Devon
Posts: 2 Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Hahaha. Uh oh! Looks like somebody stumbled into ID's "Big Tent" without realizing the unspoken law: "ID doesn't point to a designer (but it's God wink wink nudge nudge)"
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/773#comments
Quote | Dave T. said:
“Analogies between human design and design by an unknown designer work because, whatever the designer, he must work on the same universe with the same natural laws that we do.”
I agree. As Davescot said, “In every case where we can determine the source of design for a machine it is intelligent agency.” But the statement “In every case where we can determine the source of design for a machine it is humans” is also true. Do you know of any intelligent agency that is not human? The intelligence of the agency is not what designed the machine. We attribute intelligence to the agency based on the fact that we as humans attribute intelligence to complexity. But intelligence is a description of the agency, it is not the agency. If intelligent design cannot speak to the agency, then it cannot also speak to descriptions of the agency, which would be calling it intelligent.
Comment by M J — February 3, 2006 @ 10:58 am |
and
Quote | One more thing (that you may think is ludicrous):
5,000 years from now, humans master not only time travel but have figured out how to hard wire “complexity” into the DNA of less “intelligent” animals. A scientist travels back in time, to 2 millions years ago and messes with the DNA of an ape, thus causing humans to come about.
That may sound pretty far fetched, but in reality, it does not break any known laws. We know (hypothetically) that time travel is possible. We know that with modern break-throughs in nanotechnology that one day it will be possible to change DNA in this manner. And we also know, that every time we see complex machines and determine their origins, that they were created by humans.
I think that that is a pretty elegant hypothesis for why we see “intelligent” design. I don’t believe that speaking about a designer should be left to theology and philosphy when you can have a very natural explanation for it. The only people that want to leave it to “theology and philosophy” are the people who already assume that the “designer” is outside the realm of science. I don’t believe the designer is. As they say, follow the evidence where it leads and the evidence leads to the fact that every time we see a complex machine, it is designed by a human.
Comment by M J — February 3, 2006 @ 11:10 am |
I wonder how quick they will get banned?
|