Horizon tonight
Discussion
I predict "Turbobloke" getting no work done tomorrow. 
D'ya think they'll do the Flying Spaghetti Monster next week? 
Just because somebody wrote it down, doesn't mean it's true.
You can demonstrate Darwins theory. Just look at all the breeds of dogs, cats and rabbits that are there because man selected their specific genes, which resulted in the breeds we see.
Anybody care to demonstrate Intelligent Design? Thought not.
You can demonstrate Darwins theory. Just look at all the breeds of dogs, cats and rabbits that are there because man selected their specific genes, which resulted in the breeds we see.
Anybody care to demonstrate Intelligent Design? Thought not.
I didn't think there was any debate about Intelligent Design among intelligent people. It makes no sense...
1) Intelligent design goes in circles. Intelligent design theorists prove ID, partially, by the idea that humans and complex organisms couldn't have made themselves, and something so complex had to have been "aided" somehow, and this helping hand, so to speak, is the intelligent designer. Yet, since the intelligent designer must be at least as complex as what it makes. So thus the intelligent designer in and of itself is a complex organism, which by ID theorists' logic must not have developed on its own and must have been designed by an even more intelligent designer. And so on and so forth the theory adds an infinite number of "intelligent designer strata".
2) The only possible way to end such a cycle is to accept that a final intelligent designer is an entity that was never created, and always was. Which is a deity, more commonly known as God. And God's existance cannot be proven by definition, as faith in a God falls apart if there is any solid proof proving his existance. And since science requires something to be capable of being proven, this cannot be science.
3) Thus, the intelligent design theory either explains nothing, through creating extraneous layers of designers that all require a predecessing designer, or the theory is fundamental (i.e. basic) creationism, an idea than cannot be proven by definition, and without being able to be proven, cannot be science.
Or at least that's my take on it...
1) Intelligent design goes in circles. Intelligent design theorists prove ID, partially, by the idea that humans and complex organisms couldn't have made themselves, and something so complex had to have been "aided" somehow, and this helping hand, so to speak, is the intelligent designer. Yet, since the intelligent designer must be at least as complex as what it makes. So thus the intelligent designer in and of itself is a complex organism, which by ID theorists' logic must not have developed on its own and must have been designed by an even more intelligent designer. And so on and so forth the theory adds an infinite number of "intelligent designer strata".
2) The only possible way to end such a cycle is to accept that a final intelligent designer is an entity that was never created, and always was. Which is a deity, more commonly known as God. And God's existance cannot be proven by definition, as faith in a God falls apart if there is any solid proof proving his existance. And since science requires something to be capable of being proven, this cannot be science.
3) Thus, the intelligent design theory either explains nothing, through creating extraneous layers of designers that all require a predecessing designer, or the theory is fundamental (i.e. basic) creationism, an idea than cannot be proven by definition, and without being able to be proven, cannot be science.
Or at least that's my take on it...
imperialism2024 said:
I didn't think there was any debate about Intelligent Design among intelligent people. It makes no sense...
1) Intelligent design goes in circles. Intelligent design theorists prove ID, partially, by the idea that humans and complex organisms couldn't have made themselves, and something so complex had to have been "aided" somehow, and this helping hand, so to speak, is the intelligent designer. Yet, since the intelligent designer must be at least as complex as what it makes. So thus the intelligent designer in and of itself is a complex organism, which by ID theorists' logic must not have developed on its own and must have been designed by an even more intelligent designer. And so on and so forth the theory adds an infinite number of "intelligent designer strata".
2) The only possible way to end such a cycle is to accept that a final intelligent designer is an entity that was never created, and always was. Which is a deity, more commonly known as God. And God's existance cannot be proven by definition, as faith in a God falls apart if there is any solid proof proving his existance. And since science requires something to be capable of being proven, this cannot be science.
3) Thus, the intelligent design theory either explains nothing, through creating extraneous layers of designers that all require a predecessing designer, or the theory is fundamental (i.e. basic) creationism, an idea than cannot be proven by definition, and without being able to be proven, cannot be science.
Or at least that's my take on it...
Playing devils advocate here....
There may be an alternative take on point 2.
If we assume the universe self created via logical inevitability AND that implicit in the creation is the requirement for intelligence/telesis THEN Universe = God = intelligence.
Does away with the 'always was' and replaces it with logically inevitable.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff