Showed up after the thread closed but I did want to attempt a relevant comment. But before I do, isn't the existence of George W. Bush definitive proof against intelligent design?

The problem with 'Intelligent Design' (formerly known as the teleological argument for God's existence) really has nothing to do evolution. It was pointed out by the great Scot, David Hume, long before the theory of evolution developed (though Hume's insight may have had a role in pushing science in the direction of evolution). Hume realized that when you are examining a single example such as the universe, it is impossible to know whether it was designed or not. The attribution of design depends on knowing what the undesigned conditions would be. Since there are no undesigned universes available to us to make the comparison, we can never know whether this universe is designed or not.

I did attend a lecture by a fairly well known proponent of intelligent design a few years ago. The lecture was presented to a college evangelical student group. It concluded with an impassioned prayer by the speaker that intelligent design would be used by God to convert the heathens in the United States.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

i believe it was kant who dealt the 'death blow' to the teleological and cosmological proofs (from a philosophical standpoint) by demonstrating their dependence on the ontological proof which he had already shown to be flawed (i.e. begging the question); although others have argued convincingly against kant sice then. of course, kant was inspired by hume. the problem with your argument (and hume's and every argument about the unknown) is that no conclusion can be drawn about anything unknown because one has to absolutely know the nature of something before one can presume to make an assumption regarding it-(the nature of said 'assumption' being obviated by the knowledge already required to make the assumption). yet this is not how science operates. theories are sometimes promulgated on scant evidence and accepted as plasible until 'proven' to be untenable. the concept of intelligent design is at the least one of a number of plausible explanations for the existence of the universe and should be treated as such.
btw, good one about bush

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

Got to disagree. Hume's dialogues contain the better argument against teleological arguments. Kant was quite tempted by the teleological argument. Also, it is quite possible to draw conclusions about the design of some things. We can reasonably conclude that watches are designed because we know that at least on this planet, gears, springs and glass do not occur naturally. According to Hume, we base our knowledge of the external world not on the 'nature' of anything but on our experiences. Intelligent design is not a plausible explanation at all because it is not testable.

The ontological argument for God's existence is a far superior line of reasoning because it acknowledges right up front that the issue of God has nothing at all to do with empirical investigation or scientific explanations of the functioning of the universe.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

what qualifies as testable? how can one 'test' the hunders of billions of coincidental activities and unimaginable amount of time necessary to account for the variety of life on earth from-get this-no life whatsoever, to one single cell and so on. and yet this 'theory' of evolution was taught to me in school as if they had it proved for centuries and it was beyond doubt. i don't think many things would withstand being testable. and i'm just nitpicking here but glass does occur naturally on earth

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

what are you a philosophy professor or something?

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

I offer myself as living proof of Piltdown Man.

It's not testable because we have no undesigned universe to which we could compare this one. Evolutionary claims can be compared to the historical/geological/palentological record.
I considered qualifying the glass claim. It doesn't occur naturally in well ground circular clear pieces to my knowledge. But this is at least a testable (ie--falsifiable) claim.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

we also have no certainty that our our knowledge of any of the things you mentioned is unassailably accurate. where is there another universe of any kind? your position assumes 'not intelligent design' and then asserts that there is no undesigned universe (or designed universe) to compare it to. why can't one say there is no desigend universe to compare this allegedly evolved universe to?

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

piltdown man...that one always struck me funny

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

Precisely the point. We have no certainty about empirical claims. I didn't write 'not intelligent design', I wrote that it was impossible to know.

To put the issue another way: Any universe in which the question of design comes up is going to be a highly complex universe, with, as far as we can tell, brains and minds whether it was designed or not. You make the call. How is a designed universe with brains going to be different than an undesigned universe with brains?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

falsifiablity if i understand it correctly is merely the statment of circumstances which would show the original proposition to be false. in this case, the possibility of anything other than evolution accounting for the universe et. al. are not all valid scientific claims subject ot falsifiablity?

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

if it is impossible to know why should one theory hold sway over another? that is the same narrow-minded behavior that the church tried in order to silence scientific inquiry in the middle ages. it was an ill-conceived strategy then and still is. secular society is now playing the role of inquistor simply because enlightenment rationalism still carries the day in academia. if intelligent design is so stupid, irrational, implausible etc. why not teach it in order to demonstrate the distinction between a well-grounded theory and one that isn't? (irealize you never referred to it as 'stupid' or irrational' i am just making a point)

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

Evolution didn't cause the universe or anything else. It's just an abstract noun which refers to a process of historical development in which empirically detectable objects have effects on other empirically detectable objects.

Nobody can know what caused the universe. We only know causes by repeated oberservation of correlated events. So, in order to know what caused the universe we would have to observe the cause and effect repeatedly. But for this to happen, the universe would have to exist before it existed since we are objects within the universe. Hence it is logically impossible for us to know the cause of the universe.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

the theory of evolution as stated by darwin is often used in conjunction with theories of the origin of the universe which are, in essence, the same: something from nothing, or design from chaos. most of the observable phenomena on planet earth do not travel in that direction. entropy is much more common. as far as evolution being abstract i don't think that really comes into play; we both know what is being discussed.

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

The theory that I think should hold sway is that when things are unknowable they should be declared unknowable. If they are unknowable, how can anyone teach them? Science makes no claims about ultimate origins, only proximate causes. Is it this humility that pisses off religious people so much?

Enlightenment rationalism is long dead in academia except for small backwaters at junior colleges. I think postmodern relativists have a harder time making the case against intelligent design.

I think intelligent design should be taught as a good example of confused reasoning.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13