I have just stumbled on another blog on an interesting post. Unfortunately, the author expresses himself but not only linked to another page that does not prevent me to relate to specific issues. So first of all the links:
http://wissenschaftkanal.blogspot.com/2010/07/ist-die-kritik-intelligent-design.html
http://www.intelligentdesigner.de/kritik. html
What we see are some, probably many times in the space of evolutionary theorists Asked statements or criticisms of Intelligent Design, the core of the post. Intelligent Design is a reflection of the universe under the Assuming that there has been an intelligence or is that influence its development or has had. Let's look at the points so once ...
" criticism 1: The intelligent design theory is not applicable to the original question "
Caveat: I can not imagine that a critic of Intelligent Design such a statement true. They criticized the Intelligent Design, so you are doing this not only in terms of life but in general. Why life should be completely natural, but other things have come about control? For me, this is little sense.
" as if no question that information exclusively outside of living organisms can be created by intelligence "Then I have to say a few words, because this statement is for everything else of importance. First of all, bordering the one who makes this statement, clearly living off of dead matter and committed itself to the intelligent design. Besides, he believes that a reduced entropy compared to the surroundings, so order, no information. For this I must someday write in more detail, very interesting topic. In short, the author denied this statement, but even the people the status of an information-containing structure. Last but not least is the actual statement that information is only through intelligence is absurd. At first glance, one might think of a laptop containing definitely more information in the form of order than the non-assembled, individual parts lying around. And of course, is only man able to assemble it into a functioning unit with low entropy, ie, an intelligence. But if you look natural phenomena such as a star that is formed by gravitational in its origin "by itself" from gases low density of information to a defined plasma ball higher information content, we come to ponder. As I said on this subject, there is still much more to write, I'll catch up one day ... When
I see the rest of the text related to the actual topic and not spare him to me, therefore.
" criticism 2: The intelligent design theory is nothing more than creationism in a new guise "
The course is not so - says the author. Finally, the theory of evolution and creationism have more in common than the latter with the intelligent design, said intelligent design is superior argument. For now do not reflect the entire text with discreetly hidden, ironic tone, must I take it together now:
1) The theory of evolution makes claims or assumptions about the evidence
2) The theory of evolution is a belief (Presumably, that materialism is meant)
3) argues against experimental evidence and observable facts
4) ID theory describes processes and analyzes them for signs of intelligent origin
5) The ID theory has both macroevolution and abiogenesis refuted
6 ) are the false statements made by the ET of scientists against the reality of defending
7) scientist who trust in the ET, shall religious / missionary zeal the day trying to establish dogma and defend and take the reality fit handle on the theory
I think I reject me not too far out the window when I go for all of the above two explanatory models Offering:
- The author of the text supported his thesis specifically and deliberately false information
- The author of the text is defective and / or misinformed and know there is simply no better
Although I tend not to believe in the second statement. In contrast to all the YouTube videos here on the correct spelling, sentence structure reasonable and something like a line of reasoning is evident.
Well, let's look so once the reality of which I read since I at around intelligentdesigner.de miss. But first I call on the author to substantiate his claims with anything rather than simply put in the room.
1) A scientific theory can not be proven, it is the principle of falsifiability. This means that a theory requires a single, valid counter-evidence to prove to be too wrong. This was achieved in the ET yet. On the other hand, there are a wealth of observations in favor of the theory.
2) The ET is not a belief but a scientific theory. Such formulations serve only the polarization.
3) This is a simple lie , the opposite is the case. I ask for a receipt.
4) That's right. Why pure observation should give people a plus interpretation of evidence for ID is a mystery to me though.
5) Neither macro-evolution abiogenesis are not refuted. If I am mistaken I also ask for documents.
6) The theory of evolution can not be defended in order to be recognized. It is enough to refute it to them out of the world. What is lacking right now.
7) Here the author talks likely with the scientist, whom he all see tomorrow in the mirror
In summary, the answer to the second point of criticism is nothing more than a collection of unsubstantiated statements which will attract the reader to the "right" side. If here are documents, which I do not go out, I can answer with more than a correction of the facts.
" criticism 3: Information in living things can change very gradually "
should be here now shown in a graphic way that intermediate forms have a level of development of a characteristic to a higher can never prevail. This is illustrated by means of a sentence ("Anyone who criticizes others is not exempt from its own power .") Can be applied to the wonderfully to the author of the text.
However, the language does not behave like DNA, the comparison is quite inappropriate. Unfortunately, the author does not have enough web space available to compare DNA code, so we must content ourselves with the example sentences. Too bad, it remains a rational consideration of the issue impossible.
Of course we want to let the alleged refutation of the point are not as criticism and take our hand, the example that the author obviously has been lacking. The eye . Very often it is argued that an eye can only function as a full member and intermediate forms are condemned not to work or worse. That through genetic modification handicap will be selected, I do not dispute at all. However, it is here, as with other popular examples of a misconception. On this subject, as Dan-Eric Nilsson research from Lund University in Lund, Sweden. In 2009 he published an analysis the evolution of vision, which is freely available on the web. In short, the article on the one hand the reason for a change in the visual system are discussed. On the other shares Nilsson us the development of the eye in four main steps, understand the basis of which is a transformation in small steps very well be:
1) light-sensitive cells on the skin, which can form only light and dark,
2) invagination of the light-sensitive cells in the skin, where the direction of light incidence is determined,
3) a narrowing of the surface of the indentation (similar to an iris), which allows a sharper image,
4) the formation of a lens of water that provides a sharp image with high light sensitivity
The development of the eye can be a smooth transition consider
Who wants to see the total study , the click here :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781862/?tool=pubmed Now we come to the other criticisms that have been submitted by readers of the site and therefore much less useful without effect such as the first point.
Critique Point 4: It would be interesting, ID theorists would say clearly what When and where the structural designer has just made. Then they had something of a testable statement. "
Columbo , watches a murder that initially looks like an accident. It quickly becomes clear that the dead man was the victim of a crime. And it follows that there must have been a culprit. At first glance an interesting parallel to the nature or intelligent design. Unfortunately, here the complexity of nature is not understood. But what awaits us instead? No surprise, but the same old pseudo-argument.
"If the ID theory finally applied to the original question and the question is how the diversity of life and what is the cause of their development, to apply, the procedure is always the same. Complex information [...] and complex, finely tuned and interacting mechanisms, functions and structures in nature, especially in living organisms, suggest involuntarily to an intelligent cause. "
This may be the case. However, the first impression is not always the right one. Now it is somewhat ludicrous, but first a few facts. The author assumes that the ID theory the best explanation for our observations offers. Which implies that it suspects a Creator who is behind the complex systems that we see today. Such Creator of the laws of nature would have to stand and not be tied to causal relationships. It would be virtually omnipotent. Finally, the author claims (in the last quote) that there should be at first sight of a creative intelligence, you look at nature.
is now back Columbo. Of course, a creator, just like the murderer in the crime, his work would be developed as natural or want to represent accident. Why would he want to make sense to me although a little out, but we let it stand and take the once so far together said in a Conclusion: The author of
intelligentdesign.de claims to that of his creator naturally arose as to expose the universe disguised by simple observation. Such an intelligent designer, which, as already noted, must be omnipotent, it gets so obviously not out to disguise his universe enough. So sloppy so far was not a single offender Columbo. So let's from a designer equipped with unimaginable power, we must assume that his work is as natural camouflaged hidden so well that probably no one can ever figure it out.
What we have now, the bottom line? Either the universe is designed to reach full - what we would be necessary because of the omnipotence of the designer but never know. Or the universe is actually incurred in a natural way. In both cases we have to understand the universe as a natural origin, as a result of the above, we never had a chance to be a created by an omnipotent being recognize it and, of course, disguised as a universe, each as such. Thus, the theory of evolution supplies in both cases, the more realistic description.
Conveniently, the author provides us with the reduction of ID theory to a statement on. In order to prove that intelligent design should not find out what it was for a Creator, when and where he has established or what toothpaste he used. But only That there was an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, that is, as we have already noted above, an impossibility.
all we have to say that not from the intelligent design theory, the explanations of the car much more is left as the image of a thrown in the room, not provable speculation. Off mainly because the ID supporters claim so much on science. must be taken in the falsifiable statements.
" criticism 5: ID theorists always bring examples of the art. As more and Paley shimmers with his 'proof' in that objects created have a creator. Differ Creatures that are able to change and increase, not fundamentally different from objects? "
The comments on software, which account for about two-thirds of the text and, unfortunately, only seems to be different from the subject of criticism examples, I leave off times. Irrelevant, because the criticism is not contradictory.
And the rest is, unfortunately, only polemics along the lines of "what is most likely?" Or "Look at the complexity that must be created", is on the other hand, evidence dispensed generously. In this respect, I can save some time and move on to the next point.
" Criticism 6: Intelligent Design representatives argue the following rule: can not work evolution, so it was intelligent design "
to be continued ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment