Critique of Intelligent Design

[Woodznutz]

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.

Not true. Many if not most find faith long after childhood, although the seeds of faith, and of doubt, are often planted early in one's life.

 

[Woodznutz]

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.

Belief in either is a spiritual exercise, regardless of 'facts', which in any case cannot be fully known.

 

[Donald H]

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

EAsily proven to be untrue by using the example of the human eye alone, in comparison to manmade eyes that are capable of being hundreds of times more efficient.

You're getting yourself in over your head no nutz.

Try it on another kristyun.

 

[Woodznutz]

EAsily proven to be untrue by using the example of the human eye alone, in comparison to manmade eyes that are capable of being hundreds of times more efficient.

You're getting yourself in over your head no nutz.

Try it on another kristyun.

God didn't design perfection in either man or the earth. That wasn't his purpose at the time. So, it's a big "Jenga" pile. Be careful what you try to pull out.

Man can design a 'perfect' eye only on paper. I'm getting the latest model of manmade lens implants due to cataracts, and they will be inferior to my natural eyes. Ask people how they deal with the 'blind spot' in their vision, and most will look at you like you have two heads.

Speaking of getting in over your head, why the fright over AI. Isn't it going to "correct" all the imperfections of mankind?

 

[Woodznutz]

EAsily proven to be untrue by using the example of the human eye alone, in comparison to manmade eyes that are capable of being hundreds of times more efficient.

Those aren't 'eyes', they are sensors.

 

[Dante]

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

The Goddess is perfection.

 

[Woodznutz]

The Goddess is perfection.

Until iniquity was found in 'her'.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

“The” answer will never be found by you close minded types.

Yep. There’s a hint in that.

 

[BackAgain]

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

The rule either evolved organically or it was somehow pre-programmed into the nature of everything.

The point is, I guess, that we really don’t know. And to ask that question is actually a way to re-ask or reframe the initial question.

 

[Dante]

The rule either evolved organically or it was somehow pre-programmed into the nature of everything.

The point is, I guess, that we really don’t know. And to ask that question is actually a way to re-ask or reframe the initial question.

We will eventually know. Trust in scientific research and discovery. Build a consensus around it.

 

[BackAgain]

We will eventually know. Trust in scientific research and discovery. Build a consensus around it.

Lol. You’re a moron.

But I gotta give ya that one. It was actually funny.

 

[badger2]

Having attended the seminar mentioned in the OP, we are now compiling a post about it. The two books involved are God's Not Dead (theologian author) and Cancelled Science (physicist author). We have the first, the other is on order.

 

[badger2]

Last night's presentation, "God's Not Dead," started out with the perennial question with big-screen visuals, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" as well as Lawrence Krauss, The Colbert Report, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, and a screenshot of Iceland Magazine - Culture section for '0.0% of Icelanders 25 years or younger believe god created the world. Two bible verses were mentioned: Romans 1:20 and 2:15, both written by Paul of Tarsus.

Broocks's book mentions the movie:
'While visiting the city of New Orleans, I casually mentioned to a friend that I was writing a book titled God's Not Dead: Evidence for God in an Age of Uncertainty. I explained that my motivation was a desire to help people defend their faith against the rising tide of skepticism and atheism -- particularly on university and college campuses. I also described how more than 50 percent of young people who finish high school and attend a university abandon their faith -- primarily because they were never taught the reasons that undergird their beliefs.

"This needs to be a movie," he immediately shot back. Within a few weeks the owners of PureFlix, a faith-based movie company, flew to Nashville to discuss how to bring this issue to the big screen. The result of ourn dialogues was production of the movie God's Not Dead....the drama that unfolds has caused audiences from Los Angeles to London cheer and clap as well as shed tears.'
(Broocks, Preface, God's Not Dead)

Broocks's claim is curious, as if no local theologians were around any of the 50% to offer education about their faith. So how did they get that faith in the first place?

There can be no quality critique without movie analysis, the media that likely affected the audience the most.

God's Not Dead, Official Trailer (2013)


God's Not Dead (2014)


This one from 2018, however, is more true-to-life because its plot mentions 'A church destroyed....- a big-city lawyer and an atheist - '

Broocks does not mention Eric Hedin in his book, who was the physicist also at last night's presentation. Hedin was rebuffed by a 'big-city lawyer' precisely from the very town that Hedin spoke in last night. It will be from Hedin's text that we can get to the core issues once we have the book (Cancelled Science).

 

[badger2]

(2018) God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness

'Introduction paragraph: 'A church destroyed....-a big-city lawyer and an atheist....'

 

[badger2]

All movies can be retrieved at Youtube 'God's not dead.'

The plot thickens. In the presentation, Broocks shows a big-screen image of Christopher Hitchens and his quote. He also mentions that he spent part of the time writing God's Not Dead at his friend's house, Francis Collins. Collins is right-hand-man to The Jesuit Elf, Anthony Fauci.

During the presentation, Broocks shows a big-screen image of Hitchens and Hitchens's quote, which we will retrieve verbatim. Broocks though, conveniently leaves out the fact that Collins was the physician who treated Hitchens as he was dying from cancer. If ever there were fertile ground for religious-medical coercion, it is with the Collins-Hitchens assemblage.

 

[badger2]

We can find no Hitchens quote that's similar to what Broocks had on the screen, though Hitchens supposedly mentioned "most compelling evidence yet...." (for the existence of god). There are many Hitchens quotes extant in screenal space. Here is the Francis Collin's link to Hitchen's esophageal cancer treatment:

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

'Ref 180:

Atheist Hitchens Credits Evangelical Francis Collins for Cancer Hope

World famous atheist, Christopher Hitchens, made a surprising revelation recently that his former debate opponent, outspoken evangelical scientist Francis Collins, is behind a new experimental cancer ...

christianpost.com

Most ironic is the fact that Broocks (fatally) never mentions philosophers such as Derrida in his book, though does mention Craig:

'Hitchen's undefeated streak came to a screeching halt when he met William Lane Craig at Biola University in 2009. Craig may be the most formidable Christian apologist of our day. Craig opened his remarks by challenging Hitchens to a debate on philosophical grounds and not a debate about religion. "Mr. Hitchen s obviously doesn't respect religion, maybe he'll respect philosophy," he challenged. He proceeded to give evidence for god from a philosophical and scientific point of view. Hitchen's railings against religion as his primary case against the existence of god were merely beating the air. Atheist magazines admitted, "Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."(8)'
(God's Not Dead, p. 189)

(8) Luke Muehlhauser, "The Craig-Hitchens Debate," Common Sense Atheism, April 4, 2009

Luke Muehlhauser

commonsenseatheism.com

(Accessed September 23, 2012)

So along with analysis of Broocks's movie will be analysis of the Craig-Hitchens debate.

 

[Leo123]

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.

The seed came from another tree and that tree came from a seed from another tree and so on however, that does not really address the question in the OP.

 

[Leo123]

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

We have not yet created life by combining elements found in a recreated primordial soup untouched by humans.

 

[badger2]

The Real Story Behind Dr. Craig's Debate with Christopher Hitchens

 

[badger2]

We have not yet created life by combining elements found in a recreated primordial soup untouched by humans.

This is a good place to link Broocks mentioning Dawkins, because origin-of-life researchers also mention Dawkins which is the astrobiology connection. The essay we will be quoting from is Iris Fry, "Philosophical Aspects of the Origin-of-Life Problem: Neither by Chance Nor by Design" (Handbook of Astrobiology, 3.1)