Help me understand Intelligent Design

What I always wondered about is... How far exactly can we go in applying the various learned and academic methodologies? When do we know that we hit The Barrier where it is necessary to invoke The Final Designer? Is it enough that we get to a point where we are "stuck" for the time being?What would have happened if that attitude had been around since, say, 1700?

Parasomnium wrote: I hate to tell you, but water poisoning actually EXISTS: (if you're into cycling, Freddy Maertens was reported to suffer from it a couple of years ago, due to some 'body purification therapy' he followed, lol. That's how I know about it.)Water intoxication - Wikipedia

Compare it to the continued existence of homeopathy... It makes no sense, but "making sense" is not the most important criterium for some opinion or worldview to exist, sadly.

Don't you see the obvious mistake?You only have one data point! That is anecdotal evidence. Your experiment sucks seriously from a methodological point of view and is therefore nonsense.You should drink 5000 glasses in a short period of time and come back to report. (edited spelling)This message has been edited by Annafan, 06-10-2005 03:09 PM

(added after partly replying) It's actually really hard to determine what exactly you're arguing here, lol. I had typed quite a few lines in response to the first part of your post, only to read later on that you accept "...there is no need for an 'intelligence' to explain the actual phenomena." ??So where is the problem here??? I really think you're reading far too much in this. It all seems to come down to your difficulty to accept that blind (= no purpose) processes can result in something that has the appearance of being designed (on the surface, we might add).AFAIC, Ruse is simply pointing out that treating the parts as designed on purpose, is a fruitfull 'working hypothesis' to ask the right questions and look in the right places.We might need to talk about the meaning of "designed" here, though. And whether "design" is necessarilly linked to your idea of "purpose".Does "design" require a designer? Or put in another way, does a designer have to be conscious? As Ruse points out, it is indeed not uncommon for evolutionary science to talk in terms of "design". But they clearly don't assume a conscious designer.I think the really important distiction is between "design" by a process with a "long-range radar" and "design" by a process that is blind for anything but the circumstances at the very moment of design. The first one could be assigned purpose, but the second one I think not!Creationists will argue for "design" in the first sense, evos will always use "design" in the second sense. Who's right? Well, only one of them elegantly explains vestigial structures, for starters... Why don't skyscrapers get wider from bottom to top? Because they would collapse under gravity!Why do currently living liveforms exist of (mostly) functional parts? Because they would die or be outcompeted by others if they didn't!What's the big deal??? Comparisons with human artefacts will never work. Again, there are important differences between things that WE design (the only examples of "design with a purpose" that we have available) and the design that we observe in nature. The differences are important enough to argue that they simply are not the same.Of course, we COULD in principle design in a similar way as nature "designs". But it would no longer be "intelligent design" as we know it! It would be a mimicry of "natural design".So the "perfectly natural" conclusion as you put it, would be better described as "superficial & rather short-sighted". I always had the impression that it is the Creos who will argue that Darwinism can not be combined with belief in a God, and that this is their main motive to oppose it.I don't know enough about the whole history to debate it, though. From what I read about Darwin, circumstances seem to have pushed him towards agnosticism but it doesn't look like opposing religion was his main driving force behind ToE. He would be if there weren't counter-arguments against an intelligent designer. But there ARE (cfr vestigial structures just to name one), and this option HAS been considered (and dismissed). If you put blind processes and intentional design next to each other, the first simply makes most sense. Certainly if, like you, you admit that ...there is no need for an 'intelligence' to explain the actual phenomena.

Surely this can't be as simple as you simply having a problem with 'sloppy' use of words that have a connotation of purpose and intent (like "mimicing")?? I'm pretty sure (even though I didn't read the article) that this Borrato guy didn't intend THAT connotation. "Mimicing" is simply the standard term used for this kind of phenomenon. And evolutionists will certainly be guilty of using it, simply because it is more convenient than pointing out each time that it is not intentional but a combination of blind variation and natural selection. The word isn't more than an unfortunate shortcut.And the fact that "we" don't change into Mr. Potato-Head has more to do with the fact the evolutionary path that would be needed is much too indirect. As pointed out, mimicry is typical in INSECTS because their exosceleton and related genes (or colors in wings etc. )happen to be quite mallable. As such requiring relatively short paths through "design-space" to end up looking like leaves or branches. And paths that happen to deliver a certain degree of advantage right along the entire way from start to "finish".You mention they have "no conscious capacity". And this is indeed true. Their "capacity" lies in the flexibility of their physical attributes.If YOU would start to gradually look like a potato, I don't think you would have a lot of protection the first 2.000.000 years (although I've never seen you in person, LOL). It would be in the absence of the failed experiments. But who counted those?

Are we getting closer? I'm not so sure, lol...What is it exactly that you are arguing? Is it that "evolutionists" stubbornly deny purpose and intent, even though the words they use (mimicing, adapting...) constantly illustrate that purpose and intent are "inevitable"? I haven't seen it worded this way. Please explain why vestigial organs are NOT a problem for intelligent design? Then you can't maintain that you agree 'intelligence' is not needed to explain the actual phenomena. Why add something that is unnecessary?

Ok, so we've had 13 pages here and now it seems we hit the fundamental issue here: you can not believe that random mutations combined with natural selection could together offer adequate efficiency to cause the adaptation that we see in organisms?

That indeed doesn't need to be a contradiction, depending on what you mean with your 'God'...Fact: we have vestigial organs
Question: does this rather support a 'long distance radar' design (= purpose) or a mere 'ad hoc solution' design?There is no question it supports the latter. It can not EXCLUDE the former but it certainly asks for stronger additional evidence. And probability calculations will need to be damn convincing to turn things around again!BTW, what would be a reason for you to concede that there is not some teleological component after all? Or is it a GIVEN? Could you repeat it again, please? Try to be clear since I'm not native english (and the others will also appreciate, lol)

ausar, could you address that question please? I'd like to know.

That was a good analogy.If only we would be able to more easily book-keep the failed experiments! The picture would look completely different and much easier to grasp.

I don't think you have posted enough material to adequately judge the quotes you are referring to. As the more typical Creationists prove all the time, it's really not hard to go through some text written by a famous Darwinist/Evolutionist and pick out isolated quotes that seem to say exactly the opposite of what the argument turns out to be, or may be poorly worded in themselves such that they can be easily misunderstood (misused?) without the supporting context.Any anyways, arguments by authority are not really very impressive around here

I still had to add that we should not only consider the failed experiments, but also the ones that were perfectly possible (and possibly successful) but weren't undertaken by chance.As also pointed out by some others, this group is even immeasurably bigger.

Auser,it's been a while since I responded to this thread. The main reason is that, like some others here, I seemed to have a really hard time to find out what exactly you argue. I myself blamed this partly on language (I'm not native English), but over time I have come to the conclusion that you seem to have a real talent to obfuscate matters. It's incredible how many pages of text you had to write, while it all comes down to the simple notion that you don't believe "mere chance" could provide NS with the necessary mutations to result in 'functional' evolution.Aside from that, I still don't see how there is more to this than that you simply "don't think it is possible." Like nwr and Para, I still constantly have the impression that you're somehow missing the point of some of the analogies that have been put forward (like the tree analogy). And in any case, you have not offered anything beside some quotes and argument from incredulity to illustrate why random mutation could not offer NS the necessary material.Let me ask you a couple of questions:1) would you feel like your "concerns" would be addressed (and confirmed) if some sort of self-regulating principles were discovered (comparable to emerging order in chaos theory and such...) which would show that there is a naturalistic means by which NS is provided with "better than random" material? Would you feel like such a discovery would illustrate your point? Would it matter whether this is a naturalistic mechanism or something undefined (like a "designer")?2) do you think there's research going on in that direction and do you think this research is done under the "ID" banner? Or, in other words, is it your assumption that our hope to find something along these lines rests with those who go under the "ID" banner, and do you feel like opposing "ID" sort of equals blocking any research in this direction?3) do you have concrete examples of objective evidence, aside from "gut feeling", that some such mechanisms should exist?(edited layout)This message has been edited by Annafan, 20-10-2005 04:04 PM

Maybe answer MY post instead? Maybe it generates some PROGRESS in this very confusing thread...