Final-Fan said:
I looked at one of your links and ... OMFG.
So ID’s claim that the inferred intelligence is not supernatural doesn’t sound plausible simply because no such intelligence can be the cause of design in nature. The only unquestionably existing intelligence that qualifies to be the designer, observer and measurer of nature is human intelligence. Design by human intelligence is evident from nuclear engineering to genetic engineering, and for us the universe is observable and measurable. We have models of the universe based on our observations, we measured its parameters, and we calculated the proportions of its content. The fact that we are the observers and measurers of the universe constitutes evidence that our intelligence exists beyond the bounds of the universe. But if human intelligence exists beyond the bounds of nature, then by definition it is not only supernatural, but eternal as well.
At this point let me note that Anana, the chief scribe to Seti II, wrote the following in an Egyptian papyrus: “Our religion teaches us that we live eternally. Now eternity, having no end, can have no beginning, it is a circle. Therefore if the one be true, namely that we live on, it would seem that the other must be true, namely that we have always lived.”
Naturally both ID theorists and evolutionists could argue that human intelligence is neither eternal, nor the pinnacle of existing intelligence. Indeed, whether it is true or not, we can’t be absolutely certain. Precisely for this reason the theory that human intelligence is everlasting, and constitutes the pinnacle of existing intelligence, is tentative, just as scientific theories are supposed to be.
Utter bullshit, just as WessleWoggle said.
1. We observe and measure the universe.
2. Therefore our intelligence is beyond the universe, i.e. supernatural
3. Supernatural = eternal
4. This theory is tentative due to complete lack of proof, like all scientific theories ought to be.
Wow. I mean ... wow. Really? Wow.
I was going to leave it at that, but it occurred to me that you may not see anything wrong with this logic. After I stopped shuddering at the thought, I decided to give a short overview of objections:
1. Our understanding of the universe is very incomplete, especially with respect to observation and measurement of its contents.
2. I could see an argument for this if we had complete understanding of the universe and its contents, but we don't. We sooooooo don't.
3. LOL WUT. I don't see any justification for saying that supernatural entities necessarily wouldn't have finite existences.
4. I strongly suspect that this person has no understanding of how scientific theories are supposed to be made. First you look at the evidence, then you come up with an explanation for it, then you see how consistent the explanation really is with the evidence. Not come up with a bunch of philosophical bullshit and then -- if you feel like it -- see if there's any evidence for it at all. |
By request I'll expand my comments:
First, since you only objected to the quality of my rebuttal and not the accuracy of my summary, I'll presume you agree that my summarizations of his points are accurate.
1. We observe and measure the universe. This is of course true, but it is also true that we have not observed or measured the entirety of the universe. And of the parts of it we can see, we certainly do not see it all with even as much clarity as that with which we see our little portion of it.
2. The fact that we are the observers and measurers of the universe constitutes evidence that our intelligence exists beyond the bounds of the universe. Therefore, when he says that our status as observers and measurers of the universe makes us supernatural, I call bullshit. If we were able to observe and measure the entire universe, then it could be argued that we are supernatural. Such an argument might be similar to in a short story I read once, wherein a computer (or mind) could not be completely and perfectly understood and contemplated by itself, because its capacity for thought did not exceed itself. Anyway, that's irrelevant because we don't have it all observed and measured; we only have observed what little we can see from our little spot in the universe, and measured representative samples of the material found or created therein. The argument that we have somehow made ourselves supernatural with what observations and measurements our scientists have done strikes me as ludicrous philosophy, and not any kind of real scientific argument.
3. ...then by definition it is not only supernatural, but eternal as well. But even if we were supernatural, what reason could there possibly be to justify the position that a supernatural entity is necessarily "eternal" by definition? What definition is he using, because that doesn't make sense to me (or the dictionary). I can easily imagine a being that has abilities or qualities beyond what is naturally "possible", but which is not eternal. I cannot think of a reason why supernatural would necessarily mean undying, and even if something never dies I especially can't fathom how it would logically follow that it must always have existed, and if the good "doctor" has thought of something I haven't he doesn't seem to have seen fit to share with the class. Quoting some Egyptian priest just makes it even more bizarre that he should think this idea is at all scientific. In particular, the quote is incorrect that something that is infinite cannot have an endpoint (or beginning). In math this is easy to see as (for example) a ray.
4. The fact that he holds this utter handwaving up as equivalent to a rigorously tested scientific theory shows that he either has far, far, far too high an opinion of himself, or no real understanding of what it takes for a scientific theory to be accepted. He provides not one shred of evidence to back up any of his wandering thoughts, nor does he even bother to explain his justification for half of it (here, at least). A scientific theory is explicitly about explaining natural phenomena and objects, and is tested by its ability to accurately explain and describe past, current and future ones. So Isaac Newton comes up with his theory of gravitation, fantastic, let's drop shit off buildings and see if the timing is correct, and predict what's going to happen to Voyager II when it gets close to the planets on its "grand tour". Darwin writes about natural selection, great, let's see if we can see evidence of birds and things that look like they adapted from one form to another, and let's put bacteria in shit they can't eat and see if they ever start eating it (they did). Dr. Bullshit says our intelligences are eternal and supernatural, good for him, let's ... um, what? Kill him and see if he keeps talking? And human intelligence being the pinnacle of existing intelligence -- I don't recall that he even gave any reason for this. At all. Much less how to "test" it. And by "existing", does he allow for the possibility of greater intelligence in the past or future as long as it doesn't currently exist? If so, why shouldn't it be able to exist now? If not, what the fuck does "existing" mean?
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
