The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[VillagePlank]

I define most of living things as something that self-replicates, reproduces, receives and gives nourishment, grows, and dies. There are of course, disagreements about function and life. Some people think that stones are alive, because they consist of atoms that vibrate with energy...and thus energy is needed to sustain life, it makes things alive. Again, contentious.

I think we should stick with life, first; as you say it's contentious, and we'll get to 'design' later.

I think that your definition is too complicated. My four year old can tell me what is alive, and he knows nothing of the things you talk about. Besides, donkey's can't reproduce, and, of course, fire fits in with all your points as well, yet, I would not consider fire to be alive.

My opinion? For what it's worth I think of life as: 'Somthing is alive if it demonstrates directed movement' That is, it moves against the general scheme of things. I think that that's how my kids define it.

What do you think?

(NASA define life as something capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution, so that's not particularly helpful in this case, huh )

Edited July 19, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Hiya]

RE the origins of life.

That article is riddled with pure statistics and astronomical numbers with the focal point being randomness. No doubt the changes of these events talked of in the article are truthful, but things just don't work like that. Whoever wrote that is a poor biochemist and you have been mislead PP. Without going into detail have a look at Leventhal's Paradox to see how these crazy numbers are just that, cold, hard numbers and not reality in the chemical world.

Hiya, the atheist.

[VillagePlank]

That article is riddled with pure statistics and astronomical numbers with the focal point being randomness. No doubt the changes of these events talked of in the article are truthful, but things just don't work like that. Whoever wrote that is a poor biochemist and you have been mislead PP. Without going into detail have a look at Leventhal's Paradox to see how these crazy numbers are just that, cold, hard numbers and not reality in the chemical world.

Indeed; and, of course, proteins have different behaviour depending on their shape even if they are chemically identical

Edited July 19, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

What I find extremely shocking about this thread is that it kicks intellectual argument and knowledge into a corner of the room, and then continues kicking it for a very long time.....

The argument of ignorance is certainly on display here....

It staggers me that those of no formal training, with no peer reviewed research in the field and whose mainstay of knowledge is confined to the odd dubious internet website and iffy book can be arrogant enough to assume to contradict the dedicated, precise and provable research of others.

I shudder if this is the world my child is going to grow up in.

Formal education and training are there for a reason: if we could all look at the internet to find the answers to everything then the world would be full of geniuses. Last time I looked, it wasn't.

How they can assume to have a better understanding of the minutiae of evolution than say, Darwin or Dawkins, is beyond me.

Very, very sad.....

[Hiya]

What I find extremely shocking about this thread is that it kicks intellectual argument and knowledge into a corner of the room, and then continues kicking it for a very long time.....

The argument of ignorance is certainly on display here....

It staggers me that those of no formal training, with no peer reviewed research in the field and whose mainstay of knowledge is confined to the odd dubious internet website and iffy book can be arrogant enough to assume to contradict the dedicated, precise and provable research of others.

I shudder if this is the world my child is going to grow up in.

Formal education and training are there for a reason: if we could all look at the internet to find the answers to everything then the world would be full of geniuses. Last time I looked, it wasn't.

How they can assume to have a better understanding of the minutiae of evolution than say, Darwin or Dawkins, is beyond me.

Very, very sad.....

Exactly my sentiments, and something that has bugged me before and leads to me looking like a know-it-all by correcting people who have little idea what they are talking about.

I propose "Internet Forum Syndrome"

IFS is the condition which individuals think they are an expert on a field or topic and freely debate and contradict the professionals of said fields and topics. The maximum requirement of knowledge is the Wikipiedia entry.

All those in favour of its inclusion into everyday forum life say aye.

[VillagePlank]

It staggers me that those of no formal training,

That'll be me then

with no peer reviewed research in the field

Me, too

and whose mainstay of knowledge is confined to the odd dubious internet website and iffy book

Rather ill-defined, but hey, I can give you the benefit of the doubt, so... me too.

can be arrogant enough to assume to contradict the dedicated, precise and provable research of others.

The existence of a creator is not provable. That is an axiomatic truism. Glad to see you appreciate a little irony. Unless, of course, you have seen a paper that shows the answer one way or the other?

Formal education and training are there for a reason:

Indeed it is. I suspect that you only derive information from university professors. I, unfortunately, do not have access to people of such esteem. Which, I agree, is unfortunate

if we could all look at the internet to find the answers to everything then the world would be full of geniuses. Last time I looked, it wasn't. How they can assume to have a better understanding of the minutiae of evolution than say, Darwin or Dawkins, is beyond me.

It is entirely possible but not very likely.

Very, very sad.....

Well, don't be too upset. I am glad that we have those who know what's best for us able to rise up and save us from ourselves amongst us

I feel particularly fortunate that we have a fully qualified intellectual critic capable of pointing out all we do wrong.

Sorry I missed what your PhD was in ....

Edited July 19, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

What I find extremely shocking about this thread is that it kicks intellectual argument and knowledge into a corner of the room, and then continues kicking it for a very long time.....

The argument of ignorance is certainly on display here....

It staggers me that those of no formal training, with no peer reviewed research in the field and whose mainstay of knowledge is confined to the odd dubious internet website and iffy book can be arrogant enough to assume to contradict the dedicated, precise and provable research of others.

I shudder if this is the world my child is going to grow up in.

Formal education and training are there for a reason: if we could all look at the internet to find the answers to everything then the world would be full of geniuses. Last time I looked, it wasn't.

How they can assume to have a better understanding of the minutiae of evolution than say, Darwin or Dawkins, is beyond me.

Very, very sad.....

Great post, very well put!

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I have to agree with Roo too...I suppose.

Just one thing that puzzles me, what does ID stand for?

[VillagePlank]

I have to agree with Roo too...I suppose.

It will be an interesting exercise compling everyone's meterological qualifications on other threads. One presumes that this includes critical analysis of anyone who has completed their relevant qualifications?

Just one thing that puzzles me, what does ID stand for?

'Ian Duncan' I have no idea why PP insists on dropping the 'Smith' part.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

At least with the weather, it's easy to conclude who was right or who was wrong. This thread just rattles on like a conversation between Bamber Gascgoine and Melvyn Bragg and (in place of PP) Timmy Mallet.

[Azores Hi]

I have to agree with Roo too...I suppose.

Just one thing that puzzles me, what does ID stand for?

Inherited Delusion

Hope that helps

[VillagePlank]

At least with the weather, it's easy to conclude who was right or who was wrong. This thread just rattles on like a conversation between Bamber Gascgoine and Melvyn Bragg and (in place of PP) Timmy Mallet.

I can't figure out whether I'm supposed to be Gascoigne, or Bragg? Personally I've become rather attached to being the village idiot ...

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I found this quite interesting when it comes to the problematic nature of evolutionary theory: -

Source: http://www.jonathonart.com/book/LW2.htm

Good gracious.

[Roo]

Sorry I missed what your PhD was in ....

Military history....

And I wasn't having a go at you VP.....you weren't saying you had all the answers, unlike some. I have no problem with those of no academic training having a go at the establishment, as long as they have fact and evidence at their fingertips. Sometimes others can bring a new perspective.

My problem is with 'arguers of ignorance' who cannot acknowledge that maybe they do not have the benefit of training in a field, but who still attempt to take down those who do.

EDIT: I'm trying to clarify a bit: no, I have no exact training in this field, but yes, I am happy to take the learning of others, and the fact that they are peer reviewed (and have thus been through some formal process investigating their research methods and evidence). What gets to me is someone saying that Darwin must have got it wrong, then quoting a load of absolutely false infomation which has been categorically proved wrong, but which is still being touted as fact to those who have neither the nous or the interest to investigate it themselves.

And we all have access to academia: any university library would be happy to have someone genuinely interested read at their libraries, and almost all academics would be happy to provide off prints of their research to any genuinely interested parties.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Roo

[VillagePlank]

Military history....

And I wasn't having a go at you VP.....you weren't saying you had all the answers, unlike some. I have no problem with those of no academic training having a go at the establishment, as long as they have fact and evidence at their fingertips. Sometimes others can bring a new perspective.

My problem is with 'arguers of ignorance' who cannot acknowledge that maybe they do not have the capacity of training, but who still attempt to take down those who do.

Ahh but the problem is (apart from various adjectives such as 'arrogant' etc etc) you were, in the main, describing me - in fact I suspect I am probably the least qualified 33 year old on this forum leaving school with GCSE's only ...

I find it abhorrent that there appears to be a consensus building here that there should be a qualification for the exchange of information. And I refuse to burn books, too.

Edited July 19, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Ahh but the problem is (apart from various adjectives such as 'arrogant' etc etc) you were, in the main, describing me - in fact I suspect I am probably the least qualified 33 year old on this forum leaving school with GCSE's only ...

I find it abhorrent that there appears to be a consensus building here that there should be a qualification for the exchange of information. And I refuse to burn books, too.

Where did anyone say that?

I think if I'd not been schooled at all I know but little about the things I was schooled in. I think the same applies to the things I wasn't schooled in.

Indeed, if this isn't the case why have schools and further education?

This, I do think that I don't know better than those schooled better than me.

[VillagePlank]

Where did anyone say that?

No-one actually said it. It was implied by everyone jumping and saying 'well-done' to a post clearly earmarked at those who, to put it politely, are qualification-less.

[flagpole]

No-one actually said it. It was implied by everyone jumping and saying 'well-done' to a post clearly earmarked at those who, to put it politely, are qualification-less.

Everyone? That's one hell of a chip you are carrying round there!

[VillagePlank]

Everyone? That's one hell of a chip you are carrying round there!

OK about two people. I am prone to exaggerate sometimes.

[Roo]

I find it abhorrent that there appears to be a consensus building here that there should be a qualification for the exchange of information. And I refuse to burn books, too.

I don't believe anyone is saying that: I think, if I read it right, that people are saying that it would be nice if some theories were backed up with solid evidence: how you get that evidence is down to the individual, as long as it is evidence that can be honestly relied upon.

Proven theory and material is all that's required. And hey, if your theory doesn't fit the establishment and you can prove it, then you've got a career made for yourself.

If I go to the doctor, I don't want someone who read about medicine on the internet. If I get a plumber, I want one who has trained and been approved by his peers. If I want to understand evolution, I need to know the person telling me their ideas has made their argument watertight.

We can all have theories and ideas, but until we can actually back them up with hard research then that's all they are.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Roo

[VillagePlank]

I shall concede that I thoroughly got the wrong end of the stick. I will be in the stocks on the village green should you wish to throw rotten fruit and veg at me.

(Alternatively a friendly moderator could delete/amend the appropriate and I could pretend none of this ever happened )

Edited July 19, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

I shall concede that I thoroughly got the wrong end of the stick. I will be in the stocks on the village green should you wish to throw rotten fruit and veg at me.

Nooooo, not you VP....but I know someone who I wouldn't mind lobbing the odd turnip at..............purple, my ar5e!

Edited July 19, 2007 by Roo

[Devonian]

No-one actually said it. It was implied by everyone jumping and saying 'well-done' to a post clearly earmarked at those who, to put it politely, are qualification-less.

Well, actually, I'm pretty much relevant qualification-less.

[Red Raven]

I have to agree with Roo too...I suppose.

Just one thing that puzzles me, what does ID stand for?

I agree too. Cumbrians stand togther united against ignorance - oh hang on PP's in Cumbria too!

Oh oon ID is that dreadful police state card thingy the government wants to make us all carry.

[PersianPaladin]

I have to agree with Roo too...I suppose.

Just one thing that puzzles me, what does ID stand for?

Intelligent Design. Unless you're having me on lol.

Until 'evolution' can explain away the examples of irreducible complexity in the cell, flagellum, as well as the human body....then really we are just following this highly dictatorial evolutionist paradigm. The nature of life and living things points to that of a creator, and He\She\It is clearly reflected in the design. Whatever you're 'belief' in spirituality matters may be.