thecountryshrink
dwilli58Intelligent design is a theory that purports that what we see in the universe, world, and nature, is the product of design. Atheists purport that everything that we see “just happened.” They think that in “the begining, there was a singularity, that moved in and out of existence. Time didn’t exists then. Then, the singularity exploded giving rise to the universe in which we live.” That’s my own words here, and I am summarizing cosmology. The subsequent explosion was just right to result in all the constants that our universe displays which are necessary for the size of the universe, distribution of elements, stability, and so forth that allow for the universe to exist in its present form.
This great explosion, “the big bang,” happened in just the right way to allow for the formation of the right elements that allow for the “random interaction of particles” to result in life.
Now, intelligent design theory, purportedly makes no inference as to the nature of the designer. It’s a starting point that says that what we see is the result of a designer. In our everyday lives, we are quite able to infer design. When we see a car, building, road, book, house, arrowhead, and so forth, we know that this is the product of design based on its specified complexity. Proponents of intelligent design look at life and the nature of the universe, and rightfully conclude that these things dwarf the specified complexity of things that we already look at as designed as mention previously. A single cell is nearly infinitely more complex than a car.
Now, people who ascribe to intelligent design theory may believe in directed evolution, or they may be creationists. The theory by its self does not speak to such matters–only that what we see is the product of an intelligent designer.
My own thinking is that you start with a question which is, “Is there a hierarchy of intelligence in the universe, which differ in their abilities to create and design things?” Certainly the answer to this question is ‘Yes.’ Humans are able to create and design a great deal many more things than birds, chimpanzes, dolphins, elephants, dogs, and so forth…and on down the line. So, it’s not at all a stretch to believe in an intelligence higher than human beings. A dog, dolphin, or chimpanze would never be able to design a car or a computer. It surpasses their intelligence. So far, man has not been able to design a life form, but has been able to do a little tinkering. The complexity of design in a single cell far surpasses the current intellectual abilities of humans.
As the Christian Scribbler notes in the article “Without Excuse,” all of the evidence is there for those who have not hardened their hearts.
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Religion | Tagged: atheism, Chrisitanity, evolution, God, Intelligent Design
Le sigh.
All that is gold does glitter – but not all that glitters is gold.
All that is intelligently designed is complex – but not all that is complex is intelligently designed.
Could there be an intelligent designer be responsible for the complexity of living organisims? There certainly could.
Is there any evidence that an intelligent desgner is responsible for the complexity of living organisms? No. Not a lick.
Something that is complex may have been intelligently designed. But to go from may have been to was requires a certain burden of evidence. Depending on who you talk to, the evidence for this transition is either nonexistent or terrible.
Uniquitous Che. What would you consider to be evidence?
When you look at all of the things that are intelligently designed by humans, you can identify them can you not?
It is an inference. ALL life forms are more complex than anything designed by humans.
I think that based on who you talk to the evidence is either excellent or terrible.
When you read the basis for cosmology it sounds like religion does it not? There is no evidence for it. But yet you believe it because you choose to do so.
I have direct evidence that a building was designed by humans, because we can see buildings being constructed every day. We don’t have to infer that buildings are constructed by humans, because we know. We know because of the evidence.
Inference is not the same as evidence.
If we could see the process by which the Intelligent Designer creates that complexity which we know is not of human origin, and it turned out that this process was demonstrably one of intelligent design – then this would be evidence.
However, when we look to see the processes by which such complexity comes to be, we find that those processes resemble nothing more than the majestic yet impersonal forces of nautre doing their mindless thing.
An inference is useful in so much as it makes a prediction that can be tested. If the prediction succeeds, we then have some validating evdence. If the prediction fails, we then have some invalidating evidence. Once an inference is very strongly supported by a wide and diverse range of validating evidence, it becomes knowledge.
Intelligent Deisign (I use the word Deisign with precise intent) makes no such predictions. It is not a theory. It is a vague guess that can be neither proven or disproven.
And when you read the basis for cosmology, it most definitely does not sound like religion.
Religion says: ‘God did it.’
Modern cosomology says: ‘We can get evidene as far back as the big bang. Past that, we don’t know yet.’
Religion claims to know the unknowable. Religion claims that really, really, really believing carries the same weight as actually knowing.
Once again:
All that is gold does glitter – but not all that glitters is gold.
All that is intelligently designed is complex – but not all that is complex is intelligently designed.
It seems to me that you can have it one of two ways, but not both:
1) The relevant distinction is between design theorists and atheists;
2) Design theory does not entail that God exists.
It strikes me as quite consistent to accept (2) and reject (1). In fact, I’ll go one further; I don’t see why a design theorist could not be an atheist, or vice-versa. All a design theorist need hold is that some of the things that appear to be designed really are, and that includes living things.
Of course, an atheist design theorist would have to tell a different story than a theistic design theorist as to where that design comes from, but since design theory doesn’t entail theism, there’s nothing inconsistent with an atheistic design theory.
And for that reason, design theory is useless for combating atheism as well.
Carl, there’s is nothing that you wrote that I can really disagree with. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that aliens might have kicked off life. So, ID theory is really only a starting point. A person could think that ID is the best explanation and be an atheist or be a theist. However, a non-design or purely naturalistic perspective nearly precludes theism. I don’t think a person can really combat atheism. People are going to believe what they are going to believe (sounds a bit like Yogi Beara I know). I think ID is a better starting point in understanding the nature of life and the universe. I believe it also can yield better practical benefits to society. It can also be a starting point for theism for some who are uncertain. For those that have already made up their minds, it is irrelevant.
Ubiquitus Che,
You used the term, “Big Bang.” I was chastized, by a professed atheist and scientist, for using that term, which he coined as being “a joke,” or slang. He then proceeded to instruct me that it isn’t a big bang, it’s “dark energy.” I asked him if he knew the source for dark energy, and he gave me an answer I couldn’t, being a scientific novice, possibly understand. At the end of his statement he still hadn’t given me the answer I had asked for, which, again, was where did dark energy come from or begin. He couldn’t, because he doesn’t know, and maybe science will prove this someday, just like maybe, someday, I will be able to prove God exists?
You’re right, I have no empirical evidence that God exists. My scientific friend also has no empirical evidence for the origins of dark energy, yet he stands on that term as a legitimate explanation for the creation of the universe, as do many scientists, like a fundamentalist stands rabidly on Genesis 1. Therefore, to me, my scientific friend’s explanation for dark energy and the birth of the universe is just another form of religious belief!
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” (Albert Einstein)