. IDists simply don’t realize they are fanatics and ideologues. Thus, Bill’s continued sales pitch for “ID theory”, as if the Emperor’s actually wearing any clothes.

    I think there is a place for Behe’s arguments. I have not seen a good counter argument at this point. You make sweeping generic statements but without good support. If you are going to bash without reason I have no interest. I am interested in a better way to solve the problem of false ideological propaganda and sharing the evidence for design in nature.

    In your early retirement, can you still learn to escape from an ideology that has infected you, Bill? Or are you instead a willfully- IDist apologist as your life’s calling, to the detriment and distortion of your evangelical Christian faith?

    I don’t think I am infected but maybe you will convince me. Statements of manipulation hurt your credibility. This is the atheists game.

    Could you not come up with at least 5 weaknesses of the DI, IDM & ID theory?

    All the weaknesses stem from not having an over arching theory where there are predictions.
    -Non rationalized predictions about the functional part of the genome.
    -Misrepresentation of sciences actual position
    -Putting out theories before their ready
    -Exaggerating the what experimental results mean.

    I’d guess that a fraction of what you’ve invested in the Discovery Institute and it’s undeniably tricksy message could have been put to better use for many times the gain for humanity, including the “renewal of spiritual culture” that the DI has now actually made worse with its piously probabilistic polemics. But you’re on the right side, Bill, aren’t you?

    I have almost nothing invested. At this point you sound like a con artist but I hope you have a good plan to improve things. I remain open to your ideas. You need reasons not just assertions that real problems exist.

  15. colewd: I have not seen a good counter argument at this point

    You’re a blatant liar Bill. A dozen people pointed out the fatal flaw in Behe’s circular argument. Claiming he sees a purposeful arrangement of parts is assuming the conclusion of design before any evidence has been presented.

    For someone who presents himself as a devout Christian you sure have no problem lying your ass off when it comes to your ID-Creationist nonsense. Why is that?

  16. Gregory: Well, let’s call it “enthusiasm” (for IDism), so as not always to act and appear like a jerk, ok?

    I guess it’s too late for both of us now. LOL

    Gregory: Yes, I am “pushing” or “displaying” (a bit nicer, which doesn’t seem to be your forte) the ideologies I hold here on this Forum

    Sorry, yes, “displaying”, or perhaps “promoting” or “endorsing” might have been better choices for words there. Please, keep in mind I’m not a native English speaker and I’m going to drop the ball badly sometimes. I don’t mind apologizing for that, and I do so in this case.

    Gregory: The not-really-atheist, but not-really-religious-either posturing you’ve been doing is surely only “working” with the easily amused or bored.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about here. I’m an atheist. Not religious at all. Where do you think I’ve been posturing?

  17. Adapa,

    You’re a blatant liar Bill. A dozen people pointed out the fatal flaw in Behe’s circular argument. Claiming he sees a purposeful arrangement of parts is assuming the conclusion of design before any evidence has been presented.

    For someone who presents himself as a devout Christian you sure have no problem lying your ass off when it comes to your ID-Creationist nonsense. Why is that?

    If you can infer purpose it is not circular. There is no reason you cannot infer purpose in biology. Believe or not you don’t make the rules of what a valid inference is. You can assign reasons for many mechanistic observables.

  18. colewd: If you can infer purpose it is not circular.

    You can’t infer purpose without first assuming design with intent. You know that since a dozen people pointed it out to you but you’ll continue to lie about it. Lying For Jesus is all you do these days. You’re a real credit to your religion.

  19. Entropy,

    Bullshit. ID is trying hard to make fools out of people to try and get religion taught in the science curriculum.

    They have a view of nature that favors the theistic hypothesis. I gig is up on the materialistic indoctrination going on.

    You should then grow up a little bit.

    You should take your own advise here.

    Manipulation makes you look like some one who does not believe in what you are writing. If your argument was credible you would not have to do this. I have been around the block and understand con games pretty well. I have done business all over the world. You appear to be an academic. Have you spent time in the business world?

  20. colewd: I have been around the block and understand con games pretty well.

    Yes you do know how to con people and lie for your “cause”. Any lie is a good lie for you if it supports your “tribe” of religiously motivated charlatans. No wonder you have such a man-crush on Behe and the rest of the DI clowns. They speak your language.

  21. Adapa,

    You can’t infer purpose without first assuming design with intent.

    Show my why this is required based on the rules of inference. No straw-mans rules but the rules of making an inference based on evidence. This is your last shot. No more bullshit.

  22. colewd: If your argument was credible you would not have to do this

    If your ID-Creationist argument was credible the DI wouldn’t have to publish so much pseudoscience propaganda bullshit. Yet they do every day and Bill Cole loves the taste.

  23. colewd to Adapa,
    If you can infer purpose it is not circular.

    That’s a big if. It doesn’t seem possible to infer it. It actually looks philosophically backwards. Behe himself admitted that you had to believe in Design in order to see “purposiveness”, therefore circular Bill. No way around (see what I did there?).

  24. colewd: Show my why this is required based on the rules of inference

    It’s been done a dozen times Liar For Jesus. First you spent a week lying and claiming in biology function = purpose. When enough people called you on it you changed the lie to reason = purpose. You’re still too dishonest to acknowledge purpose always requires conscious intent. That’s the thing you’re suppose to be showing, not assuming.

    We both know you’ll never stop lying about science for your religion. It’s all you know how to do.

  25. colewd:
    They have a view of nature that favors the theistic hypothesis.I gig is up on the materialistic indoctrination going on.

    What fucking materialistic indoctrination is that Bill? Be very clear please, because you’re projecting. Indoctrination is what keep religion alive. You truly have no sense of irony do you?

    colewd:
    You should take your own advise here.

    Manipulation makes you look like some one who does not believe in what you are writing. If your argument was credible you would not have to do this.

    Asking you to have enough self-respect to pay attention to explanations makes my arguments not-credible? Now that’s interesting. I’m not asking you to stop believing in magical beings in the sky, I’m just asking you to read what’s explained to you and avoid showing ignorance and foolishness. As I said, it’s up to you, but it really doesn’t do you any good.

    colewd:
    I have been around the block and understand con games pretty well.

    Yet you fall for the con games played by the IDiots.

    colewd:
    I have done business all over the world.

    I know people who are intelligent otherwise, yet in, say, politics, they’re pretty idiotic. They just stop paying attention. They don’t see the very same problems they do see in other circumstances. I wouldn’t be too surprised if you produced excellent criticisms of some business ventures, yet fail in very similar circumstances when it comes to confronting your ignorance of science.

  26. Adapa,

    t’s been done a dozen times Liar For Jesus. First you spent a week lying and claiming in biology function = purpose. When enough people called you on it you changed the lie to reason = purpose. You’re still too dishonest to acknowledge purpose always requires conscious intent. That’s the thing you’re suppose to be showing, not assuming.

    You through back assertions with no standards this is grade school argument. If you remember at peaceful science I gave this similar challenge to ST. Could he show me if the inference for common descent was structurally different than the inference for purpose. The only example he could surface involved humans. If you do not support you claims I ignore them.

    In this case you have no basis for your claim.

  27. colewd: If you do not support you claims I ignore them.

    You ignore everyone who points out your scientific ignorance and major logical fallacies. You don’t post to discuss or to learn. You post to preach the anti-science ignorance and stupidity you use to prop up your religious beliefs. Everyone can see it Liar For Jesus Bill. I suppose you don’t notice not a single person agrees with your moronic ID-Creationist claims. 😀

  28. Entropy,

    What fucking materialistic indoctrination is that Bill? Be very clear please, because you’re projecting. Indoctrination is what keep religion alive. You truly have no sense of irony do you?

    Everyone is indoctrinating. Just listen to the cable news after 5 🙂

    Asking you to have enough self-respect to pay attention to explanations makes my arguments not-credible? Now that’s interesting. I’m not asking you to stop believing in magical beings in the sky, I’m just asking you to read what’s explained to you and avoid showing ignorance and foolishness. As I said, it’s up to you, but it really doesn’t do you any good.

    On what basis do you to ask me this? Your saying over 50% of the global population is dead wrong and you have the answer. Because you label God magical. This is not even close to a solid argument. It’s simply trying to shame someone into your belief which almost explains nothing beyond the material world. The evidence I have says you are almost certainly wrong. Just because I cannot see an atom does not mean it doesn’t exist. Your worldview can only be defended by assumption of brute facts and logical fallacies. I honestly have no idea why you believe the universe is possible without a creator. Can you help me understand this.

    I know people who are intelligent otherwise, yet in, say, politics, they’re pretty idiotic. They just stop paying attention. They don’t see the very same problems they do see in other circumstances. I wouldn’t be too surprised if you produced excellent criticisms of some business ventures, yet fail in very similar circumstances when it comes to confronting your ignorance of science.

    I would say this is me. I just see our government as a very inefficient bureaucracy. I am going to register independent. I don’t know who to vote for a prick or a case of early dementia. Nice choice 🙂

  29. colewd: Could he show me if the inference for common descent was structurally different than the inference for purpose

    You’re not asking for something reasonable. It’s not about structure, it’s about what you’re trying to infer Bill. Purpose is not easy to infer because it involves something that has to be witnessed: the plans, the claims about what such purposes are by the perpetrators themselves.

    This “inference” also has that tiny little problem called anthropomorphism. You have to be conscious that you very probably might be projecting “purposiveness” onto what you see, rather than such purposiveness actually being there.

    People have tendencies for projection also towards stories, history, etc. This is why there’s such terms as eisegesis and exegesis in biblical studies, for example. It’s hard to put ourselves in different historical contexts, imagine how hard it must be putting yourself into the proper biological context. Shouldn’t this at the very least count as a pretty strong note of caution for your preferred “inference”? Shouldn’t this at the very least help you understand why your preferred “inference” looks circular from where we stand?

    In logic there’s formal and informal fallacies. The formal ones are about structure (about the form of the argument). the informal ones about content. An argument could be structurally valid, yet be a complete failure because the content is just crap. Some of the informal crap has been categorized, but note that sometimes it’s not easy to decide if something is one or another kind of informal fallacy, precisely because the problems are not with the form, but with the content.

  30. Adapa,

    You ignore everyone who points out your scientific ignorance and major logical fallacies. You don’t post to discuss or to learn. You post to preach the anti-science ignorance and stupidity you use to prop up your religious beliefs. Everyone can see it Liar For Jesus Bill. I suppose you don’t notice not a single person agrees with your moronic ID-Creationist claims.

    You are projecting my friend. I had nice exchanges with Andy, Ron and ST. You don’t discuss you misread or misrepresent arguments. Did you review my discussion with ST?

    Look. You are being honest to admit that you want to bury ID. You are not pulling back any stops to do this including logical fallacies that some people will miss just as Puck did.

    Do your thing but don’t expect me to accept your fallacious assertions that are targeted at hurting Behe’s arguments for ideological reasons.

    All this being said I think your skill level has improved a lot. The argument you made was a straw-man but it was a skillful straw-man. I wish you were on the side faith. Maybe someday.

  31. When Paley finds a watch on the moor, he imports a very large body of knowledge in his identification. He knows about watches, knows who makes them, knows how they’re made, probably knows how to make and integrate the parts, knows what they do and knows what people want with that information. And it’s this knowledge, NOT the watch per se, that lead him to conclude a designing agent. He draws this conclusion because he knew the conclusion before he found the watch.

    But again, imagine some space alien leaving something on your doorstep. Is it natural or purposely constructed? Well, you have no idea who made it, what it is, what it’s for, how it’s made, etc. You can’t tell if it’s just some random piece of the scenery, or an alien device, or the alien’s lunch, or even the alien itself! You bring to your investigation NO external knowledge. And lacking that, you have no clue whether you’re looking at an artifact.

    Probably if you saw the alien using it, there’s probably some necessary overlap between alien and human motivations. Maybe the alien, like humans, needs to travel or to eat or to take in information. So this observation plus analogy to human activities and motivations could fuel some reasonable speculation. But the point is, you MUST import external knowledge, because “design” in the sense of deliberate intent is never inherent in an object.

    And it’s entirely possible that the alien, finding the watch on the moor, would be unable even to speculate about its provenance or nature.

    I think creationists look at life and think to themselves, well, life looks kinda sorta like something people might produce if they had the technology. They don’t but presumably their god does, so their god must have created us!

  32. You’re not asking for something reasonable. It’s not about structure, it’s about what you’re trying to infer Bill. Purpose is not easy to infer because it involves something that has to be witnessed: the plans, the claims about what such purposes are by the perpetrators themselves.

    You make an inference from evidence and experience. It is easy to infer purpose form evidence. You don’t need the plans of an iPhone to infer purpose behind it. It has an arrangement of parts that work for a reason. One of those reasons is to call someone.

  33. colewd: You make an inference from evidence and experience. It is easy to infer purpose form evidence.You don’t need the plans of an iPhone to infer purpose behind it.I has an arrangement of parts the work for a reason.One of those reasons is to call someone.

    Almost right. It’s easy to infer purpose from evidence and experience. We know all about iphones. We’re not so good at distinguishing abstract art from accidentally spilled paint, unless we know how it came about. That is, unless we combine experience with paint.

  34. colewd:
    On what basis do you to ask me this?

    On very similar basis as what follows:

    colewd:
    Your saying over 50% of the global population is dead wrong and you have the answer.

    Over 50% of the global population are dead wrong. But I never said I have the answer. You’d know this if you had paid the attention I keep asking you to pay.

    colewd:
    Because you label God magical.

    I’ve never said that’s why people are wrong.

    colewd:
    This is not even close to a solid argument.

    When did I say that was an argument, let alone mine?

    colewd:
    It’s simply trying to shame someone into your belief which almost explains nothing beyond the material world.

    Not into my belief, but into realizing that they’re not paying attention and that it doesn’t do them any good. Why is that so wrong?

    colewd:
    The evidence I have says you are almost certainly wrong.

    You’d understand that our skepticism towards your evidence if you paid enough attention. You might remain as convinced, but you’d be a tad more modest about its power to convince people who have thought a tad more profoundly about the problems with your evidence than you.

    colewd:
    Just because I cannot see an atom does not mean it doesn’t exist.

    I’ve never said that the magical being in the sky doesn’t exist because I cannot see it. I’ve insisted in it’s incoherence and lack of evidence.

    colewd:
    Your worldview can only be defended by assumption of brute facts and logical fallacies.

    Where are those the logical fallacies? Your imaginary friend is presented as a brute fact. One that requires no explanation. Why shouldn’t we touch bottom too? Is that allowed only in religious terms?

    colewd:
    I honestly have no idea why you believe the universe is possible without a creator.

    because we’re here, and creators seem imaginary. If we’re here, and creators absurd, what have we left but a universe that’s possible without a creator?

    colewd:
    Can you help me understand this.

    I don’t know if I can help you understand it. I have tried.

  35. colewd: You are being honest to admit that you want to bury ID.

    I want to bury the dishonest charlatans who are pushing the pseudoscience horseshit that is ID-Creationism in order to get their particular brand of Fundy religion back into public schools.

    Pity you can’t be honest and admit you push ID-Creationism solely because it panders to your religious beliefs. Instead you have to lie with virtually every post and claim you have “scientific” interests when your brutal ignorance of evolutionary science is legendary. Your posts have gotten worse over time – just mindless regurgitation and piss-poor excuses for ignoring the solid scientific explanations and corrections people keep giving you. I’m glad you’re not on the pro-science side. Having a lying jackass like you could only hurt.

  36. colewd: You don’t need the plans of an iPhone to infer purpose behind it. It has an arrangement of parts that work for a reason

    You aren’t trying to infer purpose for an iPhone, something you already know was human designed. You’re claiming purpose – deliberate construction with conscious intent – for biological objects you don’t know jack shit about. You assume they are designed then use your assumption as evidence they are designed. Still really dumb circular logic but it seems you are incapable of understanding.

  37. Flint: I has an arrangement of parts the work for a reason.One of those reasons is to call someone.

    Biological functions have an arrangement of parts for a reason too. The reason is they co-evolved through the unguided process of variation and natural selection because they helped the creature survive and reproduce in its particular environment.

    Reason still does not equal purpose no matter how often you push the lie.

  38. colewd:
    newton,

    Maybe his intent

    He intends to give someone ,for some reason , a fatal cancer ? Interesting God you got there. Unfortunately for the designer non- believing In ID scientists have found a way to thwart the designer’s intent. Or did He just cause the other women to die to make a point?

    He gave us a brain and the tools to solve such problems.Also the motivation to solve them.When you resurface the argument from evil I start to miss Keiths 🙂

    Maybe causing people to die in pain is a good thing designerwise. Who can know what an designer does if one cannot say anything about him , certainly an certain flavor designer might.

    Essentially you are saying the designer could be an arsonist but humans should be satisfied He gave us water to put out the fire. Certainly that is a viewpoint.

  39. Entropy,

    because we’re here, and creators seem imaginary. If we’re here, and creators absurd, what have we left but a universe that’s possible without a creator?

    So you’re saying the same thing as Dawkins. You are not able to get beyond your own perspective in trying to make sense of reality. Creators seem imaginary yet you are observing a universe with observers in it. You are not think through this and using inductive reasoning based on what you are observing.

    Inductive reasoning is about data and analysis not just “it doesn’t feel right”.

    Entropy if you are just atoms and molecules that came together by trial and error and the laws of nature your reasoning is faulty also by definition.

  40. newton,

    Essentially you are saying the designer could be an arsonist but humans should be satisfied He gave us water to put out the fire. Certainly that is a viewpoint.

    The designer came down to earth and suffered and died to reconcile himself to us. He walked miles in our shoes.

  41. newton,

    Maybe causing people to die in pain is a good thing designerwise. Who can know what an designer does if one cannot say anything about him , certainly an certain flavor designer might.

    Do you really think this is representative of reality?

  42. Adapa,

    Biological functions have an arrangement of parts for a reason too. The reason is they co-evolved through the unguided process of variation and natural selection because they helped the creature survive and reproduce in its particular environment.

    Are you claiming this covers all complex adaptions observed over life’s history? This explains sight and flight?

  43. colewd: Are you claiming this covers all complex adaptions observed over life’s history? This explains sight and flight?

    Yes you willfully ignorant dumbass. There are literally thousands of published research papers on both the evolution of vision and the evolution of flight. Flight evolved independently at least four times (birds, bats, insects, pterosaurs) and vision may have evolved up to forty times.

    The evolution of eyes: major steps. The Keeler lecture 2017:

    You won’t read the paper of course but those with honest interests may.

  44. colewd: Your saying over 50% of the global population is dead wrong and you have the answer.

    The Nazi party were voted in.

  45. Alan Fox:

    CharlieM: Surely the first thing to be determined is that the object has actually been designed.

    It’s inseparable from what process might have produced the result. I Can’t see how you can determine if an object is an artefact without an idea of how it came to be and who or what was capable of engineering it.

    Examining how an artefact came to be will begin to tell us something about the being that designed and constructed it. And we know that these need not be the same being. Does it consist of multiple components that look as though they have been assembled for a purpose? How complex would the assembly process have been? This will tell us something about the manipulative skills of the constructor. Are the materials in their natural state? Purified, alloyed of heat treated metals would be a sure sign of intelligent design. Things like that will tell us about some of the things that the designer is capable of but no more than that. We could conclude design but still have very little clue as to the real nature of the designer.

  46. Adapa,

    Yes you willfully ignorant dumbass. There are literally thousands of published research papers on both the evolution of vision and the evolution of flight. Flight evolved independently at least four times (birds, bats, insects, pterosaurs) and vision may have evolved up to forty times.

    Do those papers eliminate design as a possible explanation? If so can you show how they do this?

    Is there consensus among these papers the cellular mechanism responsible responsible for these innovations?

    It appears you’re practicing scientism. This is why ID is important. Your using evolution for ideological purposes.

  47. Alan Fox:

    CharlieM: Lightening (sic) can be observed to strike all over the place. This is common and is expected.

    Bloody isn’t. I could have died from the shock!

    I’m sure you could have. It would take more than a pair of thick-soled wellies to stop a few million volts 🙂 Maybe it was a warning shot across the bows from on high 🙂

  48. Adapa,

    Biological functions have an arrangement of parts for a reason too. The reason is they co-evolved through the unguided process of variation and natural selection because they helped the creature survive and reproduce in its particular environment.

    Reason still does not equal purpose no matter how often you push the lie.

    I described the reason for the cellphone not how it came into existence. What is the reason for biological creatures?

  49. Alan Fox:

    CharlieM: Shouldn’t the very first question be::Is behaviour encoded in the genome?

    Yes. Spiderlings hatch from eggs fertilized by male sperm which effectively are packets of DNA. Spiderlings are capable of spinning webs as soon as they leave the protection of the nest. There is no other source for this information.

    Only if you can’t see past a materialistic interpretation.

    Our awareness of what is visible and tangible should not be the determining factor of reality. Materialists do not like the thought of immaterial forces acting in space so they have to think of gravity in terms of particles,gravitons. Steiner explains that Schelling saw things differently.

    The sun does not act on us from a distance, we are within the sun.

    Steiner on Schelling

    Nature and spirit, then, are not two different entities at all but one and the same being in two different forms. The real meaning of Schelling concerning this unity of nature and spirit has rarely been correctly grasped. It is necessary to immerse oneself completely into his mode of conception if one wants to avoid seeing in it nothing but a triviality or an absurdity. To clarify this mode of conception one can point to a sentence in Schelling’s book, On the World Soul, in which he expresses himself on the nature of gravity. Many people find a difficulty in understanding this concept because it implies a so-called “action in distance.” The sun attracts the earth in spite of the fact that there is nothing between the sun and earth to act as intermediary. One is to think that the sun extends its sphere of activity through space to places where it is not present. Those who live in coarse, sensual perceptions see a difficulty in such a thought. How can a body act in a place where it is not? Schelling reverses this thought process. He says, “It is true that a body acts only where it is, but it is just as true that it is only where it acts.” If we see that the sun affects the earth through the force of attraction, then it follows from this fact that it extends its being as far as our earth and that we have no right to limit its existence exclusively to the place in which it acts through its being visible. The sun transcends the limits where it is visible with its being. Only a part of it can be seen; the other part reveals itself through the attraction. We must also think of the relation of spirit and nature in approximately this manner.

    The instincts of spiders can be thought of in a similar way.

Leave a Reply