Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- Mimio0
Yeah, I forgot about the aliens. Thanks for the reminder Discipler. Got any proof of those?
- flagellum0
Behe responds:
- flagellum0
Nice side-step, mimio. You're good at that.
"When I can't answer the claims, I'll drop and dodge."
Any port in a storm, i guess. ;)
- ********0
- ********0
AAAHHAHHAHAHAHAA....
- Mimio0
Discipler, I'm just concluding that since ID claims that natural chemical interactions could not have produced basic life. I'm saying it must mean supernataul causes. Since the "intelligent designer" itself needs to actually exist for ID to be true and presumably it didn't evolve from a natural chemical cause.
- ********0
1. That irreducible complexity in biological systems exists, and its origins are, as yet, unclear, unhypothesised and untestable: TRUE.
2. That the unknown mechanisms refererred thereto resemble some technologies designed by humans:
TRUE.
To fill the gap between these 2 statements by saying that the incompletely understood articles in I are, by the truth of 2, designed:
UTTERLY FALSE, ILLOGICAL, and UNSCIENTIFIC.The theory is untestable, and therefore unscientific. It falls outside the realm of what science IS. It makes a proposition ABOUT a subject to which we can apply the scientific method, but is not itself a scientific theory..
In the same way that saying some metals are hard, and can be fashioned in gears and levers is not mechanics..
ID tells us nothing about evolution, origins, biochemistry or theology. It merely states that some aspects of science are complex and as yet unknown, and proposes that they will forever remain unknowable, something which by definition, is unprovable.
It is the philosophical equivalent of infinity plus one.
Utterly valueless, it merely relabels the boundaries of knowledge - it is a word-game, a shadow-puppet show, a thin crutch for people whose own misunderstanding of their own misunderstanding of physics and biology leaves them in an ontological vacuum, and need the solice of an inferred deity/creator/designer onto which to project the shadow of their own incomplete self-image.
Again - it is a word-game, 'design' reveals the proponents' need for a purpose behind their own existence, purpose being a recent human concept, without which the universe existed very nicely thank-you for 13billion years (google red-shift, big-bang, etc). Purpose is a concept that arises from symbolic thought, to extrapolate this symbolic thought to darwinian principals of mutation and selection is false - it is these prinicpals that lead to the development of symbolic thought.
At the base of all IDists fears is the cold, mechanistic universe, in which their existence is both meaningless and accidental. Their fervency to disprove this only reveals the degree to which they actually believe it to be true..
Unaware of their own true identity, unverified by anything truly approaching spritual/cosmic experience, lost in a symbolic maze of mirrors, concepts and ego, without ever truly experiencing the one-ness, the atman, the oceanic unity that has guided and informed acid-heads, mystics, poets and freaks since the year dot, they invoke and project their highest ideals onto that part of the universe that exists outside the scope of ego-awareness and subjectivity, and define this idea as the 'cause' of the universe, the creator, the god - it is the process that is behind their very creation of which they are, at every second, the most recent event, yet they insist that it is outside of them, designing from a distance, and reveals more about the fractured, child-like state of their own individual, incomplete conciousness than any scientific ideas with which it attempts to deal.
ID IS deistic religion, period, and should be laughed at in the street.
- flagellum0
mimio, some people believe that the intelligent designer(s) are space aliens, I also have thoroughly agnostic ID friends who say they don't know and may never know who the designer is. ID cannot determine the identity of the designer - that's a second order question for philosophers, not scientists. It's that simple. Furthermore, Abiogenesis has been shown to be impossible, not just improbable. Raw RNA cannot even achieve the complexity of a single cell through unguided mechanisms. Let alone people.
- mrdobolina0
does it even fucking matter, honestly?
- mrdobolina0
just because science hasn't gotten that far yet, it must have been designed.
Is that basically where we are at with this?
- flagellum0
hi mikotondria,
1. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
2. On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism is effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What’s more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe’s work shortly after Darwin’s Black Box appeared remarked, “We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway.” What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, “But even if we can’t, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution.”
3. ID tells us very much about 1. origins: there was a designing intelligence. 2. Biochemistry: There exist Irreducibly Complex machines at the molecular level which Darwinian gradualism cannot account for. 3. Theology: ID tells us that the identity of the designer is a second order question that it cannot answer from the evidence. The designer could be space aliens or some nebulous telic "force", as much as it could be the Biblical God.
It is the fervency with with Darwinists try to prove that our's is a cold mechanistic universe which produced us in an accident, which demonstrates their fear that there may actually be a designing intelligence with whom they may need to be accountable to, one day. They would tell us that DaVinci's work was designed, but that DaVinci himself, was not. They would have us ignore the Anthropic Principle and the digital code in DNA and close our eyes tightly to a universe that screams design. They would have us believe that purely physical, non-telic processes produced that mind - that which is metaphysical and can love, hate, hurt, grieve and seems wire to ponder it's very existance. It would seem that the designing accident overshot it's target.
In short, NeoDarwinism is empty philosophy masquerading as science and it contains holes big enough to drive an intelligently designed truck through.
- Mimio0
Discipler, don't you think's hypocritical that you demand facts to support evolutionary biolgical origins, but it's ok to just not know or identify the "intelligent designer", and label it as unknowable, but still somehow plausable?
- pavlovs_dog0
For pavlov:
For the 80th time. :)
flagellum
(Jan 6 06, 06:18)you got the wool tight over your eyes!
...still all negatives. this can't happen, that can't happen, the other thing can't happen...
list one postive testable calim agaisnt the MILLIONS of science! just one! and you can't!
...and let us not forget,
slaves were just like family!
- KuzIII0
the evolution of the flagella
- mrdobolina0
Discipler, what if dna can be reduced to even a lower state?
what if dna is the designer?
- Mimio0
Behe disagrees with you Discipler, he's said ID isn't falsifiable.
- KuzIII0
Behe also says he agrees with the general theory of evolution from species to species.
- flagellum0
um, no Kuz. They are trying to tell you that homology of components and co-option can evolve the flagellum. This has been shown completely false, many times. Like here:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_…
and here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe05…
and here:
- flagellum0
yes, Behe does. He is one of many ID proponents who believes in Common Ancestry. But he believes that NS + RM was insufficient and that a guiding intelligence was required.
There are as many ID proponents who reject Common Ancestry as well, like Bill Dembsky.
- mrdobolina0
Discipler, I have asked you this before and you never answered.
Were you interested in ID before you were born-again?