Theory of Intelligent Design

Presumably if the complexity of life is too great to not have been done by a "designer", then that designer would also be too complex. So, who or what designed the designer?

 

I've never met them. I think I made the possible source(s) plain in my comment.

ET, or God.

 

Intelligent design doesn't state that life is designed because it is too "great", but that specific systems contain design like patterns (which would contain high levels of CSI). The identity of the intelligence is independent of the observation that something is an intelligent phenomena (since they are consistent regardless of intelligent identity), so the question "who or what designed the designer" is a meaningless question in the face of the intelligent design hypothesis as you don't need an explanation of your explanation to have an explanation.

 

Maybe a bit of both.

 

You are thinking IN TIME. If a creative force is not in time, but manifested space, time, matter, that is, timeless, then this does not require a creator to have a creator, for you would be moving back in time, where time does not exist. Off course, if a creative force exists, outside of this physical universe, it would be impossible for the creation to KNOW the creative force. For thought is of time, then logically what is of time can never touch or know that which is outside of time, or timeless. No bridge to it.

Yet this has been answered before, in this thread, by me and others, just differently. Will you miss this one too? ha ha ha

 

Not to get off subject too much but...Humans are on the verge of creating sentient machines. I believe some of those sentient machines will eventually deny their creators. Extra thought: Maybe the act of denying the Creator is the stimulus for creating sentient life. It doesn't mean, however, that a Creator does not exist.

 

As other ideas like the multiverse. Yet if the universe, is a virtual reality, how would one test it? Do physicist just throw out the idea of a multiverse? No. Not generally, yet there is no way to test that either.

There is also not one single thread of evidence, found in a controlled scientific experiment that provides evidence that the self replicating molecule on which the first single cell self replicating organism is based, ever happened by CHANCE in some primordial stew. Yet it is accepted, a consensus of biologists. No way to test it. Campbell is no different. He just does not have a consensus, which is not based upon evidence, just an idea, a faith that chance produced something. .

 

And the more we learn the further we get from the believability of anything remotely close to "Intelligent Design" which is nothing more than calling the first words of the Bible a "theory."

 

We actually got closer to Intelligent Design, not farther away. As we have learned more about biological systems, we see higher levels of CSI (Complex-Specified Information) than previously thought and more useful parts than previously thought, fitting the predictions of the intelligent design hypothesis.

 

It is not scientific theory.

It has no scientific merits. None whatsoever.

 

It does, and its a scientific hypothesis.

 

Except ID proponents have yet to define "information" or the need to tag the term with two (also undefined) adjectives. ID is simply a recipe of mere assertions and logical fallacies. It is not a scientific hypothesis capable of falsification.

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

There already is a definition of information that is clearly conveyed by ID theorists.
It is falsifiable as I have already demonstrated.

 

You fail to address what I said. Evolution is theory also but they don't

You really do't want to discuss that.

 

Did you read the beginning of this thread? Why didn't you state that earlier>? If intelligent design is not a theory, what do you call it? Correct you are about evolution, It is only a theory. Unproven. Requires faith. Many here state it is fact.

 

I don't have a particularly high opinion of it. It doesn't seem scientific or useful. But I'm happy to give you a shot at answering a question that will easily demonstrate the validity of intelligent design if it is actually something more than a god of the gaps fallacy.

You and I are walking through the woods when we come upon a water course. It could be a naturally formed river or a man-made canal. What principles of intelligent design would you use to discover whether the water course is the result of design or undirected processes? Keep in mind I'm talking about applying broad principles to specifics about the water course, meaning you could potentially apply those same principles to investigating life or anything else in the universe.

 

I don't consider my faith as "religious faith....just faith. Is your faith considered "scientific faith"? Nevertheless.....it is faith. And faith is required for you to state evolution theory as fact.

 

We are learning nothing that would in any way negate Campbell's ideas. So how could we get farther away, from his ideas, when he would certainly change his perspective, due to this learning you reference? Isn't this like saying the more we learn, the more we get away from the idea of a multiverse, or string theory? I think Campbell's ideas are just as strong as these ideas. None can be tested, yet.

 

You must have faith to believe Evolution is fact. It is science only to the point it is introduced as theory. Anything beyond that is the godless embracing theory as fact....it is their "religion".
I did not introduce the term religion to this thread. I have only discussed the fact it requires faith to believe the theory of intelligent design. It also requires faith to believe the theory of evolution. Those that do are every bit as "religious" as I am!

 

Says you. I have yet to see anything other than non-sequitur nonsense about Shannon information from the likes of William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and the rest of the paid whores from the ID mafia, who are your likely sources. And you have (apparently) fallen for it. Hook, line and sinker.

But let's check to make sure. Define "information". Not "specified information", not "complex information", not "specified complex information". Just define "information" (Hint: there are numerous definitions for this word - choose wisely).

Again, not in any way you can demonstrate. You have not used the words "falsifiable", or "falsification" in this thread.

Of course, you did use the word "false" in one of your dozens of unsupported mere assertions here:

Perhaps you believe this demonstrates that your alleged scientific hypothesis is falsifiable. If true, that would be quite funny.

Nor have you presented this alleged "scientific" hypothesis in the first place. What is this scientific hypothesis of intelligent design? Please present it in English. After you have done that, present the null hypothesis (again in English).

 

I am amazed about a simple chicken egg. It's design is so amazing. It has food to nourish. It is apart from any life assistance (other than a mother to keep it warm. It has a shell for protection with a covering bacteria cannot penetrate. Life emerges from that egg if it has been fertilized. Can anyone explain how an egg happened by chance let alone the complexities of the life that emerges from it? You might explain all the zillions of chance mutations that formed this but even that assumes that all mutations are improvements. I'm not buying it. It seems every time scientists try and bolster the chance theory,....the just add a trillion years to make it seem acceptable.

 

You have not yet grasped how biologists use and define the noun "evolution" when applied to biology. Nor do you understand that the biological theory of evolution attempts to explain the noun "evolution" (when that noun is applied to biology). Put another way, the term "evolution" is different than the phrase "biological theory of evolution".

Study hard. Please don't post about this again until you have actually learned the difference because you will just be demonstrating your ignorance.

 

Argument from incredulity fallacy with a side salad of strawman fallacy, along with a demonstration of deep ignorance of the biological theory of evolution. Got anything worthy of discussion?

 

You could attempt to demonstrate whether it is designed by examining the specified complex features of the water course, and see if the structure of the water course represents what we know about intelligent applications to land. CSI levels can exist in a land form, but water can also erode away the intelligent markers, so I can only assume you used that specific example because it works out a possibility to destroy evidence of design, but maybe not.
If I created a canal, how would it compare to a non-created canal? You could test that, and if there is no derivable difference, then you conclude that you can't conclude design from examination of a water course, but we do know intelligent agents act differently than simple undirected erosion.