"Intelligent Design" and "Irreducible complexity"

[video=youtube;pITNL28jb24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pITNL28jb24[/video]

 

I'd say you were a creeper.

 

He should try actually learning about what he is talking about, rather than just repeating the pedestrian understanding of it. Second course of food for thought.

 

That would be a metaphor and not a god. I have no qualms to god as a metaphor.

 

What is it that we have observed for a long period of time, and have no ability to explain? Where is this supernatural element that I am missing?

Can a worm even ask questions? Can a worm self-reflect? No. We can. It is an apples and oranges comparison. The Christian tradition states we are "made in his image", and, correct me if I am wrong, that is referring to our consciousness and self-awareness as much as anything. That is the "image." So what do worms explaining men have to do with men even observing an omnipresent being? Where is he?

 

What then are the metes and bounds of the term "God"? What does a God have to be or do before you would believe him eligible to be categorized as a "God"?

 

What exactly does he need to learn? What line of research could possibly make his quote more or less meaningful" I heard there is a new book called "What Atheists Believe They Don't Believe In". Should he order a copy of that one off Amazon?

 

I just did a google search to make sure there wasn't book that was actually called that.

 

I'd say you need to brush up on your Biggie Smalls.

 

I would say you're correct. I know nothing about Smalls, unless you're talking about the character that got his throat slashed in Harlem Nights. If that's the case I'm with you.


I was just using the "creeper" phrase because it was a teen entertainment magazine and you being an adult.....

It was a poor attempt at humor that fell flat. It happens.

 

Well, for starters he should learn what a religion is. This isn't dogma taken from an ancient text.

 

What is a metaphysical necessity, and how do I observe or measure it? It sounds like "working like heck." How would one disprove the metaphysical necessity of a being existing when one can't even prove the being exists? It is just mumbo jumbo, doubling down on the assumption of the supernatural.

 

It was not a serious post.

 

They're related in that both differ from the naturalistic perspective of being here by chance. Creationism hinges on God (or a God of some kind literally creating) while ID hinges on some sort of intelligence (could be God, could be an alien, could be an architect from the Matrix, etc).

 

ID needs some form of intelligent interjection period - be that God, aliens, etc. You're getting hung up on definitions when saying ID needs creationism. Sure, it needs some form of creation (which could be God) but it's not tied to scripture. Creationism is the label applied by the world to religious takes on why we are here per scriptural reference.

 

I would imagine that depends on your perspective. What provides a solution to some creates complexity for others. As for explaning the origins of God, I disagree with this "who designed the designer" Richard Dawkins point of view. If every explanation needed further explanation nothing would ever be explained. You can't tell me there aren't good explanations out there in the scientific community that have not been explained themselves. I believe physics is full of them.

 

I'm getting hung up on the scientific method. There is no scientific basis for ID. It isn't science. If ID were true, there should be a empirical test for ID. We should be able to apply it to things like archaeological sites to determine if debris was left accidentally or part of a ritual. We should be able to empirically test a several digit number and detect whether it is random or a credit card number, phone number, etc. There should be some known statistical thresholds and tests for these things for one to be able to claim ID is a science.

If everything is designed, there would be no such thing as lethal mutations or the development of viruses. If some things are designed and other things happen by random chance, there should be a way to distinguish between them mathematically.

But we can't. Because ID isn't real. It is a childish explanation for a complicated world.

 

The explanations of knowledge of the scientific community is a moving target. "God did it" is stale. If Darwin and Wallace had settled for "God did it," we would know far less about biogeography and ecology. If Wegener settled for "God did it," we wouldn't have learned about continental drift, which has provided an understanding of volcanism and earthquakes that has likely saved thousands of lives. "God did it" isn't really an explanation and is the exact same as attributing something to "magic."

 

When aliens show up and start shooting up shit because they are tired of their science experiment, just tell 'em about the scientific method.

 

No plausible way an infinite being designed the mechanisms/processes and the mechanisms/processes evolve?