• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Argument of Design

EagleAye said:
I have no problem with people having faith in their religion. If all anyone were discussing is their faith, then responses such as "God's ways are higher than our ways," are perfectly cool. So I don't intend to criticize "you, evanescence" or your faith with the following. You just provide me with an example.

When someone creates "a science" that allegedly fills in the holes left by science when it says, "we don't know" that new science (ID) cannot be forced into corners where it must respond with something to the effect of "God's ways are higher than our ways." This is inevitable in any discussion over ID and leaves the science with its own holes that it cannot fill.

My brother-in-law has been physically active all his life. So in his late fifties he's actually in good physical shape, except for one thing...he's very bow-legged. When he was younger, it wasn't a problem, but as he aged he began to encounter more and more knee pain. The reason? Poorly designed knees. His upper leg does not sit squarely on his lower leg. There's an angle at the joint that creates lateral stresses to the joint that a normal knee doesn't encounter. It's a very simple mechanical flaw that has lead to knee surgery at a very young age.

If my brother-in-law was "intelligently designed," then why do we see such "entry level" mechanical error? Why would humanity possess a gene that permits this? The answer ID would give must certainly be, "God's ways are higher than our ways."

Evolution can explain this. The first human with this mutation would not have been adversely affected until much later in his life. In fact he probably died before it was an issue. So he survived long enough to reproduce and thus the mutation survived to be passed on.
Click to expand...

no problem- i don't have a faith. i think you misunderstood me. But to answer your question from a Christian perspective (as I once was), I would say: "Deformities happen because we live in a fallen world as a result of sin." I was a young earth creationist at one time, so I would have followed with: "Before sin came into the world, there were no deformities, and no on had to suffer.

However, now I acknowledge that there are genetic imperfections that happen either because of predisposition, developmental issues, and/or environmental factors.
 
The discourse of this thread is frustrating in that the term "science" is being used both in its classical sense, as philosophy, and in its modern sense as natural and physical science, without distinction. This creates confusion and acrimony where there need be none.

Then there is the essential flaw inherent in logic itself that renders it not only unable to prove matters of philosophy, but unfit to address matters of "intelligence". That flaw is its clutching embrace of "nothingness" represented in its principle of "negation". As long as "nothingnesses" cancel in a logical equation, logic is useful, and modern science progresses.

I see the so-called "intelligent design argument", even while being logically untenable, as a call to science to not abandon its philosophical roots in the blinding light of an overweening logic; a call to caution at the maddening pace of "progress"; a call to respect the unknown in the light of the limitations of science, and in the memory of the sense of awe and mystery that inpired the first scientists.
 
_Markum_ said:
The discourse of this thread is frustrating in that the term "science" is being used both in its classical sense, as philosophy, and in its modern sense as natural and physical science, without distinction. This creates confusion and acrimony where there need be none.

Then there is the essential flaw inherent in logic itself that renders it not only unable to prove matters of philosophy, but unfit to address matters of "intelligence". That flaw is its clutching embrace of "nothingness" represented in its principle of "negation". As long as "nothingnesses" cancel in a logical equation, logic is useful, and modern science progresses.

I see the so-called "intelligent design argument", even while being logically untenable, as a call to science to not abandon its philosophical roots in the blinding light of an overweening logic; a call to caution at the maddening pace of "progress"; a call to respect the unknown in the light of the limitations of science, and in the memory of the sense of awe and mystery that inpired the first scientists.
Click to expand...

Excellent points! Well said.

I think if ID were actually espoused in the manner you suggest, it would serve a great usefulness. In fact (and someone may tell me I'm wrong about this), I believe the original author had that intention. But I think ID has been misappropriated as a means to teach religion in schools. And that is where much acrimony comes in.

Though there have been bumps in the road and certain individuals have lost their way, I think science has persisted as long as it has because so many scientists retain that "sense of awe and mystery." Very few Paleontologists, for instance, make any money or fame at their work. It is their passion and fascination and awe that drives them on. I agree that logic should not be the end all be all for science. Embracing the unknown is as important as embracing the known. If there was no fascination at the mystery of life there could be no science.
 
The issue with ID is that it attempts to present itself as a scientific argument, on par with evolution. But, like mentioned in every single thread on the topic, merely being complex is not actual evidence that something was designed. Hell, "complex" as a concept is an entirely arbitrary standard created by us mere mortals in the first place.

I don't have a problem with people believing we were designed, regardless of what they base that belief on. You can believe that we were sneezed out by an enormous space gerbil for all I care. You can even teach that to your children. Hell, you can teach that in a classroom if you want... just not a science classroom. Put Space Gerbil Snot in a creation story comparison class along with YEC, ID, and Futurama. Sounds great. But at no point should the effort be made to shoehorn non-scientific subjects into a science classroom.
 
Deuce said:
The issue with ID is that it attempts to present itself as a scientific argument, on par with evolution. But, like mentioned in every single thread on the topic, merely being complex is not actual evidence that something was designed. Hell, "complex" as a concept is an entirely arbitrary standard created by us mere mortals in the first place.

I don't have a problem with people believing we were designed, regardless of what they base that belief on. You can believe that we were sneezed out by an enormous space gerbil for all I care. You can even teach that to your children. Hell, you can teach that in a classroom if you want... just not a science classroom. Put Space Gerbil Snot in a creation story comparison class along with YEC, ID, and Futurama. Sounds great. But at no point should the effort be made to shoehorn non-scientific subjects into a science classroom.
Click to expand...

Essentially, you summed up the main argument against ID. It is subjective.
 
obvious Child said:
No, it's simpler than that. Intelligent Design is Animism. But instead of spirits being the cause of the rainy season, it's the human eye.
Click to expand...

And peanut butter.
 
I base my "conclusion" primarily on observation (and some reading and listening).

There are times that I see something, usually in nature, and I see random chance all over the place. There are times I see other things, and think, "Random chance? Ha! Fat chance.".

Thus my "conclusion": I have no clue, and have other things to spend time on. Not that I won't occasionally discuss the topic, but I will not obsess over it because I don't believe that either side can demonstrate 100% their side's correctness. I'll die long before anybody ever figures it out. In other words, we'll never *know* for sure.

Side note: It could be argued that I lean toward 'design', and I do, it's just not 100%.
 
radcen said:
I base my "conclusion" primarily on observation (and some reading and listening).

There are times that I see something, usually in nature, and I see random chance all over the place. There are times I see other things, and think, "Random chance? Ha! Fat chance.".

Thus my "conclusion": I have no clue, and have other things to spend time on. Not that I won't occasionally discuss the topic, but I will not obsess over it because I don't believe that either side can demonstrate 100% their side's correctness. I'll die long before anybody ever figures it out. In other words, we'll never *know* for sure.

Side note: It could be argued that I lean toward 'design', and I do, it's just not 100%.
Click to expand...

i agree with this. I do not discount it, either. I think it is unlikely, but i do not have an absolute position. Like you said, we'll likely never know for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom