Exploring the Claim for "Intelligent Design"

[POI]

I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

irreducible complexity is associated with the concept of ID...and ID is a concept/movement that I'm standing 10 toes down, and two feet in.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class.

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum". In a nutshell, after testimony was placed forth to refute 'irreducible complexity', again sighting the "bacterial flagellum", the I.D. side of the isle had no further pushback or rebuttal. For anyone who is interested in all the specifics, a 2-hour documentary can be found here, as I do not wish to write a text-wall:



For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

[Difflugia]

And alleged irreducible complexity isn't agency.

Empty assertion.

[Sigh]

Either..

1. God, with sight, vision, and a mind created the universe with all its irreducible complexity, entropy, law, order, functionality, etc.

Or..

2. Mother nature, a blind, mindless process created the universe with those aforementioned features.

I can demonstrate how an entity with those features in #1 can do it.

You've claimed it, but have never demonstrated it.

But what you can't do is demonstrate how #2 could have done it.

Where even are your goalposts? We were talking about Intelligent Design, then it was Penrose's 10¹⁰¹²⁸ thing, and now it's "irreducible complexity, entropy, law, order, functionality, etc.?" Do you even know what your own argument is?

Then it fails right out of the chute. You haven't offered any evidence for why your explanation is even plausible, let alone best.

Sure, go with that.

Finally.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to William in post #49]

With all due respect, Will, I still don't know what you're talking about.

When I say "Intelligent Design(er)", I mean God..or a God.

I can't speak for others and how they use it, nor will I be gaslighted to overthink what I deem as a simple concept.

They say a genius is one who can take a complex/complicated subject (topic or concept), and explain it in simplistic terms.

But then there are those who do the exact opposite.

They take simple concepts, and they convolute it, making it complicated than it should be (or needs to be).

That is what's going on here with you, Will...and from what I've come to learn, it is a habit/pattern.

[SiNcE_1985]

Where even are your goalposts? We were talking about Intelligent Design, then it was Penrose's 10¹⁰¹²⁸ thing, and now it's "irreducible complexity, entropy, law, order, functionality, etc.?" Do you even know what your own argument is?

Excuse me, but...

Intelligent Design =

1. Irreducible Complexity

2. Penrose 1010123

3. Entropy

4. Law

5. Order

6. Functionality

All 6 of those are features of intelligent design, and for you to not know this is quite frankly, disgusting.

You can have the last word here, I refuse to engage with someone who doesn't even know the basics.

[Difflugia]

You can have the last word here, I refuse to engage with someone who doesn't even know the basics.

In that case, I'll use the last word to explain a bit about Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design when it was proposed was only defined in relation to biological evolution. It has nothing to do with cosmology (Penrose's unlikely initial conditions of the universe), entropy, law (whatever you mean by that), or order (whatever you mean by that).

Irreducible complexity was proposed as a definition of something that might not be able to be achieved by mutation and natural selection, but it was demonstrated in 2008 that a system of genes that was irreducibly complex by definition could evolve in bacteria in a laboratory.

As such, Intelligent Design as a stand-in for creationism is limited to biological evolution, but its one potentially identifiable marker has been conclusively shown to be shared with purely naturalistic evolution. That means that at this point, intelligent design can't be distinguished from no intelligent design.

[otseng]

and for you to not know this is quite frankly, disgusting.

You can have the last word here, I refuse to engage with someone who doesn't even know the basics.

That is what's going on here with you, Will...and from what I've come to learn, it is a habit/pattern.

Moderator Warning



Personal comments are not allowed on the forum.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[POI]

They say a genius is one who can take a complex/complicated subject (topic or concept), and explain it in simplistic terms. But then there are those who do the exact opposite. They take simple concepts, and they convolute it, making it complicated than it should be (or needs to be).

Sometimes pictures provide a thousand words, or more. I attempted to provide two short video extracts -- (about IC and also about evolution), regarding two specific topics. These two short videos would concisely explain what would otherwise take quite a lot of writing to explain. The visual aids alone in the videos, are what simplify the explanation(s) greatly. Sometimes even teachers use visual aids to teach students, as it adds another layer for their students to sometimes pick up. It is a free country, and you are, of course, allowed to do whatever you want. But it is instead becoming quite annoying having to deal with your strawmans. You are doing this with both IC and evolution. Also, it would not hurt for you to at least see what your opponent is actually proposing, so you can at least challenge what they actually proposing. In my case, since you do not know WHY the bacteria flagellum is so relevant, and you also do not know about chromosome #2 (etc), you have no wordly clue as to why I actually reference them. Tsk tsk... Anywho, I guess you do you boo.

[SiNcE_1985]

Sometimes pictures provide a thousand words, or more. I attempted to provide two short video extracts -- (about IC and also about evolution), regarding two specific topics. These two short videos would concisely explain what would otherwise take quite a lot of writing to explain. The visual aids alone in the videos, are what simplify the explanation(s) greatly. Sometimes even teachers use visual aids to teach students, as it adds another layer for their students to sometimes pick up. It is a free country, and you are, of course, allowed to do whatever you want. But it is instead becoming quite annoying having to deal with your strawmans. You are doing this with both IC and evolution. Also, it would not hurt for you to at least see what your opponent is actually proposing, so you can at least challenge what they actually proposing. In my case, since you do not know WHY the bacteria flagellum is so relevant, and you also do not know about chromosome #2 (etc), you have no wordly clue as to why I actually reference them. Tsk tsk... Anywho, I guess you do you boo.

See ya in traffic.

[William]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #57]

See ya in traffic.

Watch the door on your way out and don't forget to look both ways. Safe Travels.

[POI]

Sometimes pictures provide a thousand words, or more. I attempted to provide two short video extracts -- (about IC and also about evolution), regarding two specific topics. These two short videos would concisely explain what would otherwise take quite a lot of writing to explain. The visual aids alone in the videos, are what simplify the explanation(s) greatly. Sometimes even teachers use visual aids to teach students, as it adds another layer for their students to sometimes pick up. It is a free country, and you are, of course, allowed to do whatever you want. But it is instead becoming quite annoying having to deal with your strawmans. You are doing this with both IC and evolution. Also, it would not hurt for you to at least see what your opponent is actually proposing, so you can at least challenge what they actually proposing. In my case, since you do not know WHY the bacteria flagellum is so relevant, and you also do not know about chromosome #2 (etc), you have no wordly clue as to why I actually reference them. Tsk tsk... Anywho, I guess you do you boo.

See ya in traffic.

It is obvious now, that you are currently ill-equipped to discuss such topics. It's a shame you did not watch the pointed tutorial videos to get yourself up to speed on both IC and evolution. Oh well... We could have instead had a productive discussion. Anywho, peace!

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #57]

See ya in traffic.

Watch the door on your way out and don't forget to look both ways. Safe Travels.

Thanks for reminding me.

I'll even adjust my mirrors and buckle up, just for good measure.