I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.

I was writing a paper today that involved intelligent design theory, and I started thinking about Kant's writing. Kant wrote that we find beauty in nature when there seems to be a purpose to it ("purposiveness"😉. He continues, however, by saying that purposiveness does not necessarily mean that it was created with a purpose--it just appears that way because we, as humans, create things with a purpose.

I started thinking about this and the idea of IDT as an anthropic principle, and it came to me:

What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?

I'm not sure if you're making sense or not with human stuff evolving....there would need to be a replicating entity reproducing itself to qualify as evolution. Most human constructs are in fact designed. But ID is crap, so you've at least got that much right.

Kant was wrong.

ID is crap.

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Don't worry; intelligent design was broken long before you got to it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Kant was wrong.

Originally posted by Alliance
ID is crap.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Originally posted by Gregory
Don't worry; intelligent design was broken long before you got to it.

Id is not a valid theory.

Wow, I think people might be missing the point.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I was writing a paper today that involved intelligent design theory, and I started thinking about Kant's writing. Kant wrote that we find beauty in nature when there seems to be a purpose to it ("purposiveness"😉. He continues, however, by saying that purposiveness does not necessarily mean that it was created with a purpose--it just appears that way because we, as humans, create things with a purpose.

I started thinking about this and the idea of IDT as an anthropic principle, and it came to me:

What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?

Man doesn't exist because of nature, nature exists because of man? Is I close?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Wow, I think people might be missing the point.

I'd give their approximate percentile proportions, but I believe that there's a sort of cause-and-effect relationship with them--one feeds the other, creating an infinite loop into which any coherent thought is drawn and disassembled into its material components.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Man doesn't exist because of nature, nature exists because of man? Is I close?

LMAO your feelings are hurt

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No. Not at all.

Fiddle sticks.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Wow, I think people might be missing the point.

I couldn't find one.

"Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?"

Well, humans didn't design nature....so whats the connection?

And it was too late to wander through muck.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Apparently, KMC is now made of stupidity and fail.

I'd give their approximate percentile proportions, but I believe that there's a sort of cause-and-effect relationship with them--one feeds the other, creating an infinite loop into which any coherent thought is drawn and disassembled into its material components.

Probably solid, (excluding the bullcr@p language) because you just started doing it too.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Wow, I think people might be missing the point.

Originally posted by Alliance
I couldn't find one.

"Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?"

Well, humans didn't design nature....so whats the connection?...

I had the exact thought that Alliance had. I think the only clear point that Zeal Ex Nihilo made was that he has no understanding of what evolution is, and what it’s not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I had the exact thought that Alliance had. I think the only clear point that Zeal Ex Nihilo made was that he has no understanding of what evolution is, and what it’s not.

Or maybe his mind has "evolved" beyond your understanding.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or maybe his mind has "evolved" beyond your understanding.

I'm sure he would agree with you. 😆

lol

actually, its really likely that people who believe in Evolution do have a predisposition to look at things in the natural world and say "gee, that looked like it evolved". And yes, having a theory of evolution does probably make people try to conform observation to the theory (people will ask how a novel thing evolved, not if). I'd say it conformation bias.

However, I don't think that effects the validity of evolutionary theory, just yet another example of why our brains our inadequate to understand truth.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

actually, its really likely that people who believe in Evolution do have a predisposition to look at things in the natural world and say "gee, that looked like it evolved". And yes, having a theory of evolution does probably make people try to conform observation to the theory (people will ask how a novel thing evolved, not if). I'd say it conformation bias.

However, I don't think that effects the validity of evolutionary theory, just yet another example of why our brains our inadequate to understand truth.

Evolution is way too slow of a process to be able to see in nature without detailed study and observation. I don't look at a flower and say "wow! that evolved". However, I also don't look at a flower and say "wow! someone made that".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is way too slow of a process to be able to see in nature without detailed study and observation. I don't look at a flower and say "wow! that evolved". However, I also don't look at a flower and say "wow! someone made that".

no, maybe not, but (and this is more about the expectations of someone with more familiarity and not about you at all) to someone who studied the evolution of flowers, they probably would look at a new part of a flower they had never seen and go, "how did that evolve?".

lol, I don't think it gives any credit to ID, but like, I'll come right out and say that when looking at new data in an experiment I wouldn't even think of interpreting it in light of dualism. So I can see some truth to this.