Intelligent design.

A comment I gave I thought I would repost:


The reason intelligent design is dismissed is that (in science) it’s not empirically testable, ie cannot be used to make successful or repeated predictions, and (in philosophy) not only have sooooooo many things been attributed to divine agency that it turns out were the result of blind forces, and not only is it an argument from ignorance, but as you even say, just saying “god did it” offers no new infomation. Imagine if an atheist said “it just happened” and demanded to be presented with his nobel prize for “discovering” the secrets to the origins of everything. That is what creationists/ID proponents are doing when they say “a being we don’t understand did things we don’t understand by means we know nothing about, see, we’ve solved it!” Their nonsense answer is just more convoluted, but it contains exactly as much specific, verifiable information.

About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Intelligent design.

  1. sherrivalence says:

    I see the comparison, but when us Christians say “God.” He’s not a being that we can just reduce into knowledge. Here’s a tiny bit more complex explanation:

    Even a long devoted atheist who recently became a theist would agree:

    • agnophilo says:

      I am willing to watch a video or listen to a sermon in a discussion like this, but asking me to watch a long list of videos is a bit much. As for the “most notorious atheist” in the world becoming a theist, antony flew a) was not “the world’s most notorious atheist”, he was simply one of many thousands of famous outspoken atheists, b) he became a deist, not a theist or catholic, and c) he did so in his old age shortly before he died when he would in interviews show signs of confusion and senility which friends and colleagues said were very tragic. Richard dawkins, when asked about it described his last meeting with the man when he was recounting as fact conspiracy theories about darwin converting on his deathbed and “recanting” his scientific ideas, claims that were debunked over a century and a half ago by darwin’s family.

      • sherrivalence says:

        whoa that was a list. this is the original video i was meant to send:

        and yeah, i was meant to write “deist.”

        • agnophilo says:

          When they say god can only be seen indirectly through the things he created I think of people who believed in thor because they knew lightning was real so thor must be too. This is abductive reasoning, the logic of “A, if it were true, would explain B and we know B is true, therefore A must be true also”. This is a fallacy of course because A might not be the only or the best explanation for the thing in question, and many possible things would, if they were true, usually explain B. Example – IF it were true that the CIA broke into my house and stole my car keys last night it would explain perfectly why I can’t find them this morning. Does it follow that the CIA has broken into my house? Should I file suit against the central intelligence agency? Of course not. Abductive reasoning is only useful for generating hypotheses, those hypotheses must then be supported with evidence. My example, which may seem far-fetched, is in a way less far-fetched than the claims of religions in that we know for a fact and can verify the existence of the CIA and their capability of doing something like what we’re supposing. Hell we can even prove they’ve done similar things in the past. But anyway, back to the video. All of his examples, a cloud, a mountain etc only come into and go out of existence if you interpret the events that way. A table is not a thing that exists, it is a concept. It’s how we compartmentalize trillions of atoms and molecules in order to comprehend the world around us. In reality if I burn a table nothing has disappeared except a concept – the actual atoms that make up the table all still exist, as carbon molecules in smoke, ash etc, in vapor that is released into the air and so on. What he is describing is an illusion generated by our minds, not the actual physical reality. And their properties are intrinsic, not extrinsic. Smoke does not go up, as aristotle assumed, because the gods want it to. It goes up because when gas heats up it becomes less dense and is displaced upward by heavier, cooler particles around it. Anyway, back to the video.

          The big bang describes the expansion and cooling of the universe, not it’s existence. It doesn’t actually go all the way back to the first existence of the universe, just close to where we’d think it would take place. It’s worth mentioning also that in the video he lists all of the things acquinas thought were contingent on god which we now know aren’t contingent on god but could not at the time explain, then takes it back to something that is today mysterious and asks us to make the same wrong leap that aquinas took, claiming that this time it will be correct.

          I don’t believe in making conclusions based on the current state of human ignorance, and these “how else do you account for this?” type of arguments seem to me to be like taking a test and concluding that not knowing the right answer automatically makes whatever you write in the blank space true. It seems like an obvious fallacy.

Speak yer mind.

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s