|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2010 : 11:04:22
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Here is one reason I love Neil deGrasse Tyson! Right now I can't think of a person who is a better popularizer or communicator of the value of science than he is.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2010 : 13:06:09 [Permalink]
|
Well, ID is stupid and Tyson makes that point beautifully. We haven't heard: "An entertainment center in the middle of a sewage system." in years, and while evolution gets much more half-assed than that, it's not as funny. A conscious designer would deny all knowledge and responsibility for such a series of major fuckups lest it be laughed off the cosmic stage and given the choice of working as the Cosmic Village Idiot or leaving town riding a rail.
But then, logic, reason and other forms of critical thinking are as foreign to the ID floggers as the surface of Venus. We've long known that ID is just another form of creationism, unsupported by anything beyond outright lies and the Wedge Document.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2010 : 15:05:48 [Permalink]
|
Yes, that is a good argument against a benevolent god who created everything for a purpose. It is, however, a piss-poor argument against ID.
I found his arguments just about as convincing as Pascal's wager for the simple reason that they both suffer from the same flaw. There are good arguments for why ID isn't scientific, it's just that Neil failed to produce any.
(And yes, I know that ID is a rather blatant attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom.) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 14:31:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
(And yes, I know that ID is a rather blatant attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom.)
|
I feel you understate the case somewhat. Maybe through either an inability or unwillingness to see it. ID is more than a blatant attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom, it is a scientific and intellectually deceitful attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom AND many many theists are unaware that they are being daily lied to about it's validity. Continuously everyday. In spite of those responsible being exposed and corrected, they do not cease their deception but continue to do so. They know there lying about the evidence and continue to do so because that's their way of deceiving and stealing billions, collectively from the very people they are deceiving. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2010 : 14:56:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Maybe through either an inability or unwillingness to see it. |
And you say this because...?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2010 : 15:01:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Yes, that is a good argument against a benevolent god who created everything for a purpose. It is, however, a piss-poor argument against ID.
I found his arguments just about as convincing as Pascal's wager for the simple reason that they both suffer from the same flaw. There are good arguments for why ID isn't scientific, it's just that Neil failed to produce any.
(And yes, I know that ID is a rather blatant attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom.)
|
Well, ignoring the title, I just thought the video was entertaining and filled with a lot of fun science tidbits. I also love Tyson's enthusiasm. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2010 : 19:10:09 [Permalink]
|
I think his arguments are fairly weak. Yes the vast majority of the universe is inhospitable, this is what makes the Earth even more miraculous. Yes there are many dangers in the world, obviously it isn't that dangerous since there's over 6 billion of us. Sure the Earth probably wont be here in billions of year. The rapture will come far sooner than that. Also we don't eat/drink and breathe through the same orifice, unless you have something wrong with your nose. Sure I get his point about choking, but those were the words he used and they were wrong.
Human beings were not designed to be indestructible, this is obvious. Is he suggesting that Dolphins exhibit intelligent design? What point is he trying to make? I don't know any Christian who has claimed that Humans are perfectly designed survival machines.
This kind of argument is basically taking the word "intelligent", from ID and changing it to "perfect". The concept isn't that humans were designed to be perfect the concept is that certain things in nature imply intelligence in their creation. And before someone makes the equally weak counter argument, "if God is perfect and we are created in his image, shouldn't we be perfect". No obviously an image of something is not the same as actually being something. Also perfect creator does not automatically imply that there is a perfect creation or even the intentions of creating a perfect creation.
All in all I find his argument more style than substance, strawman at worst. |
 |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2010 : 20:09:17 [Permalink]
|
So basically the ID argument is not
| Certain things in nature are created perfectly by something which cannot be proven to exist. |
but
| Certain things in nature are created imperfectly by something which cannot be proven to exist. |
|
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2010 : 11:50:01 [Permalink]
|
On fire for Christ:
The concept isn't that humans were designed to be perfect the concept is that certain things in nature imply intelligence in their creation. |
You are absolutely right about the concept of ID. And support for it hinges on irreducible complexity as you probably know. And to date, nothing that has been presented by ID advocates as evidence has been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. To the contrary. Every example has been debunked. And worse for the ID crowd, there doesn't seem to be anything in nature that requires an outside force or creator to explain it. Nothing so far anyhow.
But again, I just threw up the video because I thought it was fun. And again, there were some nice scientific tidbits in it. I don't think Tyson was attempting to debunk ID. His point was that if God really did this, he has some things to answer for if he had human survival in mind. We are not a great design and the natural world, with all its beauty, is indeed a hostile place. And putting "an entertainment center in the middle of a sewage system" can be more readably explained by evolution, which really is undeniably hap-hazard, than any kind of intelligent creation. That is unless you can argue that God was purposely a lousy engineer when he drew up those plans. (Speaking of that, wern't we supposedly created in his image?) |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2010 : 18:22:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
So basically the ID argument is not
| Certain things in nature are created perfectly by something which cannot be proven to exist. |
but
| Certain things in nature are created imperfectly by something which cannot be proven to exist. |
|
They don't even say that. It's more like "Certain things in nature were created by something intelligent.". Perfection/imperfection alledgedly has nothing to do with it. That doesn't stop some major ID supporters from claiming that there shouldn't be things like junk DNA, however. Consistency isn't exactly these people's strongest point.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2010 : 07:29:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
That doesn't stop some major ID supporters from claiming that there shouldn't be things like junk DNA, however. |
What is junk DNA anyway?
Why call it junk, when it isn't junk... It's vestigial DNA. Sort of.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2010 : 11:05:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Maybe through either an inability or unwillingness to see it. |
And you say this because...?
|
Sorry for not posting sooner My internet is out for the time being and don't have my regular access.
Please don't be offended, I wasn't trying to offend or attack (you), what ever your beliefs are. My reply was because ID, as I see it, is Creationism. In my reading of you comment, that ID was created to get Creationism into the classroom, I see ID and Creationism to be one in the same, which they are (imo). Example, An orange is still an orange even though a store colors it red and tries to sell it as an apple. The promoters of ID insists it's different. Maybe I was wrong but it took you words that you see ID and creationism as a bit different from each other. For the record I have a lot of respect for every theist who posts here because it takes conviction post here as a theist. I do find it hard to accept people who sell lies and denies them for what they are. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2010 : 13:34:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Please don't be offended, I wasn't trying to offend or attack (you), what ever your beliefs are. My reply was because ID, as I see it, is Creationism. In my reading of you comment, that ID was created to get Creationism into the classroom, I see ID and Creationism to be one in the same, which they are (imo). Example, An orange is still an orange even though a store colors it red and tries to sell it as an apple. The promoters of ID insists it's different. Maybe I was wrong but it took you words that you see ID and creationism as a bit different from each other. For the record I have a lot of respect for every theist who posts here because it takes conviction post here as a theist. I do find it hard to accept people who sell lies and denies them for what they are. SS
|
If you ask me if ID is the same as creationsm, then my answer would be yes and no - depending on how you define creationism. I would say yes, becasue ID is, for all intents and purposes, the set of all possible forms of creationism. I would say no, because it is not the Young Earth Creationism that most IDists want to get into schools. The fact that a vast majority of ID supporters want to get ID into schools is, obviously, so that they can smuggle their own version of creationism into the curriculum - but ID is the wedge, not creationism proper.
In any case, I just realise that there are good arguments for why ID is crap. The existence of birth defects isn't one of them. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2010 : 17:51:41 [Permalink]
|
| You are absolutely right about the concept of ID. And support for it hinges on irreducible complexity as you probably know. And to date, nothing that has been presented by ID advocates as evidence has been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. To the contrary. Every example has been debunked. And worse for the ID crowd, there doesn't seem to be anything in nature that requires an outside force or creator to explain it. Nothing so far anyhow. |
Yes this is the actual counter argument, which Tyson doesn't mention. He seems like a good speaker and is probably very bright in his particular field, but he hasn't got any kind of grip on this debate.
So basically the ID argument is not
Certain things in nature are created perfectly by something which cannot be proven to exist.
but
Certain things in nature are created imperfectly by something which cannot be proven to exist. |
No the ID argument is as stated by Kil, that some things we see in biology are irreducibly complex, that is to say, they could not have arisen no matter how many millions of years of random mutations, so therefore must have been designed. That in itself is the evidence of a creator. I surprises me I would have to explain that on a skeptics board, unless you are deliberately making another "Strawman" argument, which doesn't seem necessary if you believe your own position to be a strong one. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 12/03/2010 17:56:51 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2010 : 19:33:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
No the ID argument is as stated by Kil, that some things we see in biology are irreducibly complex, that is to say, they could not have arisen no matter how many millions of years of random mutations, so therefore must have been designed. That in itself is the evidence of a creator. |
That's one of the lines of evidence used to support ID, but irreducibly complexity is not itself Intelligent Design theory. That's because there is no theory, just a set of presumptions, mostly variations on the ancient teleological argument.
Behe's "irreducibly complexity" and Dembski's "explanatory filter" were both attempts to resurrect these metaphysical arguments under the guise of science, often reusing classic creationist arguments and reworking them to apply to cellular processes.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/03/2010 19:33:58 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2010 : 20:08:51 [Permalink]
|
On fire for Christ:
He seems like a good speaker and is probably very bright in his particular field, but he hasn't got any kind of grip on this debate. |
He wasn't discussing the intelligent design as the hypothesis that the Discovery Institute pushes. He was discussing religion and science. He was suggesting that the universe, our planet, and our own body design doesn't suggest an intelligence if our well being is to be considered.
Here is a link to much more from the same talk. Not the part that I linked to last time. He is talking about ID more generally as in an intelligent designer, (though I'm sure he chose the words "intelligent design" because it's the current incarnation of scientific creationism, which is an attempt to get God into our science classrooms) and how that notion of an intelligent designer (God) has been around for as long as serious science has been done, and how the problem for science isn't a new one. It's a very interesting talk. I would like to get my hands on the whole thing. He's really putting ID into a historical context.
The God of the Gaps (by Neil deGrasse Tyson)
I assure you, Neil deGrasse Tyson knows and understands the current ID debate.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
