The Viability of Intelligent Design 1/3

[@95TurboSol]

Thanks for Posting! this is great.

[@Roper122]

Oh great! Thanks for posting this... Craig's an I.D. fan as well. It just keeps getting better.

[@Christianjr4]

Hi nmatzke. I'll be putting up Dr. Ayala's opening presentation shortly. I was hoping to have it up sometime on the weekend but unfortunately I got a little busy with other matters. I'll try to have it up sometime today or tomorrow hopefully.

[@Christianjr4]

Hi MaltyT, Thanks for the response. I agree the question is over the detectability of design in nature. This is one of the reasons I haven't embraced ID yet. In the case of biology it's not black and white. The processes, as I seem them, could go both ways. And yes, evolution isn't random. I never said it was. I said the mutations are random.

[@DickJohnson3434]

Eugenie Scott owned Dembski's design inference with a paper clip. A paper clip is as simple as it gets, yet we instantly recognize a paper clip as designed every bit as well as Mount Rushmore. When inferring design in archeology or SETI, it's not specified complexity that we look for, it is artificiality.

[@lukeism2]

i'd love to see william lane craigs ideas peer reviewed. goddidit.

[@Christianjr4]

Why would it be any worse? In this debate he endorsed common ancestry of all living things. The acceptance of the evolution of all life from a single common ancestor wasn't disputed in this debate. It was only the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection that were disputed. While it is certainly a fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, there's much less agreement when it comes to the Darwinian paradigm.

[@adstanra]

Well, I have studied the philosophy and historical significance of St Augustine quite a bit. There was no "regurgitation " of ANYTHING ( I only give my own opinions based upon my own knowledge of the subject. But i am not an expert on Augustine so I would be quite willing to learn about such an important person... what was his understanding , according to your knowledge, of he relatonship between empirical obsevation and theology ? My understandig is known to you.

[@TheScienceFoundation]

Spewing so much fallacy your opponent can't counter it all while making their original points does not constitute a win.

[@drcraigvideos]

Thanks for posting this, Christianjr4.

[@Christianjr4]

First of all this wasn't a debate about evolution. Craig specifically said he wouldn't be attacking the merits of evolution itself but instead the darwinian mechanisms. Secondly, Dawkins has rejected ID for anti-religious/metaphyscial reasons. For example, in his interview with Hugh Hewitt, he stated that ID is "creationism" and therefore not science and hence he rejects it. That's clearly an anti-religious reason.

[@astronomer747]

Where is the rest of this debate?

[@Christianjr4]

As for ID making it into mainstream science. Well even if it doesn't that doesn't show that ID is false. I've yet to upload the part, but in this debate, Craig made an excellent point that the notion of ID being science or not is inconsequential. What matters is whether ID is warranted. If it is, even if it's not science, then ID fundamentally succeeds at the end of the day.

[@Christianjr4]

It's irrelevant whether ID was originally a term to describe creationism in schools or not. Academic ID theorists today maintain that ID is simply about justifiable inferences to an intelligent designer. Even if if ID is semantically equivalent to creationism it doesn't refute what ID theorists argue, since their arguments have nothing to do with creationism. In reality, we all believe in intelligent design (laptops, cars, houses etc etc). The question is whether it's justified in biology.

[@TheScienceFoundation]

I'm pretty sure he meant that Dawkins wouldn't debate Craig for the same reason a geographer wouldn't debate a flat earther.

[@Testeverything521]

what a person knows is not determined by what degrees they hold., but it appears that he is not "formally" educated in biology. He does have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I think that qualifies as "real".

[@Testeverything521]

Can you link me to the verse that says the Bible is 6000 years old? I seemed to have missed that one.

[@NickMatzke]

Why isn't Ayala's side of the debate, and slides, up? Anyway, Craig's scientific points were half-understood silliness from Behe's "Edge of Evolution." For rebuttals with references, see: I can't post links apparently, but google these phrases to get the articles/posts: "Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology" "Biological design in science classrooms" "Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover 'Intelligent Design' trial" "Full text of 'The Edge of Creationism'"

[@Dhalsim06]

3:35 - First time I've ever heard Dr Craig say "I don't know"! Great speech by him though

[@adstanra]

you know, instead of calling someone a liar, I usually assume the person is just ignorant of the facts and try to point out where they are wrong.thats just me,

[@Christianjr4]

No, I mean the darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. There's a big difference between those mechanisms and that of the simplistic phrase "survival of the fittest". Scientists will even tell you that. "Are you claiming it is not?" Yes, most definitely. Understood properly, intelligent design is no more creationism than is the belief that a laptop computer is designed.

[@Christianjr4]

Very true. What's rather ironic about this, however, is that ID is very similar to what respected theistic evolutionary biologists hold. For example, theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins and others believe God designed the evolutionary process of random mutation and natural selection to bring about human beings. Is it so much different to think that an intelligent designer intervened and guided the evolution along as in ID? Not really. In fact both in a sense are guided.

[@TheScienceFoundation]

Thats not very well objective, then is it?

[@Christianjr4]

Yes!!

[@raoskaos]

First, that "scientist" are NOT real scientist. Second, gravity and evolution are both theories. Theory doesn't mean hypothesis, it means explanation. The only way that you could be "skeptical" about evolution is that you're raised in a creationist enviroment.

[@adstanra]

in fact I have long noticed a similarity bt WLC and Augustine here. If you search KZbin you can hear WLC stating that Faith and revelatin should usurp reason when the two conflict---when it is essential. Otherwise logical and reason should be compatable with theology.

[@Christianjr4]

"How about the fact its not science" That's really beside the point. The point isn't whether intelligent is science. The point is whether it's true or not. There are many things that can't be demonstrated scientifically and yet we would all still believe in them (ie. logic, the external world, ethical/moral truths etc). In any case, Dawkins doesn't give scientific reasons against ID. He thinks it's equivalent to creationism and hence dismisses, which is again an anti-metaphysical reason.

[@Christianjr4]

Like I said, I'm agnostic about the merits of intelligent design. I do not have to provide evidence for that which I'm agnostic about. If the Darwinian mechanisms, along with all other known mechanisms, can't explain the history of evolution on this planet then ID remains a viable player at the table.

[@Genghiskhan52]

I wrote a typo, I meant 6000 (six thousand years) not 600 (six hundred) but you understood what I meant. Yes the 4004 BC date was the addition of various genealogies by monks much after the Bible was written. All these calculations were wrong anyway, because genealogies were not meant in the Bible to be complete and accurate. Moreover the Bible says also that one day for God is like thousands of years for man.

[@Genghiskhan52]

I wrote a typo, I meant 6000 (six thousand years) not 600 (six hundred) but you understood what I meant. Yes the 4004 BC date was the addition of various genealogies by monks much after the Bible was written. All these calculations were wrong anyway, because genealogies were not meant in the Bible to be complete and accurate. Moreover the Bible says also that one day for God is like thousands of years for man. If we refer to the Bible we shall not include therein, words which are not in there

[@Christianjr4]

Absolutely. I gave two sources that has him explicitly making anti-metaphysical reasons. Unlike you, I've read his books and I'm very confident in exactly what he says. You, on the other hand, have still yet to provide any of those supposed "scientific reasons" that I asked you to produce from Dawkins.

[@Christianjr4]

"I have no objectivity on the issuse you do!" Do you even know what the word objectivity means? "You on the other started with the answer" You keep making me repeat myself. Once again, I'm agnostic on intelligent design. I happen to believe in God but that really has nothing to do with intelligent design as I already defined it. You keep meshing everything together and not recognizing the important distinctions.

[@DickJohnson3434]

We was not saying he was wrong because of the insults he provided. Certainly not in the comment you responded to. Showing up and attacking someone without making an argument is NOT a logical fallacy. Your quote "This is the definition of ad hominem. No substance, only attack." That is simply false. Personal attacks without substance is not a logical fallacy. His second comment actually was an ad hominem but that is not what you labeled ad hominem.

[@Genghiskhan52]

In fact the Bible in Genesis Chapter 1, verse 11 (for plants and trees) verse 20 (for fishes) and verse 24 (for animal living on land) clearly points to evolution according to Darwin. Moreover the mechanisms of darwinism and intellectual design are not incompatible but could work together.

[@noodles321321]

Woah. If Dawkins catches wind of this, Craig's chances of getting a debate from him look even worse.

[@Aydosh1991]

I cannot speak for other people so let me tell you what I currently think. Nobody (Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu) has given me reason to believe or accept any of their respective Creation myths. Whilst scientists do not yet know how everything came about, I am certain acceptable answers will be found one day. Until proven one way or the other I cannot accept that there was a need for a Creator, the requirement to have one is a capitulation of intellect. Then who made the Creator?

[@MaltyT]

@Lichtspielhaus234 There was no Ark, historians will never find it. Just think about it, how long would it take to build such and ark and load it so that each animal would fit into it. More so, given the rate of birth complications present in the natural world, it would be unreasonable and illogical to only load one pair of each animal.

[@adstanra]

We know where "you people" are coming from. Your "intelligence" is a supernatural spacetimeless being who performs "miracles".Who exists outside of nature as governed by the laws of nature.If an entity outside of spacetime intervenes this would break the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics..that would be magic! but you are quite right about gaps in our knowledge and not turning to magic to fill the gaps. All of our experience has shown that there is always a natural explanation.

[@lukeism2]

i'd like to see a practical application for intelligent design... it's creationism in a cheap tuxedo

[@Christianjr4]

So if some court today were to judge that evolution was just an attempt by scientists to disprove God would you then accept it? I doubt it. None of this answers whether an intelligent design inference is warranted in biology. As I said before, this is a separate issue. You're arguing about the label. This debate is about the merit of design inferences which has nothing to do with creationism anymore than the belief that an intelligent designer designed your laptop or car is creationism.

[@MaltyT]

Damn, KZbin doesn't allow edits :-( Meant to say "Don't paint everyone with the same brush." :o

[@Christianjr4]

@Roper122 An "I.D. fan"? He stated in this presentation that he doesn't know of I.D. is warranted or not. That's not exactly being a fan of the idea. You're welcome concerning the upload.

[@Christianjr4]

Again, I'm still waiting for those quotes from you. Please quote Dawkins directly on this. Saying that creationism is not science is not itself a science argument. A science argument against ID is using the methods of science to refute the position. Simply saying creationism is not science does nothing to invalidate ID, even if it turns out to be true that ID isn't science. The fundamental point here is that Dawkins dismisses the entire validity of ID because of his dislike of creationism.

[@Christianjr4]

Even if God was designed it wouldn't disprove intelligent design. You don't have to be not designed in order to intelligently design something. That point should be obvious.

[@DarwinsOtherTheory]

Read his latest book, for starters. and it's not an anti-religious reason, he says it's creationism and not science because creationism has been proven to be unscientific. You need to read my initial comment again this is what I said "but when debating biology he turns to the fringe, to ID," Can't be clearer than that.

[@DarwinsOtherTheory]

Then you really haven't read his books on biology or watched his lectures or interviews. Let's see if you get it this time, he said it's creationism therefore not science because creationism is not science, not because he rejects religion as you make it out to be. Saying creationism is not science is not a teological statement but a scientific one.

[@Christianjr4]

No one is disputing evolution here. I'm surprised you're still stuck on that point. The issue isn't whether evolution happened. Evolution is a fact as I already stated. The real issue here is the forces that drive evolution. Is it natural selection operating on unguided random mutations or is it intelligent design or perhaps both? That's the issue. I'm suggesting intelligent design may be a viable (not true) solution worth investigating. This is the same position Craig argued in the debate.

[@MaltyT]

@Christianjr4 The problem with intelligent design is how does one actually determine if something has been designed. How can you prove scientifically that this sentence was designed by a *cough* intelligent person (I'm not!). If you've ever seen a word search then that should help visualise it. The question is how can you tell the difference between a deliberately designed wordsearch, or a random array of letters that just happened to create a valid wordsearch. Btw evolution is not random!

[@adstanra]

Well, it is at least good to see that religious people are now coming to admit that all life has evolved from a common ancestor. it was Darwin who brought this to consciousness. I am not really sure if WLC admitted the 1st two ideas ( evolution happens and we came from common ancestry). Am interested in how he is going to show a mind operative in a bush of life...a good mind operative in designing things like smallpox virus and how this mind chose predation as a force driving change.

[@MaltyT]

Ran out of room.. Whether the wordsearch is designed is or not is purely a subjective opinion. Science deals with objective reality so being subjective about a field in science is not doing science. Science needs precision, not vagueness,and the criterion for design is far too vague.

[@DarwinsOtherTheory]

I do not have any quotes from dawkins saying " I reject ID for scientific reasons" I also don't have a quote from him saying "cows do not fly". It is obvious to anyone who has reas his books why he rejects creationism and ID, you can think whatever you want. About your second point, yes, no everything can be proved by science, but isn't that the whole point of the ID movement? plus when you deal with biology you're making scientific statements.

[@Christianjr4]

"Yes, he said it's a religious argument" Yes, and the statement that ID is a religious argument is itself an anti-religious reason, which is the point! And by all means, please enlighten me about Dawkins. Where has Dawkins given scientific reasons against it? As for ID, yes it is a fringe, but you initially said that Craig's discussion on the mechanisms were a fringe. Don't change your statement.

[@adstanra]

It becoming obvious that you are great at insults and have nothing to say about Augustine.

[@Christianjr4]

I'm agnostic about the merits of intelligent design, as is Craig (he explicitly stated so in his opening presentation). Perhaps natural selection and random mutation drives a good deal of evolution but in certain instances God intervenes to help the process along. Maybe he doesn't intervene at all. Perhaps, like theistic evolutionists would say, God just so designed the mechanisms of evolution that random mutation and natural selection gave rise to intelligent life all on its own.

[@adstanra]

Augustine was an interesting fellow. He felt that theology and science should be compatable and that if the science warrented,theology should change...except with some stuff..the essentials. In that case Faith and authority should usurp reason and empirical observation.What science is doing , that threatens theology, is showing time and time again how phenomena are caused by natural mindless laws. God is no where to be found. The concept is still useful while we still have gaps in our knowledge

[@adstanra]

Common ancestry cannot be disputed these days. In your view CJ4, how do you explain the bush pattern that arises where 98% of the branches are dead ends? Scientifically, where and when does God perform his magic in this process? Does he magically cause huge mutations in an egg or sperm such that suddenly a new species arises? Why scientifically would anyone conclude a God even if natural selection cannot explain everything ( which I think it can). there may just be a gap in our knowledge

[@Christianjr4]

"Im not sure what your beliefs are" I wonder why? Could it be because you don't actually know what ID theory is? No, I do not think the world is 6000 years old. To be honest, I hate it when people ask me this question. It's an insult to my intelligence to suggest that I could possibly believe such a thing. As for evolution, I take it as an established scientific fact. Surprised? Well believe it or not, ID theory is fully compatible with both the age of the Universe and evolution.

[@Genghiskhan52]

I did not say that the Bible is wrong, but that it is wrongly interpreted. Certain parts require litteral interpretation according to the context, all the Gospels, others like the Book of Revelation are not meant to be litterally interpreted. Others books of the Bible fall between the two categories. Genesis is very general, so it fits easily with all scientific theories. Genesis was never meant to be science and to tell HOW the creation took place. it just says WHO (God) made the creation

[@raoskaos]

I never said that he's a young earth creationist, but he is a creationist and DENIES evolution. Yes, denies. Why isn't he agnostic about gravity??? As for the dishonest part, watch that video.

[@DarwinsOtherTheory]

And again, discussing darwinian mechanism he turns to the fringe but when someone brings up a theory that goes agains his arguments he discards it because it's not part of the consensus, consistency my friend. That's not an anti-religious reason, have you read any of dawkins books? he lays it down clearly why creationism and ID are not science, he doesn't say "because it's religion", it's because both lack explanatory power and are not supported by evidence.

[@MaltyT]

@gorilla199uncensored The bible is regarded as a literary text consisting of poetry,songs,allegories etc. Parts of it aren't meant to be taken as historic text, these includes the tales of the ark. Yes, admittingly there are some Christians that think it is a kind of scientific textbook - the majority don't. So please don't slate everyone with the same sword.

[@DarwinsOtherTheory]

When you say something couldn't have come about through natural means you're dealing with science, because we can actually test it. Again, WLC is shady with how he deals with evolution, he wants it both ways. In his debate with victor stenger he said that if evolution is false, it's evidence for god and if it is true it's evidence for god too, please! I would also like to know his stand regarding evolution, sometimes he sounds like he accepts it, somethings he doesn't.

[@raoskaos]

Respected by other CREATIONISTS... And you're ignorant of the truth, the facts. Science isn't your enemy.

[@MaltyT]

The bible is full of literary contradictions, however this isn't a problem if one accepts that say in the instance of the gospel's the writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had scribes to help them write stuff down (as was the tradition of the culture at the time.) It is like having four journalists covering a soccer match. There will be discrepancies in the reporting and some gaps will be left out cause nothing interesting happened. However, the spine of each story will match up.

[@Christianjr4]

Also if you think ID theory really is creationism then you don't have a clue about what ID theorists like Demiski, Denton, Behe, etc argue. As I said before, all of us accept intelligent design when it comes to laptops, cars, houses etc. We don't call that creationism so why call it creationism when it comes to the ID theory, which tries to use the very same principles. If that's creationism, then you better be prepared to consistently say your a creationist because you believe cars are designed

[@Christianjr4]

ID theory is not creationism, at least not the academic definition of it defended by its proponents today. Even if it was, it would do nothing to answer the question of whether an intelligent designer was justified in the field of biology. Please keep these two issues separate. Nowhere does the Bible state the world is 6000 years old. You're reading between the lines I'm agnostic about ID. I've stated that a few times already. It may or may not be justified in abiogenesis/evolution. Don't know

[@Christianjr4]

I never said God intelligently designs certain things. I specifically said I don't know if he does (apart from him creating the Universe and it's laws). Whether certain aspects of biology or nature are best explained by an intervening intelligent designer or by natural forces alone I don't know. That's my position. By the way, could you please take a step back from your own bias. Many of your comments reek of emotionally loaded language which I think clouds your objectivity on this issue.

[@Christianjr4]

How is it a fringe? Even Dr. Ayala would agree that there's debate among scientists about the mechanisms that drive evolution. I think you're again confusing the fact of evolution with the mechanisms that drive it. And Dawkin's answer in that interview is most definitely an anti-religious reason. The statement that ID is creationism is obviously an anti-religious reason. Have you even read his books? Here's a direct quote: "(ID is) not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one" --RD

[@geoffreyefloyd]

OMG OMG TY

[@Roper122]

@Christianjr4 ... Yes.. obviously he enjoys spending his time debating in support of concepts that he doubts the viability of??? But you do have some good uploads...drcraigvideos has way more though. it makes life easier for me.

[@Testeverything521]

Wheaton College - B. A. Communications, high honors1971 Trinity Evangelical Divinity School - M. A. Philosophy of Religion, summa cum laude1975 Trinity Evangelical Divinity School - M. A. Church History, summa cum laude1975 University of Birmingham, England - Ph.D. Philosophy1977 Universität München, Germany - D. Theol. Theology1984

[@seattlefs]

@gorilla199uncensored - When all you can do is resort to name calling, bashing another person, and invoking the ad hominem fallacy it shows how weak you are as a debater. If we're going to debate on intelligent design vs darwinian evolution, it is important to stick to the topics of each side and not rabbit trail to attacking the motives or personal beliefs of the proponents of either theory.

[@raoskaos]

He IS dishonest and he IS a creationist. And I don't debate creationists. Yeah...his "arguments"... He has no arguments, he's holding an empty bag.

[@geoffreyefloyd]

now I know why Craig has resisted doing an id debate...look at all the animosity under me! hahahahaha

[@DarwinsOtherTheory]

ID is a fringe, yes there is debate about the mechanisms that drive evolution, there is no debate about ID, at least not outside the minds of ID proponents. Yes, he said it's a religious argument and he's right, he's also explained countless times why it is not scientific, with scientific reasons, if you wanna pretend all that never happened go ahead.

[@hughc023]

How can anyone call ID a theory, it is a pathetic hypothesis at it's best . . .

[@adstanra]

1st, thanks for posting this. i suspect, knowing your fairness, that you will also post the rest. If God internenes in the process, it seems alot of his intervening has not been successful given the number of dead ends he has reached. One wonders why he didn't intervene when a flaw was evolving.Also , evolution is a process that only goes forward. it cannot go back to erase things no longer needed, like genes for smell in dolphins.Seems odd that a God would limit his design creativity this way.

[@DarwinsOtherTheory]

Still saying dawkins rejects ID because of metaphysical reasons? man you're dense.

[@adstanra]

would appreciate your allucidation of where and when God performs his magic in this process of sexual reproduction and common ancestry. Feel free.

[@adstanra]

what ....the Christian is allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads? A Christian , by definition, has already decided on an intelligent designer and you have just revealed your creationist agenda. Who said the intelligence was the Christian deity. ID is fooling no one...least of all the judges.

[@adstanra]

You have to delve into theology to explain why a designer remains hidden . Why a Good God would design smallpox virus and why there is a nested heirachial bush pattern ruled by predation. you have to use imagination to explain how God magically creates variance and limits his creativity...he can't put bird feathers on Bats for example..he is stuck with common ancestry. these things should be taught in religion class! a mindless algorythmic process best explains the pattern.

[@MaltyT]

@gorilla199uncensored 1) I don't believe any of it, but the "it" you are referring to, isn't the "it" of the majority. 2) I don't follow any God, nor do I think one exists.

[@edwin2028]

This is not an argument, you even did not mention about what criteria that were used and why ID does not . I supposed you are educated enough to articulate it without mentioning someone's opinion to justify your belief. I am waiting for the outcome for California Science Centre case, and should IDer won the case, I can say to you that it has been proven that evolution is crap. But it is not argument either

[@noodles321321]

gmbrannan, according to the bible, God 'speaks' the universe into existence. How is that not magic?

[@adstanra]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...still thinking.nope , can't figure it out...why don't you enlighten me if it is so obvious, should be easy for you.

[@Genghiskhan52]

There is nowhere in hte Bible the 600 years old earth (or world) it is a wrong theory developed during the middle age by monkswhich has no basis in hte Bible, just read every word of the Bible and you will see.