Yesterday I posted the above photo with the simple caption "Intelligent Design, or Blind Chance?" and "What do you think?".
I got a barrage of responses ranging from earnest defenses of darwinism and my complete ignorance of science to a vitriolic jab about the Crusades and Residential Schools. Hell was affirmed, but not heaven.
Just because I posted a simple photograph and asked a straightforward question.
In fact, the photo is of the man-made lights of the city of London and environs taken by Google Space.
So, the answer, in fact, is Intelligent Design.
Those who thought otherwise failed to make sufficient inquiry and leaped to a predetermined conclusion. They failed to see the hand of human designers behind the pattern of lights.
14 comments:
Go see the film "Expelled", and you will see that the free exchange of thought is shut down in the West. Darwinism is to be defended at all cost; even at the expence of intelligent discussion.
Now go stand in the corner and if you're in any science field you will be lucky to keep your job.
Read the article on the film Expelled in Skeptic magazine and you will see how distorted and dishonest the film is. Think Roger and Me but made by a loony creationist rather than a loony leftist.
If you study SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC method there is no credible argument against the basic tenants of evolution.
However, clever use of a picture that looks a lot like a Neuron.
Charles wrote Go see the film "Expelled", and you will see that the free exchange of thought is shut down in the West. Darwinism is to be defended at all cost; even at the expence of intelligent discussion. Now go stand in the corner and if you're in any science field you will be lucky to keep your job.
Charles, the movie Expelled complains about discrimination against scientists who invoke intelligent design. There's a good reason for this discrimination. Design is a code word for supernatural magic. Any scientist who invokes intelligent design magic is not doing science. He is preaching. He is saying "God-Did-It", and even worse he is trying to disguise his childish religious belief in magic to look scientific. Real scientists laugh at these dishonest retards for the same reason they would laugh at a flat-earther.
Unlike intelligent design magic, which is an idiotic idea that doesn't have a shred of evidence, biological evolution has tons of powerful evidence from many branches of science. The only people who deny evolution are uneducated Christian hicks and Muslim terrorists.
One more thing, Charles. Here in America the only people who call evolution "Darwinism" are the uneducated creationists like yourself. Biologists call evolution "evolution". Whenever I see the word "Darwinism" I know the writer is a Christian hick or a Muslim terrorist. (Or, unfortunately, Richard Dawkins, but he lives in a country where people don't speak real English.)
RkBall, the only people who use the words "Blind Chance" are creationists. I also noticed you used the word "darwinism". Also, I noticed you used the words "intelligent design" for man-made objects, the lights of London. You were just joking, but I think it's dishonest to use the words "intelligent design" that way because everyone knows the usual meaning of "intelligent design" is "god-did-it magic".
Dear Bobtard,
Scientist are preachers, it's just their religion thats different. How can anyone with a brain not see what a bunch of lying dirt bags that so many scientists are, and especially the goverment and university employed ones. Think "Global Warming" , or is it now called "Climate Change". There is no doubt about it, what once was a noble profession , has now become a cult of left wing kooks. Give them enought time, power and influence, and they will arrive at their own "Final Solution".
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.(NASB)
I would love to hear the enlightened educated evolutionists tell us how they think the universe came out of nothing and without a cause.
Now that is indeed Blind Faith.
Mind boggling.
Ha!... too funny, and unfortunately, too predictable of the antifanatical reactionary noedarwinian freaks.
It also proves that the only thing on the agenda is a culture war, to the sad detriment of science.
How many of them admitted that they were guilty of wrongly leaping to a predetermined conclusion?
How many of them admitted that science has nothing to do with their motivations?
My money says, none, and same.
"In fact, the photo is of the man-made lights of the city of London and environs taken by Google Space.
"So, the answer, in fact, is Intelligent Design"
Ummm . . . who exactly are you claiming specifically designed the arrangement of these lights?
Because it seems to me that there is no overall "design" here. Rather, millions of individuals over the years have made individual decisions on where to place the individual lights and groupings of lights that make up this overall pattern.
But if you have information to the contrary that shows that there was a specific overall design to the lighting of London and its environs, I'd love to see it.
John, good luck with the speech impediment.
"John, good luck with the speech impediment."
How sad for you, that you cannot come up with a better response than that.
I could mention that every single light displayed is the product of intelligent design, that the underlying electrical system that makes the light display possible is the product of intelligent design, that the choice of London as a centre of civilization was a matter of intelligence and its structure a matter of design, and that the streets of London and environ are the product of intelligent design.
But I didn't think your entry required stating what would be obvious to other readers.
The picture may in fact represent multiple quasi-independent decisions, but each underlying decision is an intelligent design decision.
Of course, this picture is not a photograph of a light bulb, or of an electrical distribution system. What you DID show is a specific pattern of lights that you claim was designed.
So, once again, who specifically designed this particular pattern?
"What you DID show is a specific pattern of lights that you claim was designed."
I did not show "a specific pattern of lights". I showed a photograph of the London environs from space. Your eye detected a pattern of lights within this photograph.
"So, once again, who specifically designed this particular pattern?"
The pattern you detected is an aggregate effect created by intelligent human beings working collaboratively and within defined, engineered boundaries, such as electrical and road networks.
Furthermore, the question I asked was not "An Intelligent Design?", but simply "Intelligent Design".
I never claimed that the specific pattern that your eye detects and forms was a product of a single unified intelligent design. You are reading this into the statement and then seeking to refute it. You are arguing with yourself. If you are going to be a skeptic, you might want to turn your skepticism inward and question your own ability to accurately process information.
* * *
In addition to the intelligent designing I mentioned previously, I could also mention the car lights -- intelligently designed; the cars -- intelligently designed; the street light networks -- intelligently designed; the street lights themselves, intelligently designed; the train networks -- intelligently designed; the ring-road you can see -- intelligently designed.
The photo oozes intelligent design.
"I showed a photograph of the London environs from space."
And this disprove biological evolution how, exactly?
John: It neither proves nor disproves biological evolution.
It does illustrate the propensity of some to jump to conclusions based on presuppositions.
Since you are a skeptic, I assume you have a healthy skepticism regarding the adequacy of current evolutionary theory, and the lock that materialism has on science.
Follow the evidence.
Post a Comment