So what should the ID guys do? Create a complex life form from scratch in under 100 days? That would show that intelligent design is required. Nature never done that. But if they can’t do it, does that prove intelligent design is not necessary? I don’t think so.
27 comments
Create a complex life form from scratch in under 100 days? That would show that intelligent design is required.
No, it wouldn't. It would, however, demonstrate that the life form you created was designed by an intelligence.
Creating artifical life does not prove that natural life was necessarily created, because, in order for natural life to be created, you need to have a creator, which is difficult to postulate without even the slightest bit of evidence in support of it. All you have is the subjective impression that the world is designed (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), and argue that an invisible entity is behind it. That is not science unless you can prove either that the world had to be designed (hint: you'll fail) or that this invisible designing force exists (hint: you'll fail).
Your hypothesis simply sucks. Either deal with the fact that it isn't science, refine your hypothesis so that is scientifically testable, or shut up.
"That would show that intelligent design is required"
No, that would show that intelligent design is sufficient.
Well, this much is certain, the "ID guys" have to do SOMETHING. Currently, they have an assertion which fits comfortably with their religious views and the endorcement of a few mentally damaged scientists. They have to bring more to the party than that if they want to be taked seriously.
"So what should the ID guys do?"
You should: -
1) Formulate your ideas more rigorously.disprove intelligent design.
So far, what you've got is: -
1) Anything we don't have a natural explanation for is obviously designed.must be a god designer.something left over that is 'designed'.you try! And anyway maybe god the designer wanted his designs to look natural. He does, after all, move in 'mysterious ways' *wink*.
Weak.
philbert wrote:""That would show that intelligent design is required"
Only if they created the life-form completely from scratch, not using any of the principles or techniques of modern biology. Otherwise they'd just be cribbing their answers from nature's book.
Which is a bit like calling yourself an automotive designer because you once put together a kit car.
"So what should the ID guys do? Create a complex life form from scratch in under 100 days?"
That would be a start. Or you could, you know, show fucking design . You might even try pointing out something that truly is "irreducibly complex". Or, hey, just try gathering some data or performing an experiment of some sort. That might work too.
"That would show that intelligent design is required."
Depends on how you set up your experiment.
"Nature never done that."
Complex life created from nothing or constituent parts in 100 days? No, probably not. Extend it to a 3.4 billion years or so and give it the right chemical components and I bet you'd end up with something.
"But if they can’t do it, does that prove intelligent design is not necessary? I don’t think so."
Perhaps you should rethink then.
What you need to do is make a whole bunch of them, divide them into groups, and then give each group slightly divergent 'holy books' that deviate from one another on trivial points. That'd be hilarious.
.... HEY!
Actually, you're partially right, from an intelligent design standpoint. But, whether or not you can prove that intelligent design can be done, does not prove that it's required to create the universe, or even life, for that matter.
Can fundies ever, ever, ever express a thought in a clear, concise manner? Interpretation gets tedious.
Assuming I'm reading this right, the proposition is thus:
If proponents of ID can create a complex life from from scratch within an arbitrary time period, that (somehow) proves that ID is valid. If these "scientists" can't, though, that does not count as a strike against ID, since humans really can't be expected to do such a thing. Long story short, it's great if they can do it, but no problem if they can't.
Why, then, do these damn fundies insist that evolution has to be replicated in a lab in order for it to be a valid theory? These people constantly tell us that evolution can only begin to be accepted if the process can be manually recreated. Barring that, evolution is apparently false.
Double standard much?
Ah Denyse. Such an unknowledgable asswipe.
Really doesn't know elementary logic.
L=Life
The material conditional D->L is true as long as L is true. It is not dependant upon the value of D is.
“So what should the ID guys do? Create a complex life form from scratch in under 100 days?”
"That would show that intelligent design is required.”
"Nature never done that.”
“But if they can’t do it, does that prove intelligent design is not necessary? I don’t think so.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
