We as a society don’t always use scientific facts to establish something as true. For example, if we were to go to other planets like mars or jupiter, and find vehicles, buildings and other objects that show signs of complexity and usefulness, would you conclude that this is evidence of intelligent design by intelligent beings?
And if so, how can you see that as evidence for intelligent design, and not see phenomena in nature as evidence for intelligent design when they have the same qualities; complexity and usefulness.
Also, if you can, please answer this question http://www.girlsaskguys.com/other/q1639138-atheists-how-do-you-reconcile-the-dunning-kruger-effect
Most Helpful Girl
Evolution is easily explained. People who can't comprehend it don't see how things now could have happened through evolution.
Machines built by intelligent creatures are a product of "intelligent design" but I wouldn't say that those machines appeared from nothing. The metal was harvested from the earth, melted down and moulded into shapes and fit together by intelligent people. The "intelligent design" is easily explained if you were to give it more thought6
- Show AllShow Less
Most Helpful Guy
You aren't looking deeply enough. Human engineering designs are minimal designs that suit a specific purpose. If we saw similar designs on Mars we would recognize that the were designed for a specific purpose. In contrast, animal and plant structures are messy imperfect adaptations that are well-explained by natural selection. In the fossil record we can trace the adaptation of vertebrate body parts for other purposes: a jaw bone evolves into the bones of the inner ear, snakes still have vestigial shoulders and hips, horses hooves are adaptations of the third toe, while the remaining toes are still present but useless.
Anyway, claiming that there is an intelligent designer is not only untestable, but it's also a completely useless theory.. Even if we agree that the universe was designed by some unseen intelligent being, that doesn't help us make any decisions. There's no evidence that this hypothesized creator is acting in any way on present events, has any desires regarding human behavior, or that consciousness somehow continues after death.
Re the Dunning-Kruger effect, their experiments didn't show that every person who believes themselves to be competent is wrong. It says that the incompetent tend to incorrectly believe that they are more competent than they are, while the competent tend to underrate themselves, believing that the general population is more competent than it is. That doesn't mean that my belief that I am a competent computer programmer is automatically wrong. It means that many incompetent programmers believe themselves to be competent. My experience interviewing programmers fully confirms the Dunning-Kruger effect.4
- Show AllShow Less