Which do you believe in, Stupid or Intelligent Design?
Posted by James on December 5, 2010 · 12 Comments
Question by Troubled Troll: Which do you believe in, Stupid or Intelligent Design?
http://www.stupiddesign.net
Best answer:
Answer by JokerBlitz
i believe that ancient cults -ahem religions- can suck my left nut. jessica simpson can have the right one.
Give your answer to this question below!
I beleive if there is enough stupid people that would make a lot of crazy people do some unthinkable things that could be considered itelligent.
Retrocausality could entail some type of intelligent design…
that was hilarious lol.
stupid design all the way!!!
Intelligent design. Stupid people.
Oprah
. Stupid following intelligent design is vain and intelligent people following stupid design is tolerable.
OK, where am I with all this? What’s this rising concept called “Intelligent Design Theory”?
Evolutionary theory declares that everything has a mere appearance of design. Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and a professor at Oxford University (U.K.), is probably the leading proponent of evolutionary theory since the death of Stephen Jay Gould.
Dawkins writes:
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. 1
He goes on to say:
…the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker… 2
Nevertheless, Dawkins is an atheist who staunchly maintains that the design we see is merely an illusion — that these amazingly complex systems are an accidental product of natural selection.
Interestingly, in all other fields of human endeavor we find that “design necessitates a designer.” Thus, design detection methodology is a prerequisite for many disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto-analysis, random number generation, and SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). In general, we find “specified complexity” to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity, but not specification. A random sequence of letters is complex, but not specified (it is meaningless). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it is meaningful). You can’t have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. 3
Remarkably, the SETI project, a multi-billion dollar effort to scan the cosmos for some indication of intelligence, is based on one simple notion. If we find radio waves that contain any type of ordered sequence of sounds, then we’ve discovered intelligence somewhere in the universe! Think about that? The whole premise of these scientists is that you can’t have ordered sound (such as the blips and dashes in a Morse code transmission) without an intelligent force behind them. To me, that’s huge!
Charles B. Thaxton, PhD in Chemistry and Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University, agrees:
…an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence. 4
So, where is this going? It appears to me, if we shed our prior preconceptions and logically examine our organic world — like we do most everything else — we start to see things differently…
So, how do I connect the dots between the organic and inorganic world? Evidence for Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any mechanical machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer.
Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are “purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks.” 1 By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level.
Back in the mid-1700’s, David Hume successfully invalidated the “machine” analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level. 2 However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines – even to the deepest, molecular level! 3
It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and computer technology that Hume’s criticism has been finally invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing… In every direction the biochemist gazes, as he journeys through the weird molecular labyrinth, he sees devices and appliances reminiscent of our own twentieth-century world of advanced technology. 4
Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from “Intelligent Design”, a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by random chance.
However, I was now seeing a tremendous inconsistency…
When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! 5
H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.6
So, I’m going to look at this “miracle of life” one more time…
Could life evolve randomly from inorganic matter? Not according to mathematicians.
In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.
…the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation ‘is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.’ Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics — i.e. a miracle.1
Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it’s more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week.
In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins – A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote:
The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3
Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik’s Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.
Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
Therefore I believe in G-d.
THanks!
Hhhhmm.. tough choice.. intelligent or stupid…. I’ll go for one serving of Stupid Design please.
Yer a funny guy.
First of all, to keep in mind is the approach to this question. Is it a ‘For” or ‘Against” type of question? Black or White? Good or Evil? To Be or Not to Be? Whatever….. I want to ask the ‘Questioner’ what do you mean when they use the word “Believe” and/or ” Belief” ? A WISHED FOR OUTCOME? The so called websters dictionary for modern english will never mention belief or believe being related to the word ‘wish” Why? It’s because Believe or Belief has been systematically euphemized to mean something entirely different than it’s more original ‘Old English” or Anglo-Saxon roots, which have been skillfully and subtlely swept under the carpet. See for your self…
Now about this thing with the original question. I will beat in the bush instead of around it. Simplify…Hmmmmm…. Is Stupid Intelligence or Intelligent Stupidity plausible enough answers or am i just pissing you logicians and extremists off? I’ll call it the Art of the Controlled Accident. Evolution and Involution. Yang and Yin. Stupid and Intelligent are mutually interdependent. They need each other. They compliment each other. They would’nt know who they were if it were not for the other. I “BELIEVE” in neither. I understand both.
Keep in mind, “lief” from belief means ‘ to wish” So… Watch out what you wish for….And beware of virtue….
If something appears to be intelligently designed, it is. No one is going to look at an automobile and say it only looks designed but it actually came into existence on its own. Living things are many times more complicated than anything made by humans and living things appear to be designed. Logic would say that living things are designed.
the stupid vid is great and the thing is what he say is all true the is no intelligent design with gods