Scientist Urges to Focus on “Unintelligent Design”

But they just argue that it must be good, even if we can’t tell so, because g0d made it. They start with the assumption that g0d exists and it omnipotent and good, and then “prove” that he is.

“But they just argue that it must be good, even if we can’t tell so, because g0d made it. They start with the assumption that g0d exists and it omnipotent and good, and then “prove” that he is. -JulieCranford” Yes, but they’re arguing that it’s science – so if the scientists run with it and it becomes “unintelligent design” that’s what’ll be taught. If they want to argue “good” then they’re…

…completely and even more blatantly showing that it’s their religious belief, not their scientific belief that’s causing it.

I am in favor of this approach. After all, one could look at the Universe as a whole and conclude that it is 99.99% hostile to life. That hardly seems “intelligent” if the purpose of the Universe is to support us.

Of course, this brings back my continued objection to this entire line of thought. The minute you use the word “better” or compare things and prefer one to another, there must be some standard by which to differentiate the two. Where does an atheistic framework provide the standard of differentiation? Personal preference? Herd instinct? It’s all borrowed capital, in my opinion.

It’s just as arbitrary to define “good” as what g0d wants as it is to define it as what humans want. But g0d supposedly has humans’ best interest at heart. But wait, best? What’s that? See, trying to think in terms of a g0d just makes everything stupid, because it’s a stupid concept.

“The minute you use the word “better” or compare things and prefer one to another, there must be some standard by which to differentiate the two. StealthPudge18″ By what standard do you judge God to be “good”, then? The standard He himself sets up? Or how does THAT work? Calling it Intelligent design is as much of a judgement call as Unintelligent design.

damn julie, you’re fast.

Interesting article. I’m a bit bewildered about the fact that it’s a geologist though…

“The minute you use the word “better” or compare things and prefer one to another, there must be some standard by which to differentiate the two” One could take a functionalist perspective and study the ways in which the human body is functionally deficient. Evolution comes with errors by its very nature, but how many errors or deficiencies can we expect an ‘intelligent’ agent to produce?

RYN: Let me know as soon as you get some free time 🙂 PS: Adseculus responded. Unfortunately, he decided to give me more of his presumptious attitude. It pains me when believers fall back on this “attack the person, not the arguments” approach, but there is little that I can do except remain the better person and not fall down to his level.

the only reason they have for calling it intelligent instead of unintelligent is that they don’t want to piss g0d off. Or maybe it’s because it makes them happy or something.

Simple information and probability theory are the basis to determine something “intelligent” or not. The fact that there are supposed “imperfections” in a message does not mean that there is no sender. We do observe in things like DNA clear information being sent. There is a pattern, there is a message, there is a medium. Information theory declares those things to be intelligent.

To take a Christian tack on the issue (which, btw… ID theorists do NOT do), the imperfections issue is explained by the existence of sin..a damaging of the medium, NOT the message. My question still stands. Let’s assume there is no God. Where does the atheistic framework justify the existence of the concepts they use to explain themselves? It’s borrowed capital.

“My question still stands. Let’s assume there is no God. Where does the atheistic framework justify the existence of the concepts they use to explain themselves? It’s borrowed capital.-StealthPudge18” And our response still applies: Assume this critique works on atheists, a similar argument works on theists – where do you get your definition of concepts like “good”?

Specifically: “By what standard do you judge God to be “good”, then? The standard He himself sets up? Or how does THAT work?”

I’ve posted an embarrassingly awful speech in my diary.. I really need some help with it. Would someone please come comment?

To put it simply: Yes, for the Christian, God is good. I will acknowledge that fact. As the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Creator of this world, imbued with the maximal level of all qualities it is better to have than to lack, God is good. That theory includes origination of the concept, even if it lacks the empirical records that atheists crave. Pointing at Chrisianity still doesn’t

…answer the question I asked of the atheistic framework, however, and almost appears as a dodge. Let me ask the question again. By what basis does the atheistic framework provide any sort of basis to suggest the existence of degrees of quality? What standard does the atheistic framework use? How does atheism provide and justify “oughtness” in the realm of morality and ethics?

As a Christian, I say that God is good because he created the universe and everything in it, including humans beings who can reason and are built to think and act and be conscious of their own activity. In short, it is better to exist than not to exist. Because God is creator, he has standing to set definitions for things like good and better, and the standard of comparison is himself.

While that might be patently ridiculous to the atheist (and I will assume that most atheists would think it IS ridiculous), it does answer the question of Christian theism which I have repeatedly asked of the atheistic framework. The definition of what is meant by good always comes from a being of some kind. The question is only which being(s) you choose to make your basis, God or humans.

But since you don’t have direct contact with g0d, you ultimately decided that he decided he was good. Anyway, g0d doesn’t control your thoughts; you /could/ think he’s evil. So it’s you, you think he’s good. And I think certain things are good and other things are not.

“By what basis does the atheistic framework provide any sort of basis to suggest the existence of degrees of quality? What standard does the atheistic framework use?” I bite a bullet in my response, I argue if I don’t have any basis for what is “good” or whatever, then you have no standard by which to call God “good”. From what you’ve said, the only standard you have is how “God-like” …

how “god-like” something is. You can’t call God “good” and have it be meaningful if he is the standard you’re using. by calling god good, you’d be saying that he’s “god-like”; and that’s clearly not praising him at all.

if it’s so unintelligent, then how the heck are we still living here on earth?…it hasn’t blown up yet, the sun hasn’t gone out…intelligent people talking about unintelligent design..how more comical can it get?

because there’s nothing inherently more ordered about the way things are now than if everything blew up. It’s just the way things worked out. Maybe you should go to school and take some science classes.

“It’s just the way things worked out” will not stand. You have to give something better than that. Cause and effect. There mere fact that the universe has been around for “millions of years” shows some proof that it couldn’t all be unintelligently designed, God or no God. Besides, if it is unintelligent design, what does that say about us? It’s just a theory to counteract ID.

RYN: Umm no I don’t agree with slavery… I don’t believe they should go find another corner. That was a cruel time… in my own opinion. I only meant that when the people aren’t asking us to change everything why do we do it… some things we don’t have to change they can adapt… considering it wasn’t my own article just some points I agreed with.

i wandered here before and read a few entries, and now i’m adding you because i agree with much of your arguments and appreciate the way you implement those arguments. great stuff 🙂

A couple of quick thoughts: First, I still abhor anonymous notes. It’s cowardice. Second, for Julie. In regards to your statement that I don’t have any contact with God: I don’t claim to BE God, but part of the Christian worldview is that God lives in us, in the third part of the trinity, granting knowledge of God. So while the atheist says we’re self-referential, no Christian grants it.

If only some proponent of ID could actually answer my high school level questions on the theory…