Critique of Intelligent Design

[badger2]

This thread will develop a critique of intelligent design, otherwise known as religious creationism. We choose the Broocks-Hedin assemblage because they will be speaking on 25 Oct 2023 in the very town that called them on their supposed "evidence."
4 Mar 2021 A Creationist Writes In

A creationist writes in: Eric Hedin resurfaces

This morning I got the following email, occasioned, I suppose, by the appearance of a new book by Eric Hedin published by the ID creationist outfit The Discovery Institute. The DI is promoting it heav

whyevolutionistrue.com

 

[Donald H]

This thread will develop a critique of intelligent design, otherwise known as religious creationism. We choose the Broocks-Hedin assemblage because they will be speaking on 25 Oct 2023 in the very town that called them on their supposed "evidence."
4 Mar 2021 A Creationist Writes In

A creationist writes in: Eric Hedin resurfaces

This morning I got the following email, occasioned, I suppose, by the appearance of a new book by Eric Hedin published by the ID creationist outfit The Discovery Institute. The DI is promoting it heav

whyevolutionistrue.com

Yes of course the creation myth is baloney, but haven't you noticed that we've moved on from that nonsense?

The Catholic church itself has moved us on by accepting Darwinian evolution!

ID failed miserably in the face of true science. It was a Christian's careless attempt to borrow from science in order to bring credibility to the 'creation' lies.

 

[Woodznutz]

The bigger question is, if evolution, as proposed by science, is true, why do so many people still not believe it?

 

[BackAgain]

I saw a leaf on a twig of a tree swaying in a breeze. I don’t ascribe any thought to plants. But if a plant could “think” I wonder if it would consider the twig to be its home? Or might it consider the branch which had that twig on it to be its home? Maybe it would consider the whole tree it’s home? Or perhaps it would consider the plot of earth where the tree had sent down its roots to be home. Maybe, along those lines, it would consider the entire planet its home.

But let’s go in the other direction. Let’s get smaller. What about the leaf’s individual cells? What about the organelles within the cell? What about the molecules that form those cells and organelles? What about the aroma that form the molecules?
What about the subatomic structures?

All of these things exist. All things which exist came from somewhere. The seed from another tree landed on the ground and sent down some roots and the plant survived and grew. But the tree that dropped the seed also came from the seed of some earlier tree. And so forth.

Once upon a time our planet didn’t exist yet. But as we understand it, gravity caused some dust in space to meet and merge. Little space rocks. They also got effected by gravity and Little Rock’s combined to create bigger rocks which merged (perhaps violently) to create more massive rocks. This continued for quite a while. Eventually we had an orb of molten rock and metal.

Out of that violent chaotic molten mess, Earth “evolved.” Is Eaeth “home?” Or is it our solar system which is really home? Or perhaps our home is just an outer ring of our galaxy. Or maybe “home” is our entire galaxy. Or maybe there is a reason to suspect that even galaxies are component parts of a larger “structure.”

Yet no matter where you look, with some inevitable “exceptions,” everything we see in the universe seem to follow certain laws of physics. (The exceptions certainly include the cosmic question of “what got the whole thing rolling?”)

But the bigger question is this: given the basic laws of physics as we understand them, isn’t it remarkable that, from the tiniest subatomic particles to the incomprehensible size and scope of our entire universe, the laws of physics seem to almost always apply?

Should we believe that this is all by random chance? Or isn’t there some logical reason we can believe that everything was “caused” to conform to those rules?

 

[badger2]

Yes of course the creation myth is baloney, but haven't you noticed that we've moved on from that nonsense?

The Catholic church itself has moved us on by accepting Darwinian evolution!

ID failed miserably in the face of true science. It was a Christian's careless attempt to borrow from science in order to bring credibility to the 'creation' lies.

Catholicism moves no one on, it merely adapts to the times as a cheap phasod. That's why swastikas were flying from catholic churches when Hitler came into Vienna.

 

[badger2]

I saw a leaf on a twig of a tree swaying in a breeze. I don’t ascribe any thought to plants. But if a plant could “think” I wonder if it would consider the twig to be its home? Or might it consider the branch which had that twig on it to be its home? Maybe it would consider the whole tree it’s home? Or perhaps it would consider the plot of earth where the tree had sent down its roots to be home. Maybe, along those lines, it would consider the entire planet its home.

But let’s go in the other direction. Let’s get smaller. What about the leaf’s individual cells? What about the organelles within the cell? What about the molecules that form those cells and organelles? What about the aroma that form the molecules?
What about the subatomic structures?

All of these things exist. All things which exist came from somewhere. The seed from another tree landed on the ground and sent down some roots and the plant survived and grew. But the tree that dropped the seed also came from the seed of some earlier tree. And so forth.

Once upon a time our planet didn’t exist yet. But as we understand it, gravity caused some dust in space to meet and merge. Little space rocks. They also got effected by gravity and Little Rock’s combined to create bigger rocks which merged (perhaps violently) to create more massive rocks. This continued for quite a while. Eventually we had an orb of molten rock and metal.

Out of that violent chaotic molten mess, Earth “evolved.” Is Eaeth “home?” Or is it our solar system which is really home? Or perhaps our home is just an outer ring of our galaxy. Or maybe “home” is our entire galaxy. Or maybe there is a reason to suspect that even galaxies are component parts of a larger “structure.”

Yet no matter where you look, with some inevitable “exceptions,” everything we see in the universe seem to follow certain laws of physics. (The exceptions certainly include the cosmic question of “what got the whole thing rolling?”)

But the bigger question is this: given the basic laws of physics as we understand them, isn’t it remarkable that, from the tiniest subatomic particles to the incomprehensible size and scope of our entire universe, the laws of physics seem to almost always apply?

Should we believe that this is all by random chance? Or isn’t there some logical reason we can believe that everything was “caused” to conform to those rules?

Thanks for the interesting post. One major problem with those mentioned in the OP is the spacing of time, and one of them is a physicist. We'll be hearing their latest argument in just a few days. By default, we must likely quote from Astrobiology.

 

[Donald H]

Catholicism moves no one on, it merely adapts to the times as a cheap phasod. That's why swastikas were flying from catholic churches when Hitler came into Vienna.

The Catholics aren't my heros but they are the biggest representatives o the Christian's bogus faith agenda.

Maybe Ding will join the discussion to explain to us how that works?

 

[badger2]

The Catholics aren't my heros but they are the biggest representatives o the Christian's bogus faith agenda.

Maybe Ding will join the discussion to explain to us how that works?

Yes, we would look forward to it.

 

[Donald H]

I saw a leaf on a twig of a tree swaying in a breeze. I don’t ascribe any thought to plants. But if a plant could “think” I wonder if it would consider the twig to be its home? Or might it consider the branch which had that twig on it to be its home? Maybe it would consider the whole tree it’s home? Or perhaps it would consider the plot of earth where the tree had sent down its roots to be home. Maybe, along those lines, it would consider the entire planet its home.

But let’s go in the other direction. Let’s get smaller. What about the leaf’s individual cells? What about the organelles within the cell? What about the molecules that form those cells and organelles? What about the aroma that form the molecules?
What about the subatomic structures?

All of these things exist. All things which exist came from somewhere. The seed from another tree landed on the ground and sent down some roots and the plant survived and grew. But the tree that dropped the seed also came from the seed of some earlier tree. And so forth.

Once upon a time our planet didn’t exist yet. But as we understand it, gravity caused some dust in space to meet and merge. Little space rocks. They also got effected by gravity and Little Rock’s combined to create bigger rocks which merged (perhaps violently) to create more massive rocks. This continued for quite a while. Eventually we had an orb of molten rock and metal.

Out of that violent chaotic molten mess, Earth “evolved.” Is Eaeth “home?” Or is it our solar system which is really home? Or perhaps our home is just an outer ring of our galaxy. Or maybe “home” is our entire galaxy. Or maybe there is a reason to suspect that even galaxies are component parts of a larger “structure.”

Yet no matter where you look, with some inevitable “exceptions,” everything we see in the universe seem to follow certain laws of physics. (The exceptions certainly include the cosmic question of “what got the whole thing rolling?”)

But the bigger question is this: given the basic laws of physics as we understand them, isn’t it remarkable that, from the tiniest subatomic particles to the incomprehensible size and scope of our entire universe, the laws of physics seem to almost always apply?

Should we believe that this is all by random chance? Or isn’t there some logical reason we can believe that everything was “caused” to conform to those rules?

Which came first, the seed or the tree?

The answer is easily found in science but it's never going to be found in Genesis.

 

[BlindBoo]

Design​

Robert Frost

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth--
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small.

 

[Donald H]

The bigger question is, if evolution, as proposed by science, is true, why do so many people still not believe it?

That depends on where in the world the question is being asked. For example, in the ME, the obvious answer is that the people have been perverted by Islamic beliefs.

Just as the answer is easily obtained when asking why in America.

Or maybe in deepest darkest Africa, the answer lies in acceptance of the power of voodoo?

 

[Woodznutz]

I saw a leaf on a twig of a tree swaying in a breeze. I don’t ascribe any thought to plants. But if a plant could “think” I wonder if it would consider the twig to be its home? Or might it consider the branch which had that twig on it to be its home? Maybe it would consider the whole tree it’s home? Or perhaps it would consider the plot of earth where the tree had sent down its roots to be home. Maybe, along those lines, it would consider the entire planet its home.

But let’s go in the other direction. Let’s get smaller. What about the leaf’s individual cells? What about the organelles within the cell? What about the molecules that form those cells and organelles? What about the aroma that form the molecules?
What about the subatomic structures?

All of these things exist. All things which exist came from somewhere. The seed from another tree landed on the ground and sent down some roots and the plant survived and grew. But the tree that dropped the seed also came from the seed of some earlier tree. And so forth.

Once upon a time our planet didn’t exist yet. But as we understand it, gravity caused some dust in space to meet and merge. Little space rocks. They also got effected by gravity and Little Rock’s combined to create bigger rocks which merged (perhaps violently) to create more massive rocks. This continued for quite a while. Eventually we had an orb of molten rock and metal.

Out of that violent chaotic molten mess, Earth “evolved.” Is Eaeth “home?” Or is it our solar system which is really home? Or perhaps our home is just an outer ring of our galaxy. Or maybe “home” is our entire galaxy. Or maybe there is a reason to suspect that even galaxies are component parts of a larger “structure.”

Yet no matter where you look, with some inevitable “exceptions,” everything we see in the universe seem to follow certain laws of physics. (The exceptions certainly include the cosmic question of “what got the whole thing rolling?”)

But the bigger question is this: given the basic laws of physics as we understand them, isn’t it remarkable that, from the tiniest subatomic particles to the incomprehensible size and scope of our entire universe, the laws of physics seem to almost always apply?

Should we believe that this is all by random chance? Or isn’t there some logical reason we can believe that everything was “caused” to conform to those rules?

And, where did the 'rules' that act on substances come from? And if not for substances, how would we discover those laws?

 

[Woodznutz]

That depends on where in the world the question is being asked. For example, in the ME, the obvious answer is that the people have been perverted by Islamic beliefs.

Just as the answer is easily obtained when asking why in America.

Or maybe in deepest darkest Africa, the answer lies in acceptance of the power of voodoo?

A bigger question yet, regarding this thread, is why is this question is being asked yet again, at this time? Could it be that certain powers want to direct our thoughts towards our intellect and away from our spirit. If so, why?

 

[Woodznutz]

The Catholics aren't my heros but they are the biggest representatives o the Christian's bogus faith agenda.

Bogus or not the brightest teachers have yet to 'educate' faith out of our heads.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This thread will develop a critique of intelligent design, otherwise known as religious creationism. We choose the Broocks-Hedin assemblage because they will be speaking on 25 Oct 2023 in the very town that called them on their supposed "evidence."
4 Mar 2021 A Creationist Writes In

A creationist writes in: Eric Hedin resurfaces

This morning I got the following email, occasioned, I suppose, by the appearance of a new book by Eric Hedin published by the ID creationist outfit The Discovery Institute. The DI is promoting it heav

whyevolutionistrue.com

Very little about Intelligent Design, is actually intelligent. It's right up there with The Flat Earth nonsense.

 

[Donald H]

A bigger question yet, regarding this thread, is why is this question is being asked yet again, at this time? Could it be that certain powers want to direct our thoughts towards our intellect and away from our spirit. If so, why?

My 'spirit' of supporting what is right, is not in conflict with what is right.

So what would the Muslim world say if they were able to break from their religious beliefs in the supernatural?

I think they would have no other choice but to turn to the truth and facts presented by science.

Or what would the believers in Voodoo do?

 

[Woodznutz]

Very little about Intelligent Design, is actually intelligent. It's right up there with The Flat Earth nonsense.

Man hasn't improved on God's design yet.

 

[Woodznutz]

My 'spirit' of supporting what is right, is not in conflict with what is right.

So what would the Muslim world say if they were able to break from their religious beliefs in the supernatural?

I think they would have no other choice but to turn to the truth and facts presented by science.

Or what would the believers in Voodoo do?

Belief in either is a spiritual exercise, regardless of the facts, which of course cannot be known.

 

[Donald H]

Bogus or not the brightest teachers have yet to 'educate' faith out of our heads.

It's true in a sense. Once faith is in the believer's head, it becomes almost impossible to dislodge.

But if voodoo and Islam can be kept out of the children's heads until thier teen years, then is becomes nearly impossible to install.

 

[Woodznutz]

.