Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 162 (318231)
06-06-2006 8:34 AM


Hi all, not sure if this has been posted before so apologies if it has, I've looked, but can't see it.
Every time I look at the phrase "Intelligent Design", it makes me laugh.
The reason being that this idea, is held, mainly by apparently devout (arguably fundamentalist) Christians.
The reason I find this funny, is that the definition of "Intelligent Design" and the definition of "God" are totally incompatible.
True some of the words in there are difficult to pin meanings onto, but even a rough approximation should be enough to demonstrate....
Intelligence- Hard to define, there's so many different facets to Intelligence, but it's not too important for this point, so I'll define it as "the ability to create and manipulate abstractions"
If anyone's got a particular problem with this definition, feel free to add or remove what you like, it's not material to this point, tho I believe the definitions ok.
Here's where the problems start-
Design- To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent:
To formulate a plan for; devise:
then...
God- Again difficulty in a concise definition, but there's some things all Creationists believe, He's omniscient,omnipotent and eternal, those are the important ones.
Now design, essentially, is when we replace the actual trial and error process with an abstract version of same. Suggesting God did this means He can err.
That's blasphemy isn't it?
And of course although we don't have a definition for intelligence, we do know some of it's properties.It requires learning, and most importantly, it requires change. Whatever else intelligence may be one of the few things we can say about it for definite is that it changes.
Which is also blasphemy. God is eternal, and (usually) atemporal.
So can anyone see a way out of this dilemma?
For the miscellaneous section (I think)
Edited by Shh, : edited for forum destination
Edited by Shh, : edited for structure

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-10-2006 7:02 AM Shh has replied
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 12:50 PM Shh has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 162 (319897)
06-10-2006 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shh
06-06-2006 8:34 AM


This actually belongs in the [forum=-10] forum.
Have you anticipated the obvious replies and have answers prepared? One obvious reply is that your characterizations of "intelligence" and "design" are only as they apply to people. But God is the perfect "intelligence" and perfect "designer", so he never changes his mind, and he never trial-and-errors his way to a design.
Let me know if you think you have good answers for replies somewhat along these lines and I'll release this.
About format, if the format you're using is one you really like then stick with it, but most people don't begin a new line after every sentence. And you have a misplaced period in your last multiline paragraph.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shh, posted 06-06-2006 8:34 AM Shh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Shh, posted 06-10-2006 8:10 AM Admin has not replied

  
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 162 (319906)
06-10-2006 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
06-10-2006 7:02 AM


Thanks
Hi
I've reformatted the post, a bit, hope this is better. I hadn't really committed to the format, I'm still getting used to some of the functions.
The reason I didn't put this down for intelligent design, is that I believe the language to be political. This is the basis for how I would respond to the "infinite intelligence" arguments.
If there's anything else let me know, thanks for the feedback.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-10-2006 7:02 AM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 162 (319909)
06-10-2006 8:31 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 162 (319936)
06-10-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shh
06-06-2006 8:34 AM


To err is human, to forgive divine
Where did the trial and error part come from. Why does design need trial and error?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shh, posted 06-06-2006 8:34 AM Shh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Shh, posted 06-10-2006 2:23 PM Modulous has replied

  
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 162 (319963)
06-10-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
06-10-2006 12:50 PM


Re: To err is human, to forgive divine
Hi Modulous,
Trial and error is at the heart of design, it's just not apparent immeadiately, because instead of doing the trying and erring themselves designers let scientists do it then work with the results.
The aim of design is to illiminate actual error by using the tests and results of past trials to reduce the number of trials neccesary, but design would be impossible without such testing, can you imagine trying to design the shuttle without having all the theories involved actually tested first?
Even finished designs are rarely actually finished, there's always room for improvement, which may not even be due to error, but simply seeing a "better" way to do things.
The universe, show's no signs of this process, nor does life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 12:50 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 2:46 PM Shh has replied
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 3:43 PM Shh has replied
 Message 54 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-15-2006 2:46 AM Shh has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 7 of 162 (319974)
06-10-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Shh
06-10-2006 2:23 PM


Re: To err is human, to forgive divine
Shh writes:
... instead of doing the trying and erring themselves designers let scientists do it then work with the results.
Not to mention all the gedanken experiments and failed "paper designs" that come before a working prototype.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Shh, posted 06-10-2006 2:23 PM Shh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Shh, posted 06-10-2006 3:01 PM ringo has not replied

  
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 162 (319981)
06-10-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
06-10-2006 2:46 PM


Re: To err is human, to forgive is too.
Exactly, it's the exact same process as science but if anything, it's more rigourous, because of the danger.
It doesn't allow for the "supernatural", and were the supernatural a factor it would fail miserably, look at how easily a relatively simple, and efficient designed system, say an internal combustion engine, can be upset.
Imagine the quantum implications of miracles, in this light.
True human beings can fix gunked up engines, but this, again, suggests God would have to be careful about how to interact with reality. This is a far cry from omnipotent.
Edited by Shh, : edited subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 2:46 PM ringo has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 162 (320016)
06-10-2006 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Shh
06-10-2006 2:23 PM


God does not design things like humans do
The aim of design is to illiminate actual error by using the tests and results of past trials to reduce the number of trials neccesary, but design would be impossible without such testing, can you imagine trying to design the shuttle without having all the theories involved actually tested first?
But if God is all knowing why would he need to test something first? God would have just said. I am going to create a human that does things like this. That would be god implementing his human design. Naturally, this process does not emulate human design exactly - nothing that God does is humanlike - He's perfect!
Even finished designs are rarely actually finished
Unless the agent that created the design is perfect.
You also miss another trick. God might have created things with trial and error - theistic evolution style - since that is the most perfect design method! God, in His wisdom let the evolution process go about its business, but bridged any gaps that were insurmountable by the process. We aren't all knowing, so how would we know that this isn't the best way for God to have done things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Shh, posted 06-10-2006 2:23 PM Shh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 3:48 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 13 by Shh, posted 06-10-2006 4:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 162 (320018)
06-10-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
06-10-2006 3:43 PM


Re: God does not design things like humans do
Modulous writes:
Naturally, this process does not emulate human design exactly - nothing that God does is humanlike
Then the whole extrapolation from human design to "Intelligent" Design would be invalid, wouldn't it?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 3:43 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 4:15 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 11 of 162 (320028)
06-10-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
06-10-2006 3:48 PM


Re: God does not design things like humans do
Then the whole extrapolation from human design to "Intelligent" Design would be invalid, wouldn't it?
I believe it just means we can't get any specifics. ID doesn't comment on how the design was implemented nor does it say "If a human were designing this then...". It postulates that natural and unintelligent processes with no goal or design in mind can not acheive the complex designs we see in biological forms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 3:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 4:21 PM Modulous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 12 of 162 (320030)
06-10-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Modulous
06-10-2006 4:15 PM


Re: God does not design things like humans do
Modulous writes:
... the complex designs we see in biological forms.
Just calling them "complex designs" implies a comparison to human designs. If "Intelligent Design" is so different from human design, why call it "design" at all? Why not call it "Intelligent Schlerml"?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 4:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 4:30 PM ringo has replied

  
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 162 (320035)
06-10-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
06-10-2006 3:43 PM


Re: God does not design things like humans do
Lo again,
Modulous, you said..
But if God is all knowing why would he need to test something first? God would have just said. I am going to create a human that does things like this.
And I agree completely, the question is, how is this design?
You continued...
nothing that God does is humanlike - He's perfect!
And I reply again, then why the need to design?
God is perfect, design involves using known facts to create objects/processes which fulfill a need.
The suggestion is that Creation somehow solves something, because it is from a perfect source it is assumed to be a "perfect" design (contradiction in terms imo), but the fact there is a need constitutes ,non-omnipotence doesn't it? And certainly not atemporal, or else the universe would have always been needed.
Unless the agent that created the design is perfect.
See above
since that is the most perfect design method!
But it isn't design. if it is design then what is it's purpose? Design is difficult to infer in natural things becausse they lack purpose.
On the other hand, if God "designed" the universe, there should be signs, that our existence and circumstances are central to the universe. No such evidence exists, we are a momentary flicker in existence.
Even in inferior design, once purpose is established, design can be judged easily. This is difficult to do with humans, as our exact purpose, is only ever explained in vague esoteric terms.
The universe, however, is extremely easy to ascribe purpose to. In Biblical terms the purpose of Creation is to house humanity. Is it a good design? Or is there a vast amount of pointless effort?
How does it square up with "perfect design"?
We aren't all knowing, so how would we know that this isn't the best way for God to have done things?
From a Theistic position, I guess, God's way is always the best way. But "always the best way" isn't a characteristic of design, design is "learn from the mistakes of others, as well as your own". To apply this to God is blasphemy, to change the meaning of "design" to make God somehow more acceptable to someone is also blasphemy.
Also to suggest that this way was "the best way" is to limit God again, He's perfect, and omnipotent, there are an infinte amount of "ways" He could do "it", so this one shows bad design purely on the basis of unneeded effort and complexity.
A flat Earth, with a small sun orbiting it, and some kind of layer over the top to keep stuff in, would have been far better "design".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 3:43 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 5:04 PM Shh has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 162 (320037)
06-10-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
06-10-2006 4:21 PM


Re: God does not design things like humans do
Just calling them "complex designs" implies a comparison to human designs
Why? Its not 'more complex than human designs', its simply design that it is not possible for nature to create on its own. If nature cannot emulate it, it is probably because of some kind of complexity.
If "Intelligent Design" is so different from human design, why call it "design" at all? Why not call it "Intelligent Schlerml"?
Human design is different from Beaver design, is different from evolutionary design. Design is design, why create new words for each different methodology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 4:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 4:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 15 of 162 (320043)
06-10-2006 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
06-10-2006 4:30 PM


Re: God does not design things like humans do
Modulous writes:
Design is design, why create new words for each different methodology?
I didn't say anything about creating new words for each different methodology - only God's methodology.
My take on the OP is that the use of the word "design" itself is blasphemous, because it describes God in human terms (or beaver terms or evolutionary terms). If you can call Him a "designer", you might as well call Him a "farmer" too. Or "fat", or "bow-legged".

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 4:30 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 5:08 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024