Intelligent Design: Not So Intelligent…

This morning I came across a website promoting intelligent design. It proports to seek “objectivity” in science.

Since Intelligent Design has no basis in fact, their claim to seek objectivity in Science is at best disingenuous and at worst seeking to implement their crackpot theory into Science.

The major stumbling block is the fact that these people  that promote this theory have no example irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity is the argument that certain creatures are to complex to have been evolved from simpler creatures.  The fact that they cannot come up with one single example that has not been completely explained by evolution is a killer blow.  ALL of the examples that they provide as so called “proof” have been  destroyed by actual scientists. 

The whole argument from design falls on its face on that one single issue.

And then there is the Who designed the designer question.  If there is a complex designer designing all these  complex creatures then it must follow that the  equally complex designer must have been created themselves.  And so on and so on.   Questions that the Intelligent Design community do not and cannot answer  with proof. 

On one hand they try and use the scientific method to prove their intelligent design theory but on the other hand they close their mouths and raise their hands in protest when scientists and atheists ask questions that the intelligent design proponents cannot answer with proof and evidence and so they claim that Science cannot answer these questions  because its a matter of “faith”. 

The intelligent design proponents are not so intelligent  when it comes to their theory. But then again if they were  that intelligent then they wouldn’t be promoting this theory, or at least they would come up with better arguments.  But perhaps these arguments are the only ones available.



14 Responses

  1. Just a question about atheisim, why the hosililty? Atheisim is just another unproven belief system that doesn’t seem to stand for much but skepticism.

    I think the only truth is that we really don’t have much of a clue about what’s going on in the universe let alone why. Given enough time perphaps things will become clearer. Give it a few billion years and I’m sure will have the answer.

  2. Actually Steve, thats not true. There is an awfully lot known about the universe. Yes we do not know everything, there is still an amazing amount we do not know but to suggest that we don’t have much of a clue about whats going on is patently false.

    And in actual fact most Atheists are not hostile. We just want to know the truth, unlike the relgious folk, whom want to suppress science learning. I would be quite happy to learn that there is a God but show me the evidence and i will gladly start to “believe”.

  3. Steve, surely you shouldn’t expect atheism to stand for anything other than belief that there is not god? Similarly theism is just the belief that there is a god – nothing else.

    I agree with Atheistkiwi that we do know a lot about “what’s going on.” And we are learning more all the time by applying the scientific methodology. The religious methodology has not been very successful – in fact religious “knowledge” really just keeps on reducing in the face of evidence and reason.

  4. I think it’s a vast overstatement to say we know a lot about what’s going on in the universe everytime we get a close up look at a planet for the first time everyone is surprised by what they find. I probably could list a few thousand questions that you could probably only guess about the answer.

    Here’s an easy one. Since what we see beyond our solar system is a image of the past, is it still there or did it all blow up 50 years ago. I guess we won’t know for a while.

    How about this one. Assume for a second that there is an all powerful creator. If that were true everything could have been created including your memories last Wednesday. In fact, you were programmed to say that’s silly.

    The point is that a few hundred years of science give you only the tip of the iceberg. It doesn take much to change things in a completely different direction. We have new discoveries every day at an increasing rate, just think what we’re going to know in a million years. Looking back from then, you’d probably say we didn’t now very much.

  5. I remember our level of knowledge about the universe in the early sixties. Some people seriously claimed then that there were people living on the far side of the moon – and it was taken seriously by many because “what did science know.”

    Yes, every encounter with a new moon or planet just shows how much we have yet to learn, but let’s not denigrate our current level of knowledge – we have come a long way.

    Yes, I agree that in 500 or 1000 years time people will look back to our current level of knowledge and will describe it as a mythology, as we do today with the ideas and theories of a few thousand years ago.

    I think the most valuable thing we have learned is the importance of evidence and mapping against reality – this enables us to change and develop our knowledge with time. The is a big contrast to the attitude even a few hundred years ago. Even today we have a significant proportion of the population rejecting current evidence and preferring to believe bronze-age myths.

    I believe we should lament that attitude, the clinging to past mythology and emotional desire for magic, rather than the admittedly inadequate, but still realistic, level of knowledge we currently have.

  6. Ken Parrott says;
    “Some people seriously claimed then that there were people living on the far side of the moon”

    First time I heard that one Ken! Is that a joke?
    Even today we have a significant proportion of the population rejecting current evidence and preferring to believe bronze-age myths.

    Would you please be specific, Ken? Who comprises that “significant” proportion of the population?

  7. I think astrology would be a better myth. People still read their horoscopes eventhough it’s very clear the whole thing is made up by primatives drawing two dimesional images of a three dimensional sky.

    You might even want to try the one that the moon landing all took place on a hollywood sound stage.

  8. No, not a joke – people were making that claim just before we photographed the far side of the moon. People were also publishing obviously fake photographs of flying saucers too. But the really interesting thing is that there were a lot of people prepared to believe such rubbish.

    There seem to be a lot of people preferring to believe bronze-aged myths (biblical stories) about the age of the earth, origins of humanity, etc. rather than accept current scientifically derived knowledge.

  9. The “significant proportion of the population” that Ken Parrot refers to is about 84%, actually.

  10. Well, my view of intelligent design is a positive one, very unlike that of most here by the looks of it. I don’t believe we evolved from apes, honestly, but I haven’t spent a huge amount of time looking into this subject either, so if I say something that has been proven otherwise, please let me know.

    My opinion of intelligent design is that its true and that evolution is false. I believe there is a God, and not like a Catholic ‘God’ either. I believe that we have a loving God, and one that makes sense, not one derived from what people want to hear about one. If you do something you shouldn’t and go do a few ‘hail mary’s, to me it just doesn’t make sense that that would fix anything at all, as they’re probably going to go do it again tomorrow with no remorse whatsoever. Back to our erlier topic, my arguement against evolution is this: When you go gather up a big box full of little gears, springs, or other mechanical components of the sort and shake it all up, don’t tell me evolution is right until you pull a computer from that box.

  11. A. Lee

    There is a big difference between what you believe and what you know. Your argument about the box of springs and gears is flawed because they aren’t living things. Put a box of living things together and wait a million years and see what happens. You may not see evolution of one species to another but it will look different.

  12. apprenticehood parricide overhuman hypnotic superrefinement meritful trout mailplane
    Firbeck Primary School

  13. Just thinking about when I was about to hit puberty. I so badly wanted to be a man you know? So I talked in a lower voice and told people I had armpit hair. I told these things to people because I just wanted them to be true. It’s like I had to try to defend this thing that I had not yet even had. So I look at articles like this and wonder. What is it? Why so hostile, so pompus, so arrogent? Then when I hit puberty, there was nothing to defend, I had it and I didn’t have to go around proving it. IT IS LIKE YOU THINK YOU HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT. you know you don’t, but that is whay you have a pompus attitude. If something so intelligent to design such beauty, how would such a small mind possibly think they got it? When you hit puberty, when you find truth. Life is so beautiful. I don’t expect you to like this, but i hope you don’t be offended. If you simply take out religion, “christians”, George W. and check out Jesus for who he is, how could you NOT listen? Your pprobably think this is absurd, but I have seen many “athiest” come to believe is God, simply through learning about Jesus.

  14. galactic salinan transplendently rookeried selfful cyanhydrin mazeful stagmometer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: