Design, Yes. Intelligent, No.

[Philosophy Now]

Were we designed by an intelligent creator? In our last issue Todd Moody described Intelligent Design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Here, Massimo Pigliucci takes a more critical view of ‘ID’.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Design_Yes_Intelligent_No

[QuantumT]

Oh, don't get me started! I'm sure alot of people here would hate that!

[jayjacobus]

Were we designed by an intelligent creator? In our last issue Todd Moody described Intelligent Design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Here, Massimo Pigliucci takes a more critical view of ‘ID’.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Des ... lligent_No

Scientists who dismiss intelligent design write about the known science and ignore the unknowns.

Chemistry is a science of relationships but the relationships are correlations. But there is a transformation from atoms and molecules into properties. How the transformation works is unknown but it does work and so the scientist will say that he has explained all there is to explain about chemistry.

Scientists have utilized genetic engineering to create better crops but how did genes begin?

Humans evolved from apes and that can be tracked but no one knows if evolution was the sole driver. That's an assumption.

I'm not religious but I object to scientists who say "I know it all" when clearly they don't. Some scientists are biased in their own favor, just like some theologians.

[jayjacobus]

Were we designed by an intelligent creator? In our last issue Todd Moody described Intelligent Design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Here, Massimo Pigliucci takes a more critical view of ‘ID’.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Des ... lligent_No

Scientists who dismiss intelligent design write about the known science and ignore the unknowns.

Chemistry is a science of relationships but the relationships are correlations. But there is a transformation from atoms and molecules into properties. How the transformation works is unknown but it does work and so the scientist will say that he has explained all there is to explain about chemistry.

Scientists have utilized genetic engineering to create better crops but how did genes begin?

Humans evolved from apes and that can be tracked but no one knows if evolution was the sole driver. That's an assumption.

Determinists may be right to some extent but how do they know that determinism is not 3% wrong?

I'm not religious but I object to scientists who say "I know it all" when clearly they don't. Some scientists are biased in their own favor, just like some theologians.

[RustyBert]

Were we designed by an intelligent creator? In our last issue Todd Moody described Intelligent Design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Here, Massimo Pigliucci takes a more critical view of ‘ID’.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Des ... lligent_No

Scientists who dismiss intelligent design write about the known science and ignore the unknowns.

Chemistry is a science of relationships but the relationships are correlations. But there is a transformation from atoms and molecules into properties. How the transformation works is unknown but it does work and so the scientist will say that he has explained all there is to explain about chemistry.

Scientists have utilized genetic engineering to create better crops but how did genes begin?

Humans evolved from apes and that can be tracked but no one knows if evolution was the sole driver. That's an assumption.

I'm not religious but I object to scientists who say "I know it all" when clearly they don't. Some scientists are biased in their own favor, just like some theologians.

Wait what? Not only have I never heard a legitimate scientist say he or she knows it all, but I've rarely heard one even say they know a little. Usually I hear, we know barely anything. That's what science is by definition, not knowing but trying to figure things out, inch by inch.

[RustyBert]

Were we designed by an intelligent creator? In our last issue Todd Moody described Intelligent Design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Here, Massimo Pigliucci takes a more critical view of ‘ID’.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Des ... lligent_No

Unfortunately the ID people aren't really in it to stop at the designer. Their real purpose is to impose their narrow religious beliefs on others. So having a debate on ID is really nothing at all. Unless I guess if they're willing to allow for the designer to be Shiva. Which I doubt.

[jayjacobus]

Were we designed by an intelligent creator? In our last issue Todd Moody described Intelligent Design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Here, Massimo Pigliucci takes a more critical view of ‘ID’.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Des ... lligent_No

Unfortunately the ID people aren't really in it to stop at the designer. Their real purpose is to impose their narrow religious beliefs on others. So having a debate on ID is really nothing at all. Unless I guess if they're willing to allow for the designer to be Shiva. Which I doubt.

Your safe!

ID doesn't lead to any religion.

It's a theory. If you don't have a theory, ID will work. If you do have a theory, id will work as well as your theory.

[jayjacobus]

Were we designed by an intelligent creator? In our last issue Todd Moody described Intelligent Design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Here, Massimo Pigliucci takes a more critical view of ‘ID’.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Des ... lligent_No

Scientists who dismiss intelligent design write about the known science and ignore the unknowns.

Chemistry is a science of relationships but the relationships are correlations. But there is a transformation from atoms and molecules into properties. How the transformation works is unknown but it does work and so the scientist will say that he has explained all there is to explain about chemistry.

Scientists have utilized genetic engineering to create better crops but how did genes begin?

Humans evolved from apes and that can be tracked but no one knows if evolution was the sole driver. That's an assumption.

I'm not religious but I object to scientists who say "I know it all" when clearly they don't. Some scientists are biased in their own favor, just like some theologians.

Wait what? Not only have I never heard a legitimate scientist say he or she knows it all, but I've rarely heard one even say they know a little. Usually I hear, we know barely anything. That's what science is by definition, not knowing but trying to figure things out, inch by inch.

That's true but some scientists won't say ID is as good a guess as any. They imply that they know differently.

At one time I tried to reason it out but all my reasoning deduced that there always had to be something. But how is that possible?

[RustyBert]

Were we designed by an intelligent creator? In our last issue Todd Moody described Intelligent Design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Here, Massimo Pigliucci takes a more critical view of ‘ID’.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Des ... lligent_No

Unfortunately the ID people aren't really in it to stop at the designer. Their real purpose is to impose their narrow religious beliefs on others. So having a debate on ID is really nothing at all. Unless I guess if they're willing to allow for the designer to be Shiva. Which I doubt.

Your safe!

ID doesn't lead to any religion.

It's a theory. If you don't have a theory, ID will work. If you do have a theory, id will work as well as your theory.

You missed my point. ID isn't a sincere discussion or theory. It's a disguise for people who are looking to push their religion on others by trying to give it an air of legitimacy by making their ideas sound all sciencey.

[QuantumT]

You missed my point. ID isn't a sincere discussion or theory. It's a disguise for people who are looking to push their religion on others by trying to give it an air of legitimacy by making their ideas sound all sciencey.

First of all, the torah/quran god does not seem intelligent at all. He seems like a spoiled self absorbed tyrant, whose main concern is what he likes, and how to punnish those who cross him.

In science it is possible to find ID, if you accept that a (to us) alien race made our universe artificially. How they did it doesn't matter. That they are not gods or divine does.

So, ID is possible without religion. The problem for most people though, is that they feel less real in that scenario.

[jayjacobus]

Unfortunately the ID people aren't really in it to stop at the designer. Their real purpose is to impose their narrow religious beliefs on others. So having a debate on ID is really nothing at all. Unless I guess if they're willing to allow for the designer to be Shiva. Which I doubt.

Your safe!

ID doesn't lead to any religion.

It's a theory. If you don't have a theory, ID will work. If you do have a theory, id will work as well as your theory.

You missed my point. ID isn't a sincere discussion or theory. It's a disguise for people who are looking to push their religion on others by trying to give it an air of legitimacy by making their ideas sound all sciencey.

You can reject religion and consider ID. Religion is dogmatic. ID is not incontrovertibly true but then no theory of creation is incontrovertibly true.

[-1-]

In science it is possible to find ID, if you accept that a (to us) alien race made our universe artificially. How they did it doesn't matter. That they are not gods or divine does.

I am not sure if this can be a real contender for being a designer, an alien race. Apparently after Bing Bang, in a chaotic state some matter-particles formed in a ratio to other matter-particles. For details, please as uwot, maybe he is willing to answer this. But after the particles were formed in the chaos, and after these particles formed atoms, nothing external is possible on this level of complexity. And therefore after these particles were formed, the Universe went on autopilot.

So the intelligent designers had to influence an immense number of sub-atomic particles and energy waves watchamachigs, to create the design. And as far as we know it, that chaotic cloud was somewhat INDEPENDENT from causational directives. So the intelligent people had to control very fast some very short-lived subatomic particles, and their work was not guaranteeing anything, because if they made just one little mistake, our world as w know it would be a completely different world.

What I am trying to say is that when design could kick in, it was too late for a design, and before that, there was nothing to arrange as in a design process.

This is a tough cookie. Ask uwot.

[QuantumT]

I am not sure if this can be a real contender for being a designer, an alien race. Apparently after Bing Bang, in a chaotic state some matter-particles formed in a ratio to other matter-particles. For details, please as uwot, maybe he is willing to answer this. But after the particles were formed in the chaos, and after these particles formed atoms, nothing external is possible on this level of complexity. And therefore after these particles were formed, the Universe went on autopilot.

So the intelligent designers had to influence an immense number of sub-atomic particles and energy waves watchamachigs, to create the design. And as far as we know it, that chaotic cloud was somewhat INDEPENDENT from causational directives. So the intelligent people had to control very fast some very short-lived subatomic particles, and their work was not guaranteeing anything, because if they made just one little mistake, our world as w know it would be a completely different world.

What I am trying to say is that when design could kick in, it was too late for a design, and before that, there was nothing to arrange as in a design process.

This is a tough cookie. Ask uwot.

Underestimating the possibilities of (future) technology is a common human mistake.

Take your smartphone and travel back to 1918, and watch peoples reactions, when you play a HD Marvel movie on it.

Limits does not belong to our reality, so forget them.

[-1-]

Limits does not belong to our reality, so forget them.

Yes, sir. I'll get right on it.

[-1-]

Limits does not belong to our reality, so forget them.

Whoa. Hold on.

It is a limitation to set on reality what you just said. That there be no limitations. It limits reality to the extent that limitations are not allowed. That's a limitation.

But you just said there is no limitations.

So... which is it: limitations or no limitations?