Intelligent Design discussion gains some compassion, perhaps?
20 November 2005 by SeanHey. At least we are starting to have a debate that has escalated above name-calling and all-out contempt. There are some smart theists in the world. I just happen to think they are wrong. No, evolution can’t explain everything, but I am not sure that claim was ever made. But at least somebody on the ID side is asking for some calm and rational discussion. For all I know, he is a flaming ass, but this sounds kinda balanced compared to the vitriol we have been hearing so far.
He sounds like a nice enough guy (always liked that expression for its irony), but we can still rip his strawman down by pointing out that nobody ever said Darwinism could explain everything. It can probably explain nipples for men, though, dude (my favorite line from Time Bandits).
Don’t get me wrong. He is still being intellectually false and deceptive… I just like the fact that he doesn’t sound like a screaming, flaming, fire and brimstone asshole from Heck.
Thoughts? Let’s work this one over, shall we?
Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row
20 November 2005, on 9:10 pm
“Can matter create intelligence? That is a question we can’t answer scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it.”
“Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself,” he said. “It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence.”
IMO that right there is the money shot. It’s basically an argument from ignorance (”It’s too hard for me to understand, therefore its impossible”) that has been pretty thoroughly refuted. There’s also a subtle assumption of “design” which amounts to a circular argument.
20 November 2005, on 11:10 pm
“The Church’s task now is to defend reason,” he explained.
Yeah, right. This guy is full of it. “Evolutionism” died out as a fad around 1910.
It would be more interesting philosophically to talk about what intelligence actually is, rather than to just insist that “intelligence” implies an anthropomorphic consciousness.
And screw “common sense.” Matter does organize itself. That’s what the laws of physics and chemistry are all about.
21 November 2005, on 1:37 am
Thanks, as always, for the reality check, folks. I guess I am always vainly hoping for a more civil discussion with these waterheads.
Caught Margaret Cho on Cspan-2 tonight. She was hilarious. Someone asked her about Intelligent Design being taught in Kansas. She said she has no problem with Christian creationism being taught as myth from popular culture, but how would you like it if I told you my pentagram and chicken blood had to be part of your kid’s biology curriculum?
Ha!
21 November 2005, on 3:16 am
If ID is true, then how come we have slugs that can’t operate machinary?
It is annoying how they’ve always gotta whip out the strawmen for gratutious bashing of naturalism.
21 November 2005, on 8:57 am
If we are going to enter a debate with the ID protagonists; we cannot allow them to set the agenda which will, of course, carefully avoid having to answer any ‘inappropriate’ questions. The teaching of ID in science classes is a separate but related part of the question of whether or not ID is in any way coherent or credible.
ID should not be taught in science classes simply because it is not science. Science is supposed to follow the empirical data/hypothesis/testing/rejection or acceptance paradigm or put another way – some evidence would be nice. The ‘fact’ that another paradigm does not explain what you see as the facts’ is absolutely no support for your paradigm or put another way, even if evolution is total rubbish it still does help your assertion that ID is the answer. Science requires you to produce evidence for your hypothesis – we never see any for ID, only why evolution cannot explain everything. This alone is enough to reject ID as appropriate for the science class.
On the broader topic of the logicality and coherence of the ID hypothesis there is much lacking. The basic tenet of ID theory seem to be that biological systems are too complicated to have appeared by chance and this directly implies that simpler systems cannot ‘create’ more complex systems. It also directly implies that complexity is a marker of external (intelligent) design. Unfortunately for the ID hypothesis none of this is true.
If complex systems can only be created by more complex systems then who (or what) created the intelligent designer? The best you can get from this argument is an infinite regression of increasingly intelligwnt designers – which gets us absolutely nowhere. This reminds one of the Stephen Hawkins story of the elderly lady who approached him after one of his lectures and told him that the earth was supported on the back of an elephant, standing on a turtle. When Hawkins ventured to ask on what the turtle was standing he received the retort “You can’t fool me young man – it’s turtles all the way down!” Apparently it’s IDs all the way down too.
Now, consider a plie of small rocks- all different sizes, shapes and irregularities on the surfaces. Compare this with a perfect cube, hewn out of marble by a modern day Michaelangelo. Which is the more complex; the rocks or the cube? Which one was designed and which one was random chance? If you built one wall out of a pile of rocks and one out of layers of even sided cubes which is the more stable and hence the more suited to its purpose? Anybody voted for the rocks being designed yet? The mark of good design is simplicity, the mark of bad design is over-complexity – there are too many things that can go wrong. If you have a complex blood coagulation system you end up with haemophiliacs when it goes wrong. An intelligent designer would keep things as simple as possible and make the designs fail-safe; random development, where there is no option but to build onto what you have, gives rise to overly complex systems. If human beings are so marvellous and the pinnacle of God’s (sorry the intelligent designer’s) plan, why do we die and why do we spend a third of our life (or more if you’re a teenager) unconcious? I know it is not a perfect analogy but it breaks the mantra that complexity equals intelligent design.
I still search in vain for the evidence that ID/Creation Science has some rational basis. Anybody out there help?
21 November 2005, on 9:18 am
these waterheads…
*spits out coffee all over keyboard*
LOL
21 November 2005, on 9:33 am
What we need is less compassion and more answers from the ID-idiots. We need them to answer BASIC questions like “where is your evidence ?” and “can you describe how your theory works ?”.
Until they can do that, what’s the point ?
21 November 2005, on 9:56 am
FT:
They have no answers. This is how the flowchart goes:
-IDiots spout bullshit
-We retort with facts
-They claim there’s a debate
-They conclude there’s a “controversy”.
No, we can’t debate them as they have no facts to go on. But we can’t plug our ears and hope they go away.
21 November 2005, on 9:59 am
I’ve got to be honest with you guys – I mentioned on another thread that I have been visiting some xtian forums trying to see if cooperation between our two camps is possible. (and just so we’re clear, I leave my normal abrasive bitch monster persona behind
I’m nice to them.)
I’m not very optimistic. After two weeks, I’ve seen more misconceptions about atheists then I have knowledge. For instance one guy told me that he couldn’t see building too many bridges with atheists because he’s against abortion and that goes against the “atheist agenda”. Were you guys aware we had an agenda? Did I miss a meeting or something?
*sighs* I was hoping to be wrong, but . . . ugh . . .
This argument between IDiots and the rest of us will never be over with. The best we can hope for is to contain their psychosis.
21 November 2005, on 10:41 am
Sean,
My wife and I saw that same book talk- Cho is friggin hilarious. We appreciated that, even in the heart of Kansas, we can watch basic cable that broadcasts a woman saying “fuck”, “cock”, etc.
Waterheads= Hydrocephalics?
21 November 2005, on 11:27 am
“Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself,” he said. “It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence.”
Apparently this asshole has not seen a snowflake, a sand dune, or a storm cloud.
21 November 2005, on 11:27 am
Rcokstar – we need to teach the controversy!
Lya – Isn’t it odd how xians project there own mindset on us like this? For instance, those that say atheists really believe in god but hate him. That’s why it’s so damn hard to talk to these people.
21 November 2005, on 11:28 am
“Apparently this asshole has not seen a snowflake, a sand dune, or a storm cloud.”
God made those too! That crazy fucker is everywhere.
21 November 2005, on 11:51 am
“Isn’t it odd how xians project there own mindset on us like this?”
They are hard to talk to. They don’t seem to grasp the fact that atheism isn’t a religion and therefore isn’t organized like one. I posted that atheists don’t have an agenda (as we’re not exactly organized to nearly the degree that they are) and that abortion has nothing to do with atheism. We’ll see.
I’m doing this because I’ve been accused of bigotry a few times now – something that I’ve never even remotely attempted to deny. I freely admit that I don’t like theists as a whole. But frankly, they are equally bigoted against us – but they are also clueless.