Intelligent Design? – Neil deGrasse Tyson
Posted by James on July 5, 2010 · 50 Comments
Final comments from a lecture given by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
This is a follow up to “Stupid Design”. In this video I focus primarily on human design flaws with a few non human examples as well. Would an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god design organisms how they are designed?
@Grant691 cool
lol aborted feces
@bobbytmathew yes
some (maybe all) snails breathe through a completely different place than where they put food in they’re mouth,,, it would have been easy enough indeed!!!
@RARARLOLOL okay, thank you for your time, I had hoped you actually knew a few things about science. It’s not so bad that you do not know much, it’s just a waste of time that you pretend you do. Yet you have no idea that your words betray you. Good luck.
@RARARLOLOL You think evolution is non-science? I think you again jumped too quickly,…..try again,…what sort of science do you think evolution is?
@RARARLOLOL What sort of science do you suppose it is?
@RARARLOLOL BTW Biological Evolution is also considered historical Science. Like I said in the very beginning, you clearing are just making up your arguements as you go along. You argue inorder to get better at it. But, I take back the idea that you have any formal training at all. You’ve just found a hobby is all.
@RARARLOLOL You have never heard of Historical Science? It’s only 4 pages, but hey, read the abstract and you’ll get it. The term is common my friend, just something you apparently are unaware of. If you’re willing I might just be able to teach you the misconception you have about ID. I could care less if you believe anything at all in the end.
@RARARLOLOL Google, “Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method Carol E. Cleland” and you will find a PDF file. Read it.
@RARARLOLOL I noticed right off that you thought I was wrong about something. As for ID being a theory, I don’t suppose you took notice of what was already said by me on that, so let me just ask you, under what method of science am I calling ID a theory? Your answer here should help me determine why you think it is not.
@RARARLOLOL You sure a re trying hard to convince yourself that you have the upper hand…….(on what I don’t know). Let me just help you out kiddo, you win. How’s that? Feel better about yourself now? Want me to send you a green participation ribbon?
@RARARLOLOL Very true, I spotted right off as thinking you had done something wonderful and clever when it was nothing at all. I knew a quick little ad hominem poke would set your fagile ego into a whirl wind, and that would be more productive than an actual conversation with an agressive young kid. (Sometimes it”s so easy I’m almost ashamed of myself).
@RARARLOLOL Actually I have seen no debate from you. I have seen a few statements not worth bothing about, but no debate. I started out saying I could see you were a waste of time remember? And it turns out you have been.
@RARARLOLOL Actually your profile claims 20, and that sounds about right. And try reading a few books, like, “The Demise of The Demarcation Problem”. This is why I seldom talk to someone as young as you are, Kids your age generally believe they know it all, and are actually so clueless they have no idea they are behind.
@RARARLOLOL Oh my, we have 2nd year college student in some form of science that took a few classes and believes himself to know more than he does. Entertaining though. Entertain me with your solution then of the demarcation problem in science.
@RARARLOLOL It is an error to use science against itself and claim one “scientific method” for all types of scientific theories. Tyson knows this, but most people do not.
@RARARLOLOL Tyson is wrong. ID is classified as a Historical theory. What is commonly done is to attempt reclassification and then claim it is not a theory at all. It would be like saying Big Bang is not a valid theory because there is no test for how the singularity came to be. However, as a historical theory we do not have to produce such a test for the theory to remain valid.
@RARARLOLOL I have ignored you because I also have said “god” and “designer” are not equated in the theory of ID. You seemed to have missed that critical point 3 times now I believe.
@RARARLOLOL You are correct, I’m not really paying any attention to you. Designer does not mean God. It could be, but ID says it cannot answer that question. Tyson makes the mistake of thinking a designer as in the Theory of ID is the same as in “creasion science” ID differs. Evolution takes place in ID, even if that evolution makes, for a reason, and organism “lesser”, and bacterial resistant organisms.
@RARARLOLOL okay son, I really don’t think there is anything for us to talk about. I watched the video. You’ll be here for days locked in an arguement about minor details, unable to understand what anyone is saying until they have taken days to explain it as you need them to. Meanwhile no one will remember what it was that started the entire conversation in the first place. Stick with your text books son, your communication skills are horrible.
@RARARLOLOL Is it that you do not know what a designer is or that you do know know what is meant when people reference God? Surely you are not clueless on the meaning of these two words. If you have something you wish to say, say it. I don’t recall ever saying anything to you that would require me to define common words. Say what you have to say and we’ll see if I can move on from there.
@RARARLOLOL I think you are so far lost on the reality of what this video has to say that it will be pointless to try toi straighten you out. You seem too full of your young self.
@RARARLOLOL Holy crap, you are a moron kiddo. Look at at the title of the video. Do you see the question mark? It’s because the person who posted the video also knew that Tyson was calling into question the “intelligence” of the desigener based upon the “flawed” design. Follow along now, “desginer” and God” are not the same thing as presented in ID. ID cannot make that conclusion.
@RARARLOLOL You didn’t really understand where he was going with his arguements did you? Tyson is assuming that if you believe in a designer you must believe that designer is God. The theory of ID makes no such assumption. The point is a theme, why do you think Tyson points out birth defects and our vision limits, can’ty smell deadly gases, etc,…….Point: poor design, thus no design.
@freddy21421 “simply” ” not perfect” are these bible quote or is that made up like the rest of all religions or god based beliefs ?
@kyagh When I state *Old Testament is obsolete* I do not mean to offend, it is like a father who now is too old to function , fullfiling its perspective and must be replaced, the concept included in Lex talionis: an eye for an eye..(Leviticus24:18-20 and Exodus 21:23’25) was changed by Jesus during the Mountain Sermon (Mathew 5: 38-39) turning vengeance into *Love one another* sending that message onto the whole world, equal for everybody. He is still waiting.
@Rigelcentauri58
“However that is Old Testament, obsolete.”
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
This passage can be found in both matthew 5:17-18 and luke 16:16-17
Last time i checked earth did not pass away… can’t check heaven but i’m pretty sure about the earth.
@PinkProgram I do not know what you preach but I agree with you about wishing the world to be a better place,better said: Societies should change their evil ways to make us happier and healthier.. Also, in a way I agree about Yaweh being…not very delicate, but We owe Him (or Her) Creation, Genesis or the big bang. However that is Old Testament, obsolete. Jesus is new, of Abraham and Moses He only has their genes. Jesus*teachings are compeltely different.
@Rigelcentauri58 For me to be humble would be false modesty. If humans actually listened to me the world would be a better place.
What is humble about Yaweh? It is a prideful monster that delights in the smell of blood. There is nothing less humble than the God of Abraham.
@PinkProgram Congratulations Mr. or Mrs. superior!. You are right, someone that arrogant is not worth worshiping. I would rather stay with the humble and inferior as they teach me more and at least I can understand their english. Live long and prosper!
@Rigelcentauri58 The short version is that I am superior to Yeshua since Yeshua had human limitations. I am morally superior to Yaweh as depicted in the bible. That being true is still no reason to worship me. If you shouldn’t worship me then it is rather silly to worship a thing that is inferior ^_^
@PinkProgram : Well…..Maybe it is that english is not my native language or that you do not like to respond directly to questions, but I don*t understand you well. Please be more specific !!
@Rigelcentauri58 I’m not alive so I can’t really die and you can’t really torture something like me…
With todays technology and my added insight I can very nearly build a human…
My sister is planning on taking Terran DNA out into the galaxy, a trip that would kill a human several thousand times over. My brother is carving the bible into his bones so the church will take him seriously when he tells them to get their acts together.
That still isn’t sufficient reason to worship.
@PinkProgram : Let me answer you with the Socratic way. Can you resuscitate a 4-day-long-dead man?. Can you (living 2000 thousand years ago) make a blind man see, a paralized walk, cure leprosy and cancer?. Can you resist the horrible torture of being nailed to a cross, foregive your assassins, die, and then ressurect? Can you, without writing any books, create the most wonderful religion based on love? If you respond YES, I would worship you as a part of Deity
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. …
@Rigelcentauri58 let me ask you this. If I was to feed an entire town with a fish and some bread would you worship me as a god? I know how to do it using existing technology ^_^ Better yet I can teach people how to do it.
@PinkProgram It seems to me I am the only God-believing-person around. But, according to your statement: *Must exist in 11dimensions and the ripples*, it would be an interesting scientific hypothesis: First to prove all those dimensions are there,Second: Ripples are real. 3rd:God is real, not only existing but being there eternaly. Maybe our grand-grandchildren shall prove that, or the opposite. For the moment I am content with Jesus. Something wrong with that?
Don’t forget the recurrent laryngeal nerve – particularly impressive in giraffes where its detour causes it to be many feet long to bridge two points inches apart.
Or the ulnar nerve. Unique in being unprotected. Damage it and you’ll get tingling or lack of feeling in your little finger and HALF of your ring finger. I know, from personal experience. A nerve for one and a HALF fingers?
On the first day God created shrooms, then was off his head for the rest of the week.
@Rigelcentauri58 in order for God to exist as posited by most followers of abrahamic faiths then it must exist in 11 dimensions. If such a thing interacted with the world it would leave ripples in 4 dimensions. If you can show that those ripples exist then you can show that a god is possible. If those ripples match with events attributed to a specific god then you may be able to infer that it matches. If the ripples do not match then the god posited is not God. If the ripples don’t exist…
@censurabass Nope, Human science is still using diapers. We dont even know letter A and God already knows all the alphabet. Let us be humble, in spite of our proudness we have very much to learn and discover about nature and the Universe,and when we arrive to the end of knowledge (if you allow me the abstraction) , then we will discover God had been seated there during eons.
@censurabass I am well aware we are made of star dust, the Big bang, the slow formation of galaxies, suns and solar systems: now/a/days the discovery of dark matter , the many astrophysical laws and all those marvelous phenomenae made *by chance* which were needed after 13.7 billion years to form Life. God made all that happen. More than a Christian I am a romantic person (and a scientist), cannot stand it, sorry.
2:16 awwww
@Rigelcentauri58 And i have to respectfully disagree, i don’t think science and god can possibly form a duality. Science is all about experenting and testing. God can in no way be tested for. If there is a god, then that is where science stops and it will have nothing to say on the matter. Having said that, i think all that could be left, if anything, would be a deity. I think it’s safe to say that science has infact disproved the need for a theistic god (to provide morals etc). Would you agree?
@Rigelcentauri58 “Forget jesus, the stars died for us” I don’t know if you are christian or not, but if you find that insulting, you need to man up (assuming you are male). It was a joke, and it is infact true. We are directly linked with the stars that have past. We are made from the material they released into space. And his entire career consists of trying to discover how the universe came about and whether or not it required a god. That is why he mentions god.
@sycodeathman As long as you do not hurt or damage people and do respect other*s rights, that is fine, do what you wish with your life
@censurabass I admire your stability to answer. That is a sign of maturity. However, Why does he mention God during a astronomy scientific- fine lecture?
why saying *forget about Jesus, mind all the stars that have died for you*, or something like that. Sounds like and insult to me. According to my point of view ,Science and God do not contradict eachother, on the contrary they form a duality.
@Rigelcentauri58 Right, you’re going to say there is no evidence for quantum fluxuations (which, by the way, there is… They are occuring all the time) then mention god? And he doesn’t really attack christianity. Just the idea of god alltogether. And the Jewish god, Allah and Yahweh, all stem from the same book so it doesn’t matter which one is attacked so long as there are attacks at the roots. Which, really, is at the deist roots. If a deist isn’t necessary for existance, then no god is.
@censurabass I did already listened L. Krauss, thank you. H seems to be a fine scienstist but he sure makes an effort to discredit Christian religons. I wonder why he does not speak about the Jewish mesiah, Buda, or Alah. And about universes coming out from quantic fluctuations, It might be true, but there is no evidence of that phenomena. Saying because of that there is no need for a God is nonsense because Deity could be behind and before all that.