Quote:I really don't want to defend ID because I know very little about it.
ID is actually no different from any other form of Creationism, so if you can defend Creation, you can defend ID.
Quote:However, say that you found a machine with buttons, cranks, wheels, all made out of steel with a few hundred screws. I think we both know that you would not even for a moment think that this had come into being purely by chance.
This is the classic watchmaker analogy that Paley proposed in 1802. It has been disproved, yet people continue to use it to this day. The same, false argument is used to attempt to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum, DNA, and the cell. But it's wrong. Darwin proved that complexity can arise in nature without the need for intelligence, so simply saying "god did it because only god can create complexity" or "we can infer an intelligent god from complexity" is wrong (and both arguments are illogical). If you really understand the power of natural selection, it will change the way you think about complexity in nature. (Also, If you want to find out more about the Intelligent Design arguments, google “Kitzmiller v Dover” and read Judge Jones’ decision. He explains it quite well, considering that he’s a devout Christian and a conservative republican Judge)
You might think that complex machinery found on the moon was created by intelligence because you already know that humans are intelligent and capable of producing complex machinery. You then conclude that if humans didn’t manufacture that machinery, it must have been another form of intelligence. This is reasonable. The machinery could have been made by another intelligent civilization whose intelligence evolved in the same way as ours, and whose manufacturing techniques thus resemble our own. This is a deductive argument for “intelligent design.”
However, you as a Christian know that God is intelligent and that He can create complexity in nature as well. But I don’t know that. In order to show me that complexity in nature can arise through God’s handiwork, you would have to explain to me how God designs things, so that I can then look at the artifact and decide whether or not it was designed by God. Any other connection between the artifact and God would be illogical, since I don’t know that your god is actually intelligent or capable of producing complexity in the first place.
Quote:The chance that an object appearing to be a human face vs. the chance of an entire machine coming into being by chance would be very different. The latter would be almost zero, while the former would be much different.
Again, I've heard this argument numerous times. It's wrong because complexity does arise in nature, without intelligent means, regardless of how improbable it may be. There is an infinite set of circumstances which we might recognize as being complex. Just yesterday, I saw a license plate that said HZT-3476. Now what are the chances that I would ever see a license plate with this exact letter and number combination?
Quote:I am aware of Occam's razor. I think here, if we accepted evolution, all it would show is that God is not necessary to explain how biological complexity came about. However, all that would follow here, I think, is that we cannot infer the existence of God based on biological complexity. However, it doesn't follow that arguments for the existence of God which are not based on biological complexity are
effected.
You tacked God on to a statement about evolution. But you would still need a positive argument for God, instead of just throwing god into the equation because they equation allowed you to do so. It’s like saying 2 + 2 + x = 4 – x
Quote:I would challenge you here and ask how we can empirically verify (without circular and invalid logic) the existence of the past or the reliability of our senses.
Science has already figured this out. We establish an objective, universal standard.
Quote:What about the Kalaam cosmological argument?
1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (the big bang theory)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
This is an argument for the cause of the creation of the universe, not an argument for the existance of god.
Quote:Therefore, whatever caused everything to be must be spaceless, immaterial, timeless, and a being of immense power (to cause everything that is). And the latter characteristics are traditional properties of God.
This definition is vague enough to explain anything. See Reason 1 for why I don't believe that gods exist. When we finally figure out the real cause of the creation of the universe, your definition will change.
Good discussion.
