Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[MustafaMc]

The reason I asked for more background is because I'm not 100% clear where the lines are between evolution and ID in general ie where one story stops and the other starts.

The basic difference is that "The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations (naturalistic evolution)." http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php Although ToID makes no claim that the design was supernatural in origin, it does make the claim that the various lifeforms were designed rather than came about randomly. Have you ever seen "The Island of Dr. Moreau"? I read the book a long time ago and recently watched the movie with Marlon Brando. It reminds me about the ToID vs ToE debate. I know for a fact that scientists are genetically engineering various organisms to express traits that would NEVER have come into existence by chance. I see design there (by humans) as well as in the natural world in general (by Allah).

 

[Pygoscelis]

The main barrier in my accepting Intelligent Design is that it doesn't look so intelligent to me and the vision behind it leaves me wondering.

Why is the world set up in such a way that we have to kill to live? Seems sadistic.

Why is the universe so incredibly big if the earth and humans are what its all for? Seems like an immense waste of space.

And why does Intelligent Design look so haphazard?

Why do whales have feet bones? Why are there vestigeal organs at all? Odd choice for a creator. Makes sense as relics of evolution from an earlier form.

Why do human embryos show gill slits?

Why does the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe take such a crazy long route?
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/22/the-laryngeal-nerve-of-the-gir/

Why was my grandma told that an operation on her ear could affect her sense of taste?

Why do cave fish have non functional eyes?

Why do anteaters and baleen whales develop teeth in the fetus and then reabsorb them, not needing them as adults?

Why do humans have Auriculares anterior, superior, and posteriore muscles? They rotate the ear in other mammals, but why do humans need them? So some of us can wiggle our ears a little?

And the list goes on and on. If things are designed, they seem to be designed in such a way to look like they were not.

 

[Al-Warraq]

Proving the natural origin doesn't matter. Proving that is natural also only matters to a degree. What matters is to understand and recognize that it exists. Humanitarian values than demand that one does not impede the life they need to live fulfilled and happy.

What if one needs theft, injustice, war and crime? Should humanitarian values allow him/her to do so because they want to? By this idea you killed everything humanitarian, because humanitarianism is clear and constant attitudes, and not wide open for our prejudices and desires. Else what's the point of calling them humanitarian values? Humanitarianism isn't associated with what we desire, it's selfishness and lust that's associated with what we desire.

Atheist have no holy book that demands such unjustifiably behavior of them and that is why they are more likely to support LGBT rights. They have no incentive to hold on to prejudices when presented with the arguments for equality rights.

No, they do have a holy book, actually books. Their first holy book is materialism and utilitarianism, and the rest of the books are interpretations and applications of these two. Atheism is a materialistic religion, it never deviates from materialism, and starts from it to get back to it again. Even morality is explained as a material phenomena. It claims respect for nature and yet applauds unnatural behaviors! What is scientifically proven in the science of nature and animals is that the sexual intercourse is with the other sex, so if the atheist is scientific he should oppose homosexuality because it's an unnatural behavior, opposing our instincts, and with no reproduction. Thus we see the atheist sometimes with science and sometimes against science according to what serves his ideology.

Materialism does not mean that nothing but the material exists or that everything else is ignored, discouraged or demonized. The naturalist simply states that there are different realms and that certain concepts do have different meanings in each. Also Atheists don't deny a dualistic model of a soul that does not mean anything that could be referred to as a soul is none existent. They simply take care not to use the word soul because of inevitable misconceptions when dealing with people that assume for every term their own definition is applicable. Some Atheists do talk of souls but they don't mean the exact same thing as Dualists.

You're talking about a new and immaterialist atheism which admits the existence of a soul, where is this atheism? And what's that soul that is different from what believers believe? What's its secret and where did it come from? Is it the cause of life or is it matter and its complexity? Can an atheist be an atheist while admitting a soul? Is that soul from God or from Satan? Or is it a product of material evolution?

It is not Atheist that deny logic it is short sighted simplification and lack of motivation or fear from alternative answers. The jump from there must be some god to there is my personal god is entirely trivialized by you. It is not straightforward and requires quite a few axioms that many people never even admit to.
Atheism is not a religion. There is no believe in the survival of the strongest that sounds more Calvinist to me.

You are trying to exonerate atheism from its shortcomings and from its big masters like Nietzsche and Marx without presenting what atheism is. You want atheism to be a disbelief in God and want us stop there! This is an illogical request, because belief in God has its corollaries and philosophies, and disbelief has its corollaries and alternatives. Thus atheism became an independent religion, actually it's the opposite of all religion, i.e. flip over religion you get atheism, and flip over atheism you get religion, in all aspects of life and not in the matter of the existence or nonexistence of God only.


Atheism is a religion that has its priests and legislators and has principles, to understand them we should reverse religion, then we'll find all the beliefs of atheism.

Atheism is not a religion. There is no believe in the survival of the strongest that sounds more Calvinist to me. There is realists and idealists. Humanist and nationalists. There is no holy book and no one teaching. People are still free to hold values and most values we do hold for no better reason than preference. Holy books don't change that.

Atheism is one thing, there is no difference among atheists regarding atheism, because it's a negation, and people who negate something can't negate it in different ways. Thus the consequences of negation can't be disputed among the negators. As for communist and capitalist atheists, they're like atheists who prefer coffee and atheists who prefer tea! It has nothing to do with the system of belief, it's an economic issue. The atheist is completely identical with any other atheist regarding the system of belief, and differ in some aspects of life. While the believer isn't necessarily similar to the other believers in their beliefs, even if they share common basis which is belief in God, but they differ in viewing this God, while Atheism is a negation of the existence of God, and no diversity can emerge from negation, because it's about something that doesn't exist.


That is why we see dogmatism in Atheism and the duplicated versions of atheists in belief and way of thinking. Atheism constricts the freedom of thinking and creates dogmatism. Atheism isn't as free as you imagine, because it's an implied religion, it has beliefs and faiths, and believes in the non existence of God without searching the universe, and believes in materialism, pragmatism, secularism, individualism and the relativity of morality and its materialist origin. Thus it reduces morality's influence in life and links it to interest. It believes in hypocrisy and changing attitudes according to interest and call it freedom. It believes in the nonexistence of any constant -except interest-, including logic, science, morality and religion. Therefore, the atheist isn't free, s/he is filled with beliefs totally contrary to the beliefs of religion. To know the number of beliefs of the atheist look to the number of beliefs of the believer, and count their opposite.


Atheism isn't non-religion, it is the opposite of religion. If religion leads to the way of God and virtue, then what would the opposite of religion lead to? Certainly to glorifying the symbol of Satan even if the atheist didn't believe in him, because the atheist walks on his way that's opposing to religion.

The interpretations still bend the way people like them or they convert to whatever puts their mind at ease. The free spirits go western, the authoritarian go middle east or north east or to rome, the hippies go east or animist or wiccan.

The hippies are at the mountain top of freedom according to your understanding of freedom.
In the west there is no freedom, only an illusion of freedom, where capitalism turns people into slaves burdened by debt and later will be working just to fill their stomachs, and atheism fells them with its implied beliefs that are hidden due to their lack of beauty, and only presented after covering them with makeup.

Nothing new for man in the west except illusionary methods that offer nothing but spiritual emptiness and lack of inner beauty. That is because the materialist belief ruins man's inner beauty.

Everything in the west is capitalism in different images, in thought, politics, science, education and in general concepts. All are capitalist tools working to serve capitalism eventually. Capitalism is what governs the west, and democracy is nothing but an excellent container for capitalism.

The west has lost its identity after capitalism has controlled it.

Thank you for your calm and moderate discussion.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Their first holy book is materialism and utilitarianism, and the rest of the books are interpretations and applications of these two.

Are you aware that there are atheists who believe in ghosts, ESP, psychics, and atheistic "religion" (or mystic philosophy) such as forms of taoism, budhism, and of course scientology? This all involves belief in the immaterial. Or are these people somehow not atheists by your definition of the term?

Your definition of "atheist" by the way doesn't fit myself, nor any atheist I actually know. It appears to be a straw man. I decided to not refute it any longer because I have come to realize that we'd just be arguing semantics. Your view of what an "atheist" is has no relation to myself or other people I know who call themselves "atheists".

 

[Pygoscelis]

Perhaps we should split the evolution related posts to a different thread? We were getting off topic but having an interesting conversation.

 

[MustafaMc]

The main barrier in my accepting Intelligent Design is that it doesn't look so intelligent to me and the vision behind it leaves me wondering.

Why is the world set up in such a way that we have to kill to live? Seems sadistic.

You had some good questions and, oh yeah, why am I going bald? If according to ToE life originated in the oceans, then did the whale's ancestors go from ocean, to land and then back to the ocean?

Perhaps there are reasons for all of those things that are not readily apparent to us. Maybe it is all part of the test for who will believe and who will disbelieve. The story in the Qur'an about the parable of the gnat comes to mind 2:26.

And the list goes on and on. If things are designed, they seem to be designed in such a way to look like they were not.

It is interesting how you see the defects and apparent vestigial organs as reason to choose ToE over ID and I see the beauty and intricacy of life systems conserved across species as resons to believe ID over ToE.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Why is the world set up in such a way that we have to kill to live? Seems sadistic.

If it was otherwise, you would say life is not thrilling.

Why is the universe so incredibly big if the earth and humans are what its all for? Seems like an immense waste of space.

if it was otherwise, you'd say God is very limited in His powers to only have been able to create Earth ... and nothing more.

Why do human embryos show gill slits?

maybe it only means that differential expression of same genome can result in such beautiful phenotypic expressions. maybe that is all it means?

Reminds me what G.K. Chesteron said:

But the new rebel is a sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

 

[Independent]

Fair questions Pygo. At one level ID is just a great piece of re-branding. I see it was launched to the world in 1989 with the publication of Of Pandas and People, a book written as a response to a US court case about creationism. Just before the book was published all mentions of ‘creationism’ were edited out and replaced with the words ‘Intelligent Design’ (a term the author apparently derived from a NASA scientist). Hey presto, a theistic book suddenly becomes a science text book!

But from a positive point of view it doesn't have to be just a synonym for creationism and it achieves more than just re-branding. For instance, it makes it easier to look at the ideas expressed with less risk of treading on religious toes. It helps us to talk about issues in evolution whilst laying aside the specific issues connected with faith in Allah, or God, or whatever. (Although they are certainly lurking just around the corner.)

ID seeks only to demonstrate that a particular evolutionary step cannot be explained entirely by natural processes. (For instance the original formation of amino acids, DNA based replication processes etc – I am reading your links thank you MustafaMc!). It doesn’t have to attack the whole structure, even one little piece will do. The objective is to create a gap in the scientific explanation which theism is on hand to fill. ID has a lower burden of proof than creationism, as it were.

Supposing we stop arguing between ID and evolution, and just assume ID is correct. The first obvious question is, if there is Intelligent Design, what kind of intelligence is it? Does it have a consistent personality? Does it have characteristics or patterns of behaviour? If we knew this we could understand the world better and perhaps discover cures for cancer etc.

It seems to me that this Intelligent Designer has some or all of the following characteristics. For the sake of linguistic convenience I’m going to call ‘it’ a ‘he’. For now, I’m also going to use only anthropomorphic notions.

I am not talking about Allah, I am talking about an Intelligent Designer. You may disagree with some of the questions and I’m sure you can think of others. But remember, whoever he is, this Designer can do anything he wants, he has infinite power. Unlike Nature, whatever we see in the world is not random, it’s there because he put it there.

I’ve reshaped a few of your questions Pygo in the context of a personality:

• He is enormously patient. (The timescale of the universe and evolution is immense).
• Mankind doesn’t seem to be his main focus. (We have been on this world a fraction of the time available, and the universe is ridiculously larger than it needs to be.)
• At heart he is not a scientist, he is an artist. Nature is crazy and exuberant!
• He is a terrific mechanic.
• Yet, paradoxically some of his machines don’t work properly without further direct intervention from him. (Evolution, for instance.) If it were a man-made machine you would wonder if there was a different guy on the job sometimes.
• He has a sense of humour (and not just because of clown fish).
• Either he is a tease, or he is deliberately laying tricks for us, and especially for poor unfortunate scientists like Darwin. (Why bother to lay a fossil trail that looks like evolution? There was never any need to have fossils at all.)
• He is, at the very least, indifferent to suffering. (Nature is a battleground.)
• More than that, he can be cruel. (As I write this, I am listening to a radio interview with a woman with a bizarre nervous tic, that compels her to repeat the word ‘biscuit’ in the middle of every sentence. It’s funny, but not for her. What an extraordinary defect to create.)
• He is both creative, yet also strangely unimaginative. (Nature has terrific variety but it repeats itself. If all things are possible, why is Nature limited?)
• He is sometimes indecisive. It looks like he started a job, left off, then came back later. (We see evolutionary dead ends, or perhaps two ways to solve the same problem in a single creature.)
• The world looks like a labour of love, yet it has in-built obsolescence. (If all those meteorites miss us, the dying Sun won’t!)
• If I look back at all this, and I had to name someone this profile seemed to fit, it would be the author Terry Pratchett. (He is a science fiction writer who imagines worlds with ironic divine intelligences behind them.)

Those are a few questions that occur to me. Obviously there could be many others, or you might have a different view of some of the above. I stress, I am talking about an Intelligent Designer (as the phrase invites me to do) not Allah or God.

Perhaps there are reasons for all of those things that are not readily apparent to us. Maybe it is all part of the test for who will believe and who will disbelieve

You're re-introducing a deity here. When you put Allah or God into the equation then it would change most of the answers and some of the questions. But if you always need an Allah or God for Intelligent Design to make sense, then why bother with the term ID in the first place? It just gets in the way doesn't it?

 

[جوري]

ID seeks only to demonstrate that a particular evolutionary step cannot be explained entirely by natural processes

You can't explain the 'evolutionary step' by natural processes or how would you account for such things as Trinucleotide repeat expansions? Not only are the worst traits selected but they get progressively worse with each successive generation!

He is enormously patient. (The timescale of the universe and evolution is immense)

Indeed, from a religious point of view (at least the Islamic view)
God is the Owner of time and the Disposer of it and all events and affairs, and this is confirmation of what was reported in the preceding Hadith Qudsi.

Mankind doesn’t seem to be his main focus. (We have been on this world a fraction of the time available, and the universe is ridiculously larger than it needs to be.)

Indeed again, per Noble Quran:
Al-Insan (Man) [76:1] [RECITE]

[top] [next match]​

Hal ata AAala alinsani heenun mina alddahri lam yakun shayan mathkooran​

76:1 Has there not been over Man a long period of Time, when he was nothing - (not even) mentioned?

_______________

Al-An'am (The Cattle) [6:38] [RECITE]

[top] [next match]​

Wama min dabbatin fee alardi wala tairin yateeru bijanahayhi illa omamun amthalukum ma farratna fee alkitabi min shayin thumma ila rabbihim yuhsharoona​

6:38 There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end.


we're indeed not the only creation and I hazard say in some cases the least important!


​

​

At heart he is not a scientist, he is an artist. Nature is crazy and exuberant!

An engineer, an artist, an esthetician.. do you know how much goes into just one cell?

Yet, paradoxically some of his machines don’t work properly without further direct intervention from him. (Evolution, for instance.) If it were a man-made machine you would wonder if there was a different guy on the job sometimes.

Any aberration should point your attention to what goes right all the time that can go wrong.. so you wouldn't take anything for granted!

He is, at the very least, indifferent to suffering. (Nature is a battleground.)

It is the suffering man is meant to endure, either because of what man himself offered or a result of letting an oppressor trickle down his ill on the whole.. This life isn't paradise, and suffering is what creates character!

He is sometimes indecisive. It looks like he started a job, left off, then came back later. (We see evolutionary dead ends, or perhaps two ways to solve the same problem in a single creature.)

Indeed but not an indecision:

[FONT=Verdana,arial]Al-'Ankabut (The Spider)[29:19] [RECITE]

[top] [next match]​

Awalam yaraw kayfa yubdio Allahu alkhalqa thumma yuAAeeduhu inna thalika AAala Allahi yaseerun​

29:19 See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.


Some of the other stuff just needs to be ignored, I'll attribute it to your inner child speaking.

best,
​

[/FONT]

 

[Independent]

from a religious point of view (at least the Islamic view)

Yes. However, as I made clear several times, I'm not talking about Allah. I'm talking about an Intelligent Designer. It makes a difference - and the difference is interesting.

You have answered your own questions, not mine.

 

[جوري]

Yes. However, as I made clear several times, I'm not talking about Allah. I'm talking about an Intelligent Designer. It makes a difference - and the difference is interesting.

You have answered your own questions, not mine.

Why ask questions in rhetoric then? It wastes your time and worse yet ours. ID is the last stop before you bridge over to something theological and/or philosophical and no longer scientific, much like when science attempts to answer theological questions and finds itself in the realm of well fiction!

best,

 

[Pygoscelis]

ID seeks only to demonstrate that a particular evolutionary step cannot be explained entirely by natural processes. (For instance the original formation of amino acids, DNA based replication processes etc – I am reading your links thank you MustafaMc!). It doesn’t have to attack the whole structure, even one little piece will do. The objective is to create a gap in the scientific explanation which theism is on hand to fill. ID has a lower burden of proof than creationism, as it were.

I disagree with ID of the gaps. As I noted above, you could completely disprove evolution theory and that does not in any way prove creation or intelligent design (much less by any particular creator or God). If ID wants to present itself as a theory, then it needs to prove its own claims and not just attack another inconsistent theory (ie, evolution). It almost never does that, which is why I think it is as you said, religion in disguise, pretending to be science.

• He is enormously patient. (The timescale of the universe and evolution is immense).
• Mankind doesn’t seem to be his main focus. (We have been on this world a fraction of the time available, and the universe is ridiculously larger than it needs to be.)
• At heart he is not a scientist, he is an artist. Nature is crazy and exuberant!
• He is a terrific mechanic.
• Yet, paradoxically some of his machines don’t work properly without further direct intervention from him. (Evolution, for instance.) If it were a man-made machine you would wonder if there was a different guy on the job sometimes.
• He has a sense of humour (and not just because of clown fish).
• Either he is a tease, or he is deliberately laying tricks for us, and especially for poor unfortunate scientists like Darwin. (Why bother to lay a fossil trail that looks like evolution? There was never any need to have fossils at all.)
• He is, at the very least, indifferent to suffering. (Nature is a battleground.)
• More than that, he can be cruel. (As I write this, I am listening to a radio interview with a woman with a bizarre nervous tic, that compels her to repeat the word ‘biscuit’ in the middle of every sentence. It’s funny, but not for her. What an extraordinary defect to create.)
• He is both creative, yet also strangely unimaginative. (Nature has terrific variety but it repeats itself. If all things are possible, why is Nature limited?)
• He is sometimes indecisive. It looks like he started a job, left off, then came back later. (We see evolutionary dead ends, or perhaps two ways to solve the same problem in a single creature.)
• The world looks like a labour of love, yet it has in-built obsolescence. (If all those meteorites miss us, the dying Sun won’t!)
• If I look back at all this, and I had to name someone this profile seemed to fit, it would be the author Terry Pratchett. (He is a science fiction writer who imagines worlds with ironic divine intelligences behind them.)

I agree that when people claim Intelligent Design it opens the door to asking questions about that creator. If it is claimd to be an all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent creator then I think we run into serious problems and conflicts.

There is no getting around that nature is brutal and often sadistic, and not just in regard to humans. You can claim that earthquakes and disease befalling innocent children is some kind of collective punishment for the sins of man or whatever, but how do you work that sort of spin in regard to animal on animal cruelty? There are some absolutely amazingly sadistic things animals are "designed" to do each other. Check this out:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19717_6-insect-predators-that-go-out-their-way-to-be-evil.html

Insects are especially nasty, but add to them flukes that mind control ants to march themselves to their deaths, snakes that swallow their prey whole and kill by digestion, spiders that paralyze prey and eat off limbs and kill at the end, spiders that eat their mates, mockingbirds that lay eggs in other birds' nests and upon hatching the little bird pushing other eggs out of the nest to their deaths, animals that eat each other from the inside and on and on.

If a creator made all this, I don't see how you can call that creator anything but a sadist. Opening the religious door to the claim that God made everything as it is and it is his perfect design may be a serious trap for theists. They may be better off saying God got things started and then evolution took over and shaped things into how they are today. That lets God look a little more moral I think.

 

[جوري]

, then it needs to prove its own claims and not just attack another inconsistent theory (ie, evolution).

Actually that's not how science works and given your own work in the field, then surely you must have come across the null hypothesis.. You don't engage in research with the focus of proving something right, you either fail to prove it or fail to disprove!
All that needs be is creating enough doubt in something to dismiss it as a clause!

I agree that when people claim Intelligent Design it opens the door to asking questions about that creator. If it is claimd to be an all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent creator then I think we run into serious problems and conflicts.

I disagree with this.. life is themed with enough of both sides to create a balance..
if you were creating a medium to say test a new antibiotic are you going to create a medium where everything is honky dory? How will you establish its resilience, usage, importance, superiority etc.? Really something to ponder..
You'd pay in the upwards of $350,000 for a single enzyme rx called idursulfase but do you get up in the morning thanking God every day for giving it to you for free? People often focus on what is missing from their lives never what they do have and what they have is fantastic it is tremendous.. Zillions of biochemical and physiological events well coordinated all around the clock for us and across billions of other species.. yet folks are often complaining if the crust on their apple pie seems a little burned and forgo the whole pie..
It is truly unfortunate!

best,

 

[جوري]

It is so strange.. sob7an Allah.. after I was done listing the couple of minute things we should be grateful for above, I started reading suret an'nahl as it is where I left off last time.. and those are its verses:

(3) He has created the heavens and the earth in accordance with [an inner] truth; sublimely exalted is He above anything to which men may ascribe a share in His divinity!
(4) He creates man out of a [mere] drop of sperm: and lo! this same being shows himself endowed with the power to think and to argue!
(5) And He creates cattle: you derive warmth from them, and [various other] uses; and from them you obtain food;
(6) and you find beauty in them when you drive them home in the evenings and when you take them out to pasture in the mornings.
(7) And they carry your loads to [many] a place which [otherwise] you would be unable to reach without great hardship to yourselves. Verily, your Sustainer is most compassionate, a dispenser of grace!
(8) And [it is He who creates] horses and mules and asses for you to ride, as well as for [their] beauty: and He will yet create things of which [today] you have no knowledge.
(9) And [because He is your Creator,] it rests with God alone to show you the right path: yet there is [many a one] who swerves from it. However, had He so willed, He would have guided you all aright.
(10) It is He who sends down water from the skies; you drink thereof, and thereof [drink] the plants upon which you pasture your beasts;
(11) [and] by virtue thereof He causes crops to grow for you, and olive trees, and date-palms, and grapes, and all [other] kinds of fruit: in this, behold, there is a message indeed for people who think!
(12) And He has made the night and the day and the sun and the moon subservient [to His laws, so that they be of use] to you; and all the stars are subservient to His command: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who use their reason!
(13) And all the [beauty of] many hues which He has created for you on earth: in this, behold, there is a message for people who [are willing to] take it to heart!
(14) And He it is who has made the sea subservient [to His laws], so that you might eat fresh meat from it, and take from it gems which you may wear. And on that [very sea] one sees ships ploughing through the waves, so that you might [be able to] go forth in quest of some of His bounty, and thus have cause to be grateful [to Him].
(15) And He has placed firm mountains on earth, lest it sway with you, and rivers and paths, so that you might find your way,
(16) as well as [various other] means of orientation: for [it is] by the stars that men find their way.
(17) IS, THEN, HE who creates comparable to any [being] that cannot create? Will you not, then, bethink yourselves?
(18) For, should you try to count God’s blessings, you could never compute them! Behold, God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace;


Asad, Muhammad (2008-12-17). The Message of the Qur'an (Kindle Locations 6747-6755). The Book Foundation. Kindle Edition.

Those are the blessings we see with our naked eye.. let alone all those who can never think of unless we were caught in that particular field and its intricacies.. I felt it so appropriate to post here!

 

[Pygoscelis]

Actually that's not how science works and given your own work in the field, then surely you must have come across the null hypothesis.. You don't engage in research with the focus of proving something right, you either fail to prove it or fail to disprove!
All that needs be is creating enough doubt in something to dismiss it as a clause!

To look at Intelligent Design (or creationism because that's what it really is) in such a scientific way, it would have to be falsifiable. How do you falsify creationism? The closest I think we can come is the evidence I presented above, the findings of things you would for sure not expect a creator to have made, such as the cave fish with non functional eyes, teeth in the womb that are reabsorbed as adults, vestigeal organs, etc (see the list I gave above).

When people then drop the guise of Intelligent Design and start claiming their God is behind it, then you have a claim of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, and the evidence of how sadistic that "design" is becomes relevant and contradictory.

I am fine with people saying Evolution has problems and issues with it and may need significant revision (or even to be replaced by better theory if the evidence shows that). But when people try to claim that "Intellectual Design Theory" is some sort of scientific theory on equal footing I have to point out the above.

 

[جوري]

Actually all ID states is there's intelligent design and not a random act of nature and so it stops, it doesn't attempt the machination of it, that's where the evolutionists come in and that's unfortunate for them because it automatically puts them in the position for us to falsify said claims, by scientific means.
As for the portion of Sadism. I don't agree with that all, please have a look at my last two posts.
Let me pose you another question.
If I have a house that is fully equipped to serve you and provide for you and all I ask for is that you take care of the house by means I have instructed that are tried and true, plough and plant my field, and feed my two cats, and after my appointed time I come back to find out you've turned my fertile fields arid my two cats dead, my house filthy and in shambles, who exactly to be faulted here? you or me?
This is the world we created out of our own hands, not the one God entursted to us..

best,

 

[MustafaMc]

it makes it easier to look at the ideas expressed with less risk of treading on religious toes. It helps us to talk about issues in evolution whilst laying aside the specific issues connected with faith in Allah, or God, or whatever.

No, rather I see it allows for the existence of some unknown 'Designer' that does not neccessarily have to be supernatural to account for the complexity of life systems that are unexplainable by random natural processes which means that it doesn't tread on evolutionst's toes.

ID seeks only to demonstrate that a particular evolutionary step cannot be explained entirely by natural processes. (For instance the original formation of amino acids, DNA based replication processes etc – I am reading your links thank you MustafaMc!).

Actually, it seems you already knew a lot about ID and you were just 'playing dumb', or it could be that you are a quick learner

The objective is to create a gap in the scientific explanation which theism is on hand to fill.

I find this statement to be disengenuous as there is no objective to create a gap, but rather fill a gap in scientific explanation. Surely you have heard of the "god of the gaps"!

The difference between ToE and ToID is in the how versus the who. My opinion is that ToE is implausible without the active involvement of a designer/director/controller to explain the HOW and to an evolutionist the WHO is implausible because he denies all that can not be observed or measured. It is improbable that the 'Designer' of ToID is a highly intelligent and powerful alien species from another planet and that this Designer exists on earth. Since the logical conclusion is that the Designer is Allah/God/Jehovah/the Father, the evolutionist rejects ToID because he is also an atheist/agnostic.

 

[Independent]

Actually, it seems you already knew a lot about ID and you were just 'playing dumb', or it could be that you are a quick learner

Well, if I am 'playing dumb', then in the opinion of منوة الخيال I've been making a very good job of it!

 

[sister herb]

I had to put Independent as Ignore list that I would not write here dirty words...

:hiding:

 

[Mustafa2012]

This is such an interesting discussion.