Comments for Unintelligible Designs at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 29 out of 20 comments http://www.theind.com Mon, 20 May 2013 15:22:42 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13266 ragin-cajun, no offense meant to either side, its just that everyone tends to quote those philosophers whose view points relate to their own, the philosophers interpreted dreams through logic and their reasonings differed, from one to the other, somethings never change, just like some peoples mindset never changes. and I always await your comments......ciao. - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:11:32 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13255 Resident -- “Intelligent design is simply a rehashed version of creationism,” Barbara Forrest SELU Philosophy Professor as quoted from "Devolve" artcile in theindependent.com Federal Courts have ruled that ID "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." The Kitzmiller v. Dover So federal courts have ruled that ID is not science, a professional philosopher that is intimately involved with this says ID is just creationism warmed over, I've quoted definitions from Wikipedia that says ID is "a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God" But YOU say it's a scientific theory--so I guess that settles it :) - ragin_cajun Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:04:31 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13250 The proponents of "intelligent design" are the best argument against it, ha, ha...besides have you ever looked closely at a possum? - roughbeast Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:43:12 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13248 Ragin, the creators of ID (pun intended) are careful not to say God because they are attempting to supplant the scientific theory of evolution. They talk about "design" by an "intelligent" hand. They argue that parts of organisms are so complex that they cannot be reduced to simpler parts. They call this "irreducible complexity" (which I've mentioned about 3 or 4 times). So this irreducible complexity is the basis of ID, which is quite ludicrous in biology. Take the eye, for instance. The IDers stop their inquiry there and say that the eye is so complex that it cannot be reduced to simpler parts. But in fact, biologists have shown that that the eye has evolved from a very basic patch of light-sensitive cells to the mammalian eye of today (cephalopods also possess highly evolved, complex eyes). Talk Origins is a good site to see how science refutes this absurd notion of irreducible complexity. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html RickK posted some good stuff about ID. It's clear that the Discovery Institute is attempting to force ID into the scientific realm, not by scientific papers and peer-reviewed literature, but by propaganda, lawyers, and media. They play to politically-driven phobias of godless scientists turning our children away from Christianity. Now I've beaten this poor dead horse enough, but I'll leave you with a question. Would philosophers ignore these two facts? 1) the creators of ID intended it as a scientific theory. 2) ID has been disproven as a scientific theory. - Resident Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:00:33 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13229 shotgun -- "each of you profess an ideology" -- Not today, my friend, not I. I've described the position of the 2 sides, I've quoted philosophers and wikipedia. But you cannot go back over my comments on this article and determine whether I am for or against ID, whether I am Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Shinto. You cannot tell from my comments what I think about the new textbooks, or LFF. All that you can tell from my comments is that I think Walter should have added a few lines to his article for philosophical perspective, and that I think ID is a retelling of old metaphysical arguments. I think it's unfair of you to say that I am professing an ideology. - ragin_cajun Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:26:39 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13228 Resident -- " God and questions of origins of the Universe are most definitely under the heading of metaphysics." "real" philosophers would find that laughable? Think so? I don't. Is not ID's position a position about God, and how life came to be? It is. "have not said anything about ID itself besides quoting two sentences from Wikipedia." Why should I, I'm not supporting or defending ID, I'm only discussing it with YOU. I've gone out and found a definition of the thing about which we're speaking. what more SHOULD I say about it? You've "discussed before and did a fair bit of research on" the matter -- well then enlighten us about ID. Tell me what is incorrect about the definition I'VE given for the thing. Don't like Wikipedia's definition of it? Then propose a better one. - ragin_cajun Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:12:50 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13221 "theme park called Ark Encounter" ---------------------------- I hope they the missing link on display. - WhataLeak Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:59:21 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13214 Proponents say: "Intelligent Design is the scientific search for evidence of design in nature." In theory, that may be true. In practice however, ID is an advertising campaign and a tool for fundamentalist Christians who see it as a wedge with which to drive Genesis back into science classes and public policy. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the ID "researchers" are not the actions of scientists seeking actual truth. They do not attempt to convince their scientific peers with weight of evidence. They treat criticism as an attack, as a shunning, rather than as part of the gauntlet that any new scientific idea must run. The ID proponents appeal directly to the public with scientific-sounding books like "Signature in the Cell", using math and terminology that the vast majority of the general public is not equipped to critique. And they use lawyers and press releases. The Discovery Institute in Seattle is promoting intelligent design with a media machine that is churning out several press releases every week. Using funding from Young Earth Creationists, the lawyers and politicos who head the Discovery Institute keep the ID "manufactroversy" in business. If there are any actual honest ID "scientists", people actually trying to study something scientifically and trying to devise actual falsifiable tests, they are lost in sea of bamboozle and mis-direction that is the heart and soul of the "Intelligent Design" lobby. The pseudo-scientific advertising machine of the Discovery Institute most closely resembles the ad campaigns by Big Tobacco in the late 60s. But where Big Tobacco were (by their own admission) marketing doubt in the science that showed smoking causes cancer, the Discovery Institute (by its own admission) markets doubt in the materialist science of evolution. These are not the ACTIONS of people of science. They are the actions of people of politics and religious ideology. So let's not confuse what Intelligent Design should be with what Intelligent Design is. Supporting evidence for the above commentary: Young Earth Creationist foundation of "Intelligent Design" movement: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/ http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2000/07/from-genesis-to.html Secret "Intelligent Design" marketing campaign strategy paper leaked by a copy shop operator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html "Creation Science" becomes "Intelligent Design" via cut & paste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22 http://www.expelledexposed.com/ Funding of creationist propoganda: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/2718/funding_of_creationist_organizations_doubles Findings of a conservative, Bush-appointed federal judge regarding "Intelligent Design" - it is religion, not science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision - RickK Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:05:29 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13206 I met a blind man in the jungle of Guatemala, he was praying in the shadow of an ancient ruins, he asked me " will you describe the sky to me, I answered the sky is vast space and it is the color of blue, he said if the sky is space how can it have a color, I said the blue is a reflection of the sea waters on our planet, he then asked me what is blue and that is how much i have gathered from the jumbolaya you folks spoof, each of you profess an ideology and like the blind man neither of you have ever witnessed, yet each of you adhere to your own addled philosphy's - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:08:47 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13194 You can claim that ID is a metaphysical position, though I think real philosophers would find that laughable. What you cannot claim is that ID vs. evolution is a "debate" between the presence or non-presence of God, for reasons I've stated already. You have not said anything about ID itself besides quoting two sentences from Wikipedia. This is a subject that I've discussed before and did a fair bit of research on. I don't even think the Discovery Institute would say that ID is an attempt at philosophy. It's an attempt at science, and a lame, discredited one at that. As for who thinks they're always right, it's you who parades around the boards with a self-righteous swagger while ridiculing those who draw different conclusions. The claim of being able to produce a biology textbook was particularly rich. It's you who said "my assertion is unassailable." Socrates would take umbrage with that, considering that he said, "There is only one thing that I know, and that is that I know nothing." - Resident Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:03:43 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13140 Once again--you said " I find your assertion that this ID nonsense is a modern expression of age-old metaphysical ponderings laughable " So I gathered evidence to prove that my assertion is true. ID IS a metaphysical position. I hope you find that laughable, too. - ragin_cajun Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:19:14 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13134 Once again, biology and evolution make no attempt to answer the God question or explain the nature of reality (metaphysics). This being a fact, how can you say that the ID vs. evolution debate is a metaphysical debate on the existence of God? - Resident Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:56:31 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13128 "The idea that the Discovery's Institute's Intelligent Design is a metaphysical argument against godless evolutionists is wrong." Sure, resident. I understand now. No matter what facts are presented, what YOU wrote is still right. The definitions of the words are yours to change, the rules of logic don't apply to you, you are perfectly free to mis-state everyone else's position, and you can of course change the scope of the debate whenever you want as well. Thanks for educating me on the rules of debate in the subjective and relative universe that you have gleeaed from reading Kant and Nietzsche. - ragin_cajun Thu, 09 Dec 2010 09:34:16 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13125 A follow-up: Of course the issue of God vs. no God is still going on in philosophy. But Intelligent Design was offered up to counter evolution, which is the realm of science (remember science has no position on God). And ID has been shown to have no place in science; its key tenet of "irreducible complexity" has been disproven. If you want to say that ID has a place in philosophy to argue for the presence of God, so be it, but I doubt that authorities in the field are taking it seriously. - Resident Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:20:31 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13124 Ragin, I'm aware of all that you say and I noted this in my post. It's no surprise that very early philosophy was heavily under the influence of the gods; there was really no attempt to explain things other than "God did it" before then. Aristotle was less fervent in religion than Plato; this in itself may have been a harbinger of things to come. The student broadened his perspective beyond the gods. (note: I would argue that Kant has a more "evolved" metaphysics. Nothing against Aristotle; I admire him greatly for being the first biologist in a sense.) As philosophy grew, more philosophers were concluding that there is NOT a central planner in the universe. Nietzsche and Sartre come to mind. So you can list all the philosophers who included a god in their arguments, but a list can also be drawn of philosophers who did not include a god. The idea that the Discovery's Institute's Intelligent Design is a metaphysical argument against godless evolutionists is wrong. Why? I'll say again: biology and evolution make no attempt to answer the God question nor do they wade into metaphysics. That's all I'm saying. - Resident Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:57:23 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13113 Not even God can change the past. - Eat Prey Kill Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:30:15 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13108 Resident -- First, I will quote Wikipedia's definition of ID. Then, I will describe metaphysical arguments by famous philosophers that are similar, or the same, as the ID position. Finally, I will state what "metaphysics" is, as defined by Aristotle, an undisputed authority on the matter. I will leave the rest of your errant remarks for someone else. Read it all very carefully :) Then tell me how any reasonable person could POSSIBLY conclude that ID is not a modern retelling of at LEAST one of these philosophers' positions. From Wikipedia on "Intelligent Design" -- " It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][4]—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." Socrates gave examples of natural phenomena that he interpreted as signs of a planned universe. Plato wrote several dialogues in which characters describe the formation of the Universe, the World, the Animals, by "god" or "the supreme". Airstotle also saw organizing principles, or "directedness" in the Universe, and all things in it. He CERTAINLY thought there was order to the universe, he thought there was a "Prime Mover" maintaining order in the Universe. He was the teacher at "the Lyceum" in Athens. Cicero saw reason in all of nature, and said that was evidence of divinity. Augustine...as in St. Augustine, the great Church philosopher... Aquinas...five proofs for the existence of God...certainly a philosopher. Hume presented arguments on both sides of the debate in his writings...I'd say Hume is a philosopher. "Metaphysics" is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question "what is the Universe". It is encompassed by all that Aristotle discussed in his work of the same name. One of the books in that work discusses god, gods, and lays out Aristotle's explanation of his now famous "Prime Mover". Therefore, God and questions of origins of the Universe are most definitely under the heading of metaphysics. You say my "assertion that this ID nonsense is a modern expression of age-old metaphysical ponderings" is "laughable"? Well, the joke's on YOU, because my assertion is unassailable. - ragin_cajun Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:28:57 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13103 This whole evolution thing is complex but there's obvious proof that some of us have evolved further than others. Just saying. . . . - holeinthedonut8 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:04:42 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13102 Resident, It suits your agenda to refer to the "religious right." It is possible to be "right" while not being "religious." - Rinkelstein Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:14:22 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7417-unintelligible-designs#comment-13098 Soop, the only mention of anything political was one reference to the religious right pushing this whole ID nonsense, which is a simple fact. The article was not a diatribe against conservatives. Your other characterizations of science's positions on global warming and life's building blocks are not entirely accurate, either. I can expound if you want. Ragin, there was nothing crafty about bringing Jindal into this. He signed an atrocious piece of legislation that is directly related to this issue. I find your assertion that this ID nonsense is a modern expression of age-old metaphysical ponderings laughable and a grave insult to philosophy. The Discovery Institute ain't no Lyceum. Biology has been a branch all its own since since the philosophy of science was firmly established in the 20th century. Biology and evolution do not seek to address the God question nor do they wade into metaphysics. The history of thought on gods and the natural world is interesting. You can see glimmers of thought about natural selection and phenotypic change over time in the writings of Emerson and Thoreau, just before Darwin published "On the Origin of Species." These folks had religion ingrained in them, but they did not let that stifle free thought as the flat-earthers of today do. But that history has no bearing on the issue of religious zealots attempting to thwart the teachings of science. - Resident Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:58:30 +0100