Just had a thought on Intelligent Design

[Brilligator]

So as far as I can tell, the whole ID thing seems to rest on two main arguments. One is the Irreducable Complexity thing, which is more an argument against evolution than for intellegent design. (It's been pretty thoroughly debunked but it's not really the topic of this post)

The other is the "watch" analagy. That if something has sufficient complexity and intelligence built into it, then that in itself is evidence that it was designed by another intelligent being.

But...that logic is recursive. By definition then, this designer is also intelligent and sufficiently complex. So that designer had a designer also. This continues ad infinitum.

So the watch is so complex and intellegent it must have been built by a human. And the human is so complex and intelligent, it must have been created by God. And God is so complex and intelligent that he must have been built by ....?

:crazy:

[MrModerate]

1. Welcome to DU!

Wanna buy a watch?

[valerief]

2. The Ruling Class

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

You may wish to know that the Mayans really combined the concept of evolution with "intelligent design" by describing the evolution of consciousness.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Oh, you don't get it

there is an uncreated creator that created us so to ask who created the uncreated creator is creating a creative non-sequitor since creation of the uncreated is creatively impossible. Got it?

[hadrons]

5. "Just had a thought on Intelligent Design" ...

that's one more thought than the fools who came up with this "throey" had

[reichstag911]

7. "throey?"

How's that Parkinson's medication workin' out for ya?
:P:evilgrin::hide:

[chaplainM]

9. I like "throey"

It's like a theory, but you throw it aside.

[reichstag911]

6. Umm...GOD?

Welcome to DU.

[Brilligator]

8. Thanks for the welcomes

ID is my favorite subject. The whole process of how people can be so easily misled by some simple fallacies and misdirection to "disbelieve" in facts constantly amazes me. It's also a frightening example of how good the neocons have gotten at playing the propoganda and misinformation game.

Are there any ID supporters here? Or are they all holed up at Freerepublic?

[Lerkfish]

10. I agree. but the same recursive logic exists if there is no deity.

you're essentially driving at "first cause".
And first cause is a conundrum that exists either for theists or antitheists. Or anyone, for that matter.

If what exists now exists, then either it always existed, or it came into existence. Either answer is difficult to understand.
For something always to exist implies that existence is a closed loop, that matter creates itself from itself continuously. The speed bump in that thinking is: but where did the FIRST matter come from?
And to the second: if existence simply came into being, then what was before it?

These questions about first cause are unanswerable (it seems to me) for anyone who believes in God and anyone who does not. The only difference is religious people add one more layer to the question. Saying God created everything (which is what I believe) answers the nontheist's first cause question...but not really. I just interposes another layer, because it still must answer did God always exist (and how does that come about), or he just suddenly existed from nothing (and how does that come about?)

replace "God" and "universe" interchangeably and its still the same conundrum.

Therefore, while I applaud you for coming across the first cause conundrum, it does not disprove a deity any more than it proves one.

[Brilligator]

12. Sort of

I understand the first cause conundrum, but the point is that science would never put forth a theory that is so obviously recursive. Science waits until it finds more or for the time being, leaves it as a conundrum.

See what I mean? Big difference between realizing a problem (first cause) and putting forth a supposed solution that is so clearly victim to the same problem (ID).

[Lerkfish]

15. BUZZZZ... wrong.....have you never heard of "big bang"?

that is precisely the first cause conundrum presented as an answer by science that does not answer itself.
For the big bang theory to work, the original matter that exploded had to come from somewhere, or it had to always exist.

to say that science would never put forth a theory so obviously recursive, is obviously wrong. Big bang is just as recursive and believing in a creator.

(for the record, I want to say I'm talking apart from batwing ID proponents, just referring to the question of Creator, yes or no)

[Brilligator]

16. *Recursive*

You don't seem to understand what "recursive" means.

Big Bang is not recursive. The theory doesn't imply another Big Bang caused that Big Bang, which required another Big Bang for that.

Do you see the difference now?

[Lerkfish]

17. thank for treating me like an idiot. Now let me reiterate my point...

reread my post and see that even if Big Bang does not state its recursive, it has to be: at some point its a first cause or caused by a first cause, and we still come back to the same first cause conundrum.
If no other big bang caused big bang, the MATTER involved in the big bang had to come from somewhere or it had to always exist.

are not getting what I'm saying?

do you see my point now?

[Brilligator]

18. Please

...you're all "BZZZ..WRONG!" and now you're accusing me of treating you poorly? oy

Big Bang needing a previous cause is one thing.

Big Bang necessarily needing another Big Bang, which would need another Big Bang, etc. is recursive. (Nothing about Big Bang necessitates a previous Big Bang to cause it)

The difference is that a recursive or circular theory is clearly a dead end and a contradiction. A theory that still leaves an additional cause unexplained but isn't recursive (such as Big Bang) is useful (if true) because it takes us one step closer to the initial cause.

Again, there are exactly zero scientific theories that are circular like that.

[Lerkfish]

20. thanks for the explanation, and apologies because when I posted

BZZZ wrong, I did not think I was treating you like an idiot. Sorry if it seemed that way. Not my intent. Its something my wife and I do back and forth with gameshow sounds.

Some things do not translate well in written form.


at any rate, going by your latest explanation, then believing in a creator is not necessarily recursive, either, if it takes us one step close to the initial cause, no?

peace.

[Brilligator]

24. No problem :)

"then believing in a creator is not necessarily recursive, either, if it takes us one step close to the initial cause, no?"

Right (it's not recursive). I make a very clear distinction (see my other "Btw" reply to your original reply) between general belief in deities or creators and the specific ID theory.

The ID Theory as stated, (or at the very least the "all intelligent things must have an intelligent creator" reasoning to support it) is circular/recursive.

[Lerkfish]

26. ahhh. now I understand. I think the problem is that

ID theory is messed up, but belief in a deity is not (IMHO). I often get trapped due to imprecise language when debating it.
throwing ID theory completely out the window for a moment, then my posts make more sense. (hopefully)

[Brilligator]

19. Btw,

you said that my explanation "does not disprove a deity any more than it proves one"

I never proposed that it disproved a deity. I also don't propose that it disproves a creator.

But I do submit that it is a problem with the specific theory called "Intelligent Design".

[varkam]

22. Not if...

the matter has always simply existed. It's an argument that's been put forth by a few people, but there's been no real convincing support for it other than to say that we simply cannot imagine a universe with no beginning. I'm not saying that's what I actually think, but it is certainly possible - as there are things which we deal with that have no beginning and no end (the number line, for example).

So I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you about recursive logic, but all I'm saying is that if there were infinite Big bangs in the past, and will be in the future - then how is that a problem? Besides, if that's the case, then that makes for some very interesting philosophical notions about reality and fate.

[Zebedeo]

28. So, in order to avoid the conclusion that God created the universe,

we are now forced to postulate the existence of an INFINITE number of universes and an INFINITE number of big bangs in the past and future???

That seems like an awfully big stretch to make, just to avoid admitting the existence of God.

And is there any EVIDENCE for this infinite number of universes, or is this something that must be taken on faith?

[varkam]

30. Is there any EVIDENCE for the existence of this God?

Or is this something that must be taken on faith. Like I said, I'm not submitting that this is my position - though I fail to see how an accordion model of the universe forces us to postulate that there are an infinite number of universes. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

on edit: Besides, it seems to me just as plausible that there are infinite universes and infinite big bangs as is the claim that an old white dude, floating in the sky, created everything in seven days.

[Zebedeo]

36. You are the one who proposed an infinite number of big bangs

as an alternative explanation. Specifically, you said:

"if there were infinite Big bangs in the past, and will be in the future"

I'm just pointing out that you are stretching mighty far to avoid the conclusion that there is a God. In order to explain the observed facts and still hold to the notion that there is no Creator, you have to assume the existence of an infinite number of universes, and an infinite number of Big Bangs (which would release an infinite amount of energy). This is pretty far-fetched conjecture, it seems to me.

As for an old white dude, well, I agree He is old. He is the Ancient of Days. White? You're gonna have to explain that one to me, 'cause I don't see how you get there. Dude? Yeah, that's what it says, although I'm not sure that human concepts of gender really translate that well to God Almighty. Floating in the sky? Um, I don't believe He can be pinpointed as "floating in the sky." He exists independently of this universe, and therefore can be anywhere and everywhere. Created everything in seven days? Yeah, but what is a "day" to God? We know that he was able to expand the universe from the size of a marble to a volume larger than the observable universe in a trillion-trillionth of a second. Knowing that, is it so surprising that He would be able to form the Earth and its inhabitants in the next few days?

[varkam]

37. Again, I'm just proposing an argument.

I'm not saying that's what I actually think. Again, you didn't answer my question: how does saying that an accordion model of the universe is accurate to the universe that we live in mean that there are an infinite number of universes? Maybe you don't understand what the accordion model means: It means that the matter in the Universe keeps expanding and contracting on itself - expansion from the big bang, and contraction as a function of gravity, leading to another big bang. I fail to see how asserting that model of our universe means that there are an infinite number of universes, so I asking you again to explain to me (I am a bit dense, after all).

I don't see how even if you don't believe in God, you have to assert there are infinite universes - for the above reasons. And yes, an infinite number of big bangs would release an infinite amount of energy....but not all at once, mind you - over infinity. I can see how all this would seem pretty far fetched to someone who believes that an old white dude (that's how he is in the pictures, and god knows they cant be wrong), floating in the sky (pictures again), created the universe in seven "days" (but if it was one one trillionth of a second - would it of killed the authors to say that? I guess "days" flows better). Really the comment was a snide one, I wasn't putting it forth as an accurate assertion of what God would actually look like.

But, I imagine any story of creation that doesn't involve the J-C God would seem far-fetched to you.

[Zebedeo]

38. Your model

would have to include the destruction and re-creation of every atom and every subatomic particle in the universe - an infinite number of times. If you don't want to call that an infinite number of universes, fine. Call it an infinite number of destructions and rebuildings of the same universe, if you will. Either way, it is somewhat preposterous, don't you think?

[varkam]

39. Ahhhh..

so by you saying an infinite number of big bangs and an infinite number of universes you're actually just saying the same thing twice. I misunderstood.

And it doesn't seem preposterous to me - it seems in step with models based upon physical forces (though I'm not sure if they're currently in favor with astronomers, because I'm certainly not one).

Though I do see how, for one who views the big bang as preposterous, that an infinite number of them could not be any less so.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Of course an INFINITE creator is much more believable.

"The Trojan Horse has passed the innermost gates of the city, and scary religious imbeciles are now spilling out."

~Sam Harris, The Politics of Ignorance

Begging the question doesn't work in this forum, you should know that by now.

Although, I must admit, watching you trying to pimp science to allow for deities is very entertaining.



Damn uppity atheists and their militant atheistic science...

[heidler1]

59. Either having a God do it or a cycle of big bangs are equal big leaps.

However, having all of the matter needed to cause repetitive big bangs appears to me to be a more rational explanation than either a single God who has always been or a linage of Gods who some how breed and multiply.

[Zhade]

44. "antitheists"?

Is THAT what you're now using to refer to people who don't believe in gods? That we're ANTI something we don't assume exists?

Is that really the word you want to go with? Not only is it wrong, it's antagonistic.

[Zhade]

46. No response - so you ARE referring to atheists as 'antitheists' now?

Or did you just ignore my question?

[beam me up scottie]

47. It's the new fundie buzzword.

They'll corrupt another part of the English language soon and come up with something new.

[Zhade]

54. But that's just it - Lerkfish isn't a fundie.

In fact, I recall him being one of the theists around here who accepts our atheism as we describe it, rather than what a few of the assholes around here do (you know, calling us liars by refusing to accept our self-description).

I'm really hoping Lerkfish isn't going toward those bigots (and, in at least two cases, homophobes). I kinda like him.

[Lerkfish]

60. well, I responded thanks to your PM, ....and ???

not sure if you saw my response.

[Lerkfish]

58. sorry about that. this thread scrolled off my "MyDU" list so I wasn't

aware of further responses. Thanks for sending me a PM to alert me.
It was not my intent to ignore your valid question.

No, my writing was quick and therefore sloppy. I am not intending to relabel atheists as antitheists.
I was (probably improperly) being glib to refer to those who were against the creator in the equation.
sorry for the confusion.

And no, I'm no fundie. :)

[theoldman]

11. Evolution is a very intelligent design.

That is how I argue the point.

[Brilligator]

13. But just to be clear

that is not the "Intelligent Design" theory as put forth, which clearly contradicts Evolution.

[hunter]

14. I always like those science fiction stories...

...there's a couple where an intelligent race living in a fading universe, recognizing the inevitable end of everything, gathers all that is left and uses it to create a brand new universe.

"It's turtles all the way down."

Sort of a phoenix story writ large.

[varkam]

21. The Watch Argument

That's my favorite analogy that gets thrown around. First off, yeah, we know it's made by a designer because it says "Made in China" on it. I've never turned over a rock and seen "Made by God" on it. It's a silly point, but it's just to point out that the analogy stinks.

I think everyone here is on board with me here when I say that life is incredibly complex - certainly more so than we can understand at present (we don't even know everything about how our own brains work). But I think the fallacy a lot of people make is the following:

P1: If life is incredibly complex, then evolution alone cannot explain such complexity.
P2: Life is incredibly complex.

C: There must be something other than evolution which explains life's complexity.

I think that the people who make such arguments do not appreciate the ideas of evolution and natural selection. To trace our genetic heritage back through the millenia, noting all the random genetic mutations, all the way back to the first single-celled organism would be mind-boggling, if not impossible. To ask someone to appreciate the span of time over which these processes took place and how the complexities compounded onto one another is analogous to asking someone to appreciate the size of the universe.

[Brilligator]

25. Watch Analogy

"First off, yeah, we know it's made by a designer because it says "Made in China" on it. I've never turned over a rock and seen "Made by God" on it. It's a silly point, but it's just to point out that the analogy stinks."

Not to mention watches don't join up with other wathces and make new watches that are combinations of each other. Interesting how they leave the key element behind evolution out for their "analogy".

[Evoman]

40. The gold ate my quartz

Yeah and watches don't have to adapt to changes in the environment because *gasp* watches are really not alive. A piece of metal and quartz is pretty much okay the way it is. There is no need in nature for quartz and metal to become symbiotic, is there. hehe

[Zebedeo]

29. If you found a rock that said "made by God" on it,

I'm betting that you still wouldn't believe in God. Am I right?

[beam me up scottie]

32. Now don't be bitter because you fell for that and we didn't.

After all, someone has to fill the quota of one born every minute.

[varkam]

33. You are, indeed, correct.

Because if I saw a rock with "Made by God" scratched onto it, I'd figure it was some ID loon with an exacto knife. It's the same reason when I drive down the highway and see a sign that says "God is Real", I don't think "Oh my God! I've been mistaken all this time! I'd better run to the nearest church!". It's gonna take a hellvua lot more than that to convince me that there is a God / Tooth Fairy / Easter Bunny / Santa Claus / ghosts / spirits / angels / demons etc.

[Zebedeo]

34. What would it take?

Seriously. Please state what what it would take to convince you that there is a God.

[varkam]

35. What would it take?

Seriously. Please state what it would take to convince you that there is no God. Really. I'm interested.

As far as I'm concerned, oh, I don't know, maybe actual evidence. I would even just settle for logical consistency, but seeing as how there is none of the former and belief in a J-C God offers none of the latter...

Or wait, no, I have it. When Jesus comes back, if he gives CNN three days notice - *then* I'll believe.

[Evoman]

41. An extra hand

If I said right now, God give a extra hand for five seconds and I'll believe in you, and, all of a sudden, I had an extra hand that lasted for five seconds. I may even praise him if he let me keep it. So yeah, it wouldn't really take much for god to prove his existence. Hell, hes fucking god, it should be pretty damn easy. Now, making me praise him and pray to him....that would take a shitload more convincing.

Writing a illogical book two thousand years ago which tells us that women came from ribs and men were made from clay on the sixth day of the universe.....yeah...that just not gonna cut it. Jesus on a taco...not gonna cut it.

Where are all the damn burning bushes.


Evoman

[charlie]

49. This guy did

and wound up looking like an ass. He then spent a fortune trying to buy up evidence of his gullibility.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/berstone.htm

[beam me up scottie]

50. Are you married, charlie?

Because I think I love you.

Where did you dig this up?

[charlie]

52. Serendipity

Or... ooooOOOOEEEEOOOOooooo... sychronicity.

Or something.

I bumbled into it yesterday just bombing around the net, can't even remember how I got there. Today, I see Zeb's post and cowabunga, what was once frivolous is suffused with meaning and purpose. I had to share.

There are no accidents, this was meant to be.

[beam me up scottie]

51. There's a lesson here somewhere

Roderick and Eckart at one point apparently felt the thing was getting out of hand. They tried to convince Beringer that the stones were a fraud, without however admitting that they were the hoaxers. Beringer himself relates the incident. He tells of "two men, perhaps best described as a pair of antagonists who tried to discredit the stones." Beringer had permitted one of them to enter his dig, and, he says,

Unbeknownst to me, he proceeded to throw it open to the public...appoint a number of diggers, and in the presence of the townspeople indulging in drink, he mockingly condemned the unearthed stones as false A short time later, the other of this pair...carved into some of the more impressionable stones Hebrew characters, the figures of a winged dragon, a mouse, a lion, a pomegranate, etc."

Beringer then appeals to the reader to see that this was just a plot to discredit his work. Quoting Beringer again:

to bring down to the dust all my sacrifices, and labors, my very reputation...

But Beringer says that this crude trick of planting fakes in no way discredited the other, authentic stones.

There is a story that they even planted a stone with Beringer's own name, but that is probably a fable.

Beringer brought Eckert and Roderick to court, to "save his honor." Some of the court transcript still exists, and in the testimony the hoaxers make clear that they did indeed want to discredit Beringer, because, they said, "he was so arrogant and despised us all."

When Beringer realized he had been hoaxed he spent a huge fortune trying to buy up all copies of his expensive book. He died in 1740, not quite achieving that goal. Fortunately he wasn't around when in 1767 his publisher brought out a second edition to meet demand from the curious, and those who wanted it as a humorous example of misguided faith. This edition outsold the first edition by several thousand copies. (Saunders, p. 50.)

[funflower]

23. Welcome to DU, Brillig!

You sound like my kind of thinker!

[opiate69]

27. Here's another thought on ID

If you were going to design a creature to live on a planet whose surface is around 75-80% covered in salt water, would you design us or dolphins?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

42. "God created Man in his own image...

"...and Man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment."--Bert Cates, Inherit the Wind.

Fuck, how I love that play.

;)

[Solon]

43. You know what really aggravates me...

I'm not directing this at you, but ID advocates really piss me off because they combine, erroneously, the two basic theories of life that have NOT been unified yet at this time. Those are the Theory of Abiogensis, it theorizes how life comes from non-living matter through complex chemical reactions, and the Theory of Evolution, the theory that says that species adapt, over time, to new environments thanks to natural selection and sometimes random mutations. I know I probably butchered, or cut short, these two theories, but I always get pissed that they state shit like: "Well Darwinism(:puke: hate that term) doesn't tell us where life comes from!" No shit Sherlock, ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO!!!!

[The Straight Story]

45. A computer

A computer was built by humankind. But if, and when, it attains a mind of it's own it may well think it evolved from a more primitive state (which it did really).

Are we that different? We were made, designed, and now we question our creator and see ourselves as above all that. As better than that.

[varkam]

48. If we were designed...

Where the hell's my third arm?! It'd come in real handy sometimes...

Now I don't think we were "made" or "designed", but I don't see myself as "above all that" or "better than that". I see myself (or rather, the species) as a product of the interaction of natural selection and random genetic mutation of millions upon millions of years. I think that if I believed we were "made", then I would be a lot happier - at least I'd know I'm supposed to have this growth....

[The Straight Story]

53. I got a third arm

well....anyways.....

We may well be as you describe - or maybe a slight bit different. We may well be a dna experiment of some other race, being (god, et al), or maybe we are all computer programs that merely think we have arms and legs :)

I don't know the answer honestly, but I have a belief which is outside the core box but still within the main one - ie, we evolved but there was an influence in it. We can prove the one but not the other (yet...). One is science, one is belief. The two can be similar at times and may well cross paths quite a bit.

In many books from the 1800's (I used to collect em, all destroyed in a flood) on both religion and science we see god as getting the credit for the work, and us the credit for figuring out how the hell god did it. Science and religion could be friends and get along just fine (and still can in my book).

Where some have ignorance of science, others have ignorance of god - they see god as all powerful and able to do anything at anytime magically (and a note on that, if we are computer programs god could well do so). The bible does speak to god's limitations - and to me that is the key to the whole thing.

God did, we observe, we learn, we become closer to being what we define as god.

But there is another thing - the whole, why does god allow evil (and I can address that but won't here). The same thing one could wonder about mankind and countries and power - we have more powerful weapons, science, etc than most nations yet we allow people all over the world to suffer. This whole discussion in a way reminds me of darth vader really. At any rate, why do people who have power and can do more good not do more? If we measure ourselves the way we expect god to behave then we are more seriously lacking than 'he'.

We have many questions about ourselves as yet unanswered, and probably never will be. How we got here is less pressing to me than where we are going. And right now it looks like we are going bad places...

[Inland]

55. The watch analogy always sucked for ID theory

Because the primitive man who sees a watch thinks that it was created by a godlike entity. But it wasn't. It was built by a man. Clearly the very fact that something isn't understood, or isn't understandable, doesn't mean it made by god. What ID does is confuse "I don't get how a man like me could create this watch" and "I don't understand how nature could create an organism" with "a god must have done it, a god that is above men and above nature."

[sutz12]

56. Any sufficiently advanced technology...

is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke? Heinlein?

I think both of them used that at one time or another. Probably quoted each other. ;)

[Inland]

57. Arthur C. Clark(e) nt