Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, March 10, 2008

Richard Dawkins says that Intelligent Design is OK*

*As long as the designer is not "God". See his interview in the upcpoming movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

So what happens if we allow for Intelligent Design and in the course of our investigation we discover that the designer is "God"?

It would be too late to say that ID is not science because of some arbitrary definition. That would be like shutting the barn door AFTER the horses got out.

18 Comments:

  • At 8:36 PM, Blogger mp said…

    ..So, what is Intelligent Design then ? Aren't a all designs intelligent-meaning don't we need intelligence as a prerequisite to design anything?What is the big deal about intelligent design that needs to be defined?

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Intelligent design is to differentiate between optimal design on one side and apparent design on the other.

    Apparent design is that which looks designed but on further examonation the "design" disappears.

    Optimal design would be a perfect design.

    The following is a list of recommended books:

    ID literature

     
  • At 8:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, for fuck sake the list again. Can you please tell us where the research is in those? Oh, that's right; you can't. But I'll bet you merely tell us to read them and we'll find it.

    I've read some of them. There's no research, Joe.

     
  • At 11:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    HOX genes.

     
  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you please tell us where the research is in those?

    Between the covers.

    For example "The Privileged Planet" is based on Dr Gonzales' research.

    And Dr Behe's research demonstrated what structures are irreducibly complex.

    HOX genes.

    What about them? Can you show how they arose via non-telic processes? I bet you cannot.

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And blipey- you are a clown who has no idea what research is.

    Or perhaps you can tell us about the research that demonstrates the physiological and anatomical differences observed are due to the genetic differences.

     
  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um, Behe can't even decide what the definition of IC is. Not sure what research he did on things that can't be defined....

    Which structures do YOU think are irreducibly complex? Does Behe believe these same structures are irreducibly complex?

    I believe if you read Behe's work in the popular press (his only ID works), you'll find him STATING a lot of things. You won't find any RESEARCH Because 1) he didn't do any and 2) IT'S A POPULAR PRESS BOOK!

     
  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Care to cite any of Behe's or GG's research? You have no clue what either of them has written. Page numbers please, followed by the specific RESEARCH issues addressed. Then, provide th page number that the DATA is on.

    thanks.

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Care to cite any of Behe's or GG's research?

    Been there, done that:

    Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the authors of “The Privileged Planet” was a (Carl) Sagonite. However the book refutes Sagan.

    It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.

    Gonzalez was part of a team of scientists working for NASA on a project trying to determine whether or not there is life “out there”.

    At least one peer-reviewed paper (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.

    The authors make predictions. For example if/ when we discover other complex life is found elsewhere in the universe, the many factors observed here will also be present there. And that life will be carbon based.

    “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”

    “The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

    This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.”
    Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.

    Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):
    “Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
    “Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
    “Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
    “Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
    “Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
    “Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
    “Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226

    Now how about that research that demonstrates that HOX genes arose via non-telic processes?

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, no. You can't cite any actual data or research. Thanks for clearing that up.

    The first two paragraphs are merely statements: they provide ZERO research and they have ZERO DATA.

    The third paragraph can be looked upon more generously as one having some observations. Unfortunately, there are no logical reasons to conclude DESIGN from that third paragraph.

    The 4th paragraph STATES that something is improbable, but gives ZERO DATA about this improbability. It does, unfortunately, come to the conclusion of DESIGN based on that zero data.

    The fifth paragraph again has ZERO RESEARCH and ZERO DATA.

    You really have to try harder than that, Joe. That was pretty weak.

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You keep asking for small changes that lead to body plan differences.

    HOX genes are exactly what you're asking for, Joe.

     
  • At 12:23 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, which of those papers proves God exists?

    I mean, which one provides the data that man was designed by aliens?

    I mean, yikes...those papers don't say one thing about ID.

     
  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    From the mouth of Richard Dawkins:

    "Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

    This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design."


    So Joe, you are a liar, or a moron. I'll go with a little ( or a lot!) of both.

     
  • At 4:13 AM, Blogger bonez001 said…

    please specify what are the things that are intelligently design

    the platypus?
    the green plants?



    START THE NEW WAR

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    You keep asking for small changes that lead to body plan differences.

    HOX genes are exactly what you're asking for, Joe.


    No, they are not. There isn't ANY data which shows that a small change in HOX genes can change body plans.

    And also there isn't any data which demonstrates that HOX genes arose via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    IOW you can't even get started.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, Thanks for proving that you also cannot read.

    Thew following is a short list of GG's peer-reviewed papers used for his design inference:

    Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):

    “Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120

    “Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196

    “Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29

    “Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458

    “Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46


    “Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32

    “Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226


    IOW that is research. However I knrew you wouldn't know what research was because you have never done any in your life.

    blipey:
    The first two paragraphs are merely statements: they provide ZERO research and they have ZERO DATA.

    The second paragraph:

    It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.

    "Wonderful Eclipses" is a peer-reviewed article.

    clowny:
    The 4th paragraph STATES that something is improbable, but gives ZERO DATA about this improbability. It does, unfortunately, come to the conclusion of DESIGN based on that zero data.

    The 4th paragraph:

    At least one peer-reviewed paper (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.

    Wow another peer-reviewed paper! That means data, scientific data.

    IOW it is obvious that a clown has no right trying to discuss science.

    And that is just a fact of life...

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Right, which of those papers proves God exists?

    Science is not about "proving"- had you the capability of understanding science you would have known that.

    Also ID is not about "God" so why would there be anything about "God" in peer-reviewed papers?

    I mean, which one provides the data that man was designed by aliens?

    I mean, yikes...those papers don't say one thing about ID.


    Yes they do. Ya see clowny one forms an inference- a tentative scioentific conclusion- based on the available data. And the available data points to design.

    Your preferred option is the very unscientific "happy accidents"- happy because they were ket and accidents because there wasn't any planning.

    There isn't any way to test that position.

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    rishy,

    Nothing tricky Dick Dawkins said after his interview matters. It does NOT change what he said one bit.

    As for the aliens evolving, that is just pure bullshit. Tricky Dick cannot say anything about them until he can study them.

    IOW all you have done is to prove that Dickhead Dawkins is an asshole.

    But I already knew that.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home