Design arguments and atheism

Help wanted: atheist design arguments…
February 8th, 2018 •

We have discussed many time the question of ‘design’ in history even as we expose the mythology of theistic historicism in the Old Testament.
The ID group has confused their whole critique of darwinism with their failure to deal with the issues of biblical criticism…
—————–
design versus ‘intelligent’ design…//5.1.3 Art, Evolution and The Tragic Genre
September 15th, 2017
The ID group speaks of design, and more intelligent design, but the critique here has always baulked at the term ‘intelligent’ because it is abused as crypto-creationist. But we confront the mysterious ‘net equivalent’ to ‘intelligence’ in the way the eonic effect correlates with so much great art and literature. (Enigma of the Axial Age pursues the question beyond WHEE somewhat: we can propose a new kind of intelligent designer). In the age of neural nets, AI, I feel my hesitation here is justified because such subject while proving nothing as such suggest that a planetary mystery is in action here with ‘mechanisms’ that can mimic intelligence. But we confront as historical design systems that can process aesthetic objects, more, induce hominids to be creative in specific ways…
Source: 5.1.3 Art, Evolution and The Tragic Genre
——————————-
archive: Denton needs to repudiate the Old Testament ‘intelligent design’ junk religion to discuss design in biology
July 13th, 2017 •
Denton needs to repudiate the Old Testament ‘intelligent design’ junk religion to discuss design in biology
February 24th, 2016 •
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/denton-vs-moran-on-structuralism/
Denton is the author of the classic Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, a book whose success depended on its neutrality on the issue of design (the last chapter comes close), in fact appearing before the Discovery Institute even existed. The term ‘Intelligent Design’, if I recall hardly existed (until Behe in 1996), and that made Denton’s book a far more useful text.
Now his new book seems to be associated closely with the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. It becomes problematical for those who question Christian design mythology.
It might help if Denton publicly disavowed the Old Testament with its theistic ‘Intelligent Design’ mythology. We cannot mix science and Old Testament theistic historicism. The question has turned the evolution question, with a lot of help from darwinists into a quagmire.
This does not forbid the use of design arguments in biology. Design in nature is clear from the evidence, but its explanation remains difficult although there is every possibility of naturalistic design.
This does not exclude ‘Intelligent Design’, if its meaning is clarified, and if proof can be given of a particular form or agent of such ‘intelligence’. But the term ‘intelligent’ is abused to be a double entendre: the there should be a distinction of ‘directed design as machine construction in biological systems’ and ‘intelligent’ design by a designer agent. Critics often forget this point: you can propose design by a designer but you must prove your case (the design inference is suggestive but not conclusive). It is then essential to point out that while Intelligent Design via a designing agent is perfectly good science if that is the way it happened the reality is that such a case crosses the boundary of metaphysics and is virtually impossible to prove (scientists often make the case that ID is by definition beyond science. Not so, only probably not the case. It is probably beyond proof, and infantile in most versions. But if someone can proove a designer fielded a design, then that would be the scientific explanation. Not likely)
So it is important to make clear to Discovery Institute biologists that the Old Testament is NOT a usable documentation of historical design. Confusing ‘design’ arguments in religion and biology has confused everyone, including biologists who overreact and propose false theories like natural selection.
But we cannot exclude the possibility of designers in evolution. The evolution of man is in any case so far beyond explanation at this point that darwinism is far more offensive than religious explanation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s