krabapple wrote:There is no agreed upon criterion; some consider dolphins and apes to have intelligence of a sort. In any case, 'intelligence', as far as we know, is a characteristic of real organisms, not speculative, supernatural entities....The question of whether a specualtive nonphysical supernatural 'intelligence' exists is much less amenable to scientific discussion...
When archeologists uncover ancient remains, don't they make assessments about the intelligence of the people that lived there? And aren't these assessments based solely on the artifacts that are found?
The actions of an intelligent entity leaves behind artifacts that show evidence of its intelligence (if they haven't been destroyed). How is speculating on the intelligence of an ancient race of people, based on artifacts, any more scientific than using the artifacts of life to speculate on the intelligence of its design? Whatever label you attach to this design/designer (be it evolution or God) is immaterial to assessing the intelligence of the design.
Yet you insist on attaching the label "nonphysical supernatural intelligence" to this designer, and then you use that label to dismiss the whole discussion as non-scientific. Furthermore, you imply that I am the one insisting on that label. At this stage of discussion, it's putting the cart before the horse, as I see it.
talk.origins, the website, and talk.origins, the newsgroup, are two different things...You'd be taken seriously unless you came in quoting Bible text; sarcasm willbe returned in kind. So, what's holding you back? Are you interseted in having your questions debated, or not?
The reason I started this thread on FLO is because this topic seems to come up, or gets referred to, rather often here. I thought that perhaps some folks here might be curious to discuss this with a creationist (me) who isn't going to start quoting Bible text or raving about eternal damnation.
My comment about "rigorous and brilliant minds" wasn't sarcasm in the sense that I meant the opposite. I have no doubt that there are plenty of smart, well informed people on talkorigins. The problem is that they damn well know it and don't hesitate to flaunt their "superior" knowledge and thought processes.
Isn't the following an example of the kind of condescending attitude that I would find at talkorigins?
People who find evolution...to be 'outrageously bogus', tend to understand it poorly if at all. Meanwhile, people who do know a lot about evolution tend to find creationism 'outrageously bogus'.
Is there any way to read that statement other than "evolutionists find creationism not only unscientific, but patently ridiculous, and they also question the ability of creationists to think clearly."
Have you actually *read* the thousands of words rebutting Behe and Dembski, or not?
I didn't read the rebuttals of "specified complexity" because I find that concept weak to begin with. But I did read the rebuttals on "irreducible complexity." I found the "irreducible complexity of the mousetrap" discussion particularly interesting, if only for the reason that it's a simple enough concept for me to understand.
I was incredulous at some of the convoluted, oh-so-clever arguments showing that a mousetrap, missing one piece, was not useless at all. Keith Robison wrote that you didn't need the base, you could simply nail the mousetrap to the floor. Then he recalled his discussion with Behe in an attempt to show how confused Behe's thinking is ("you're just substituting a different base") and how clear his own is ("no, it works without a base").
And he goes on: "Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now 'irreducibly complex.' Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental" (I seem to have missed the sarcasm that prompted this response "in kind").
So, Mr. Robison, I guess if you were only given one part -- the metal hammer -- you could still claim it functions as mousetrap, because you could throw it at the mouse?
Another fellow argues that, even if we accept that the incomplete parts can't function as a mousetrap, the individual parts still have useful functions. For example, (I'm not making this up) the base can be used as a
paperweight.
In fairness, I should add that I didn't find that rebuttal at talkorigins.
