NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,12:54) | NotHypothesis in action, from previous page:
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,09:41) | | Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 17 2015,09:34) | | Fail, Gaulin. I didn't even mention natural selection. |
The premise of the theory is:
| Quote | | The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. |
Your sad attempt at misdirection is duly noted. |
Everything in the sentence after the word "not" is what (after scientific theory is developed) then fails as a better explanation for certain features of the universe and of living things, specifically "an undirected process such as natural selection".
If you argue that many now believing that natural selection is instead "guided" proves that the "not" part of the sentence is false then you end up admitting that your side of the debate already lost to the science progress that has occurred in this century.
The premise was written in a way that at this point in time there is no way you can win. |
Good god, you're stupid.
The "premise" as it stands is uncontroversial, as we've been telling you for hundreds of pages.
What the "premise" is, however, is vague and over-generalized and so non-specific as to be useless.
No one disagrees that there are things that are best explained by 'intelligent cause', on the standard meanings of those terms.
Are you trying to argue that 'natural selection' is best explained by 'intelligent cause'? If so, say so.
No one is trying to argue that a symphony or a tune or a car or an airplane or a genuine theory or a work of fiction is 'best explained' by 'natural selection'. On the other hand, no one other than you is trying to argue that the 'features of the universe' from which the intelligent causes of such things emerge are not 'best explained' by natural selection (as the term is meant in biology). Humans and animals and their varying levels of intelligence, however the term is to be defined, are taken to be features of the universe best explained by evolution, which includes natural selection. No one but creotards argue that 'natural selection' is, all by itself, supposed to be a 'creative force' of any sort. It is a filter.
You continue to be befuddled by the concept of emergence.
You appear to be equally befuddled by genuine systems-level thinking, where it is commonplace to analyze systems in terms of subsystems, and subsystems in terms of sub-subsystems, until one reaches a level of 'atomic' elements (neither of which term is to be taken in the sense used in chemistry but rather the prior sense of 'fundamental' and 'component').
Please try to understand this.
That human intelligence is the product of natural selection is not the same as and does not require the claim that products of human intelligence are products of natural selection.
You are arguing against a strawman fiction of your own creation that no one in the real world is making an argument for.
You are confusing the situation, not clarifying it.
You need to specifically identify *which* features of the universe are 'best explained' by intelligent cause(s).
You need to specify how such things can be selected out from amongst all those things, all those 'features', of the universe that are not 'best explained' by 'intelligent cause'.
Until and unless you can do that, you are spinning in place with nothing to grasp hold of.
You have to defend your selection criteria.
You then have to carefully specify what counts as an 'intelligent cause' and how such an event, or process, or entity, can be identified from amongst all the 'features' of the universe that do not count as intelligent causes.
You then have to demonstrate why and how 'intelligent cause' explains the specific and specified 'features of the universe' you "theory" is referring to and which you have identified as such.
You have done none of those things.
Thus, you have no phenomena to analyze with respect to the 'best explanation' that might account for them.
You have no explanation to apply to account for such phenomena once you have identified some.
Your current 'theory' is not even a candidate because, as we have shown, it is vague, generalized, over-simplified, and generally and specifically wrong about all the details and most of the generalizations.
So, do the prerequisite work before trying to assert that your opponents cannot account for things that you can account for. You cannot even identify the things that might need to be accounted for by 'intelligent cause'.
You cannot identify what counts as 'intelligent'.
You cannot account for what counts as a 'cause'.
|
