# Was It All An Accident...Or Did An Intelligent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721 "2013-01-19T17:18:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/341 "2013-01-25T15:59:53Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I’m not insisting that people follow my definitions. However, my definitions make it easier for me to follow your arguments. It would cut 30 minutes off my driving time if I would drive the wrong way on the freeway and down 0ne-way streets…but it would be wrong to do so. In much the same way, using personal definitions in a public conversation is wrong. _Please stop._ ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/342 "2013-01-25T16:05:14Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > However, my definitions make it easier for me to follow your arguments. If everyone else uses a word one way (correctly) and you make up another definition, you are guaranteeing people will be confused and that you’ll have to do a bunch of explaining. Or else you’re turning their arguments into something else for your own convenience, which is more or less strawmanning. ---
**Author:** ![saje](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saje/32/3631_2.png) [@saje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saje)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/343 "2013-01-25T16:09:26Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > To me this is a rational argument because a significant minority believe this. So, if 2 people out of a jury of 12 believe that someone is guilty, despite much evidence to the contrary, then that person should be found guilty in a court of law? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/344 "2013-01-25T16:09:53Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I do have a problem thinking you made it thru Law School and are a practicing lawyer with the way you present arguments on this board - one of these things is not like the other. I’m guessing the Chewbacca Defense features heavily. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/345 "2013-01-25T16:15:54Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Face it guys, if my arguments weren’t on some level rational, you wouldn’t bother responding. > > It seems like some of the atheists on this board don’t like it when one of the religious guys argues back. I like it fine, or I wouldn’t be posting to this thread. However, it’s a stretch to call what you’re doing ‘arguing’. You don’t address other peoples’ points or answer their questions, you leap from topic to topic, and you substitute your own definitions of words, in place of those the rest of the world uses. > [@pchaos](#): > > I’m not insisting that people follow my definitions. However, my definitions make it easier for me to follow your arguments. It makes it harder for others to follow yours, though. > [@pchaos](#): > > If you recall, in order for an argument to be rational a significant minority of the people have to believe in them. Thus, Semmelweis’ argument that antiseptic procedures prevented infections was irrational? Because it wasn’t accepted until years after he died. Should he have stopped his research, since no one believed it had value? > [@pchaos](#): > > A summary of my basic argument so far is that in life, science has a role. However, for some of the most important ethical questions, science fails to provide adequate answers. And perhaps religion is better suited for these ethical questions. To me this is a rational argument because a significant minority believe this. I agree that science isn’t an arbiter of ethics. It doesn’t claim to be, and isn’t used for that purpose. Science “organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” That’s it, no more and no less. It won’t help you solve moral quandries, beyond perhaps helping you calculate likely outcomes. That said, you’ve implied by this that your original argument, that an intelligent being created the universe, or that it designed the human body, is an ethical question. **It’s not.** It’s an explanation about the universe. Which makes it the realm of science. If the ethical question is something like “How should I treat others?”, then religion can provide you an answer, and science cannot. If the question is “How did the human body develop its current characteristics?”…that’s not an ethical question, and religion cannot give you a truthful answer. It’s important to be able to make these kind of distinctions. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/346 "2013-01-25T16:35:17Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > It seems like some of the atheists on this board don’t like it when one of the religious guys argues back. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your religious beliefs or lack thereof. It has to do with your near total inability to communicate clearly and string together a comprehensible argument. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/347 "2013-01-25T16:57:14Z")
> [@saje](#): > > No, you don’t argue with someone you agree with, you argue with someone who does NOT see things your way. > > Here, let me be that annoying person: > > \*\*rational \*\*[ˈræʃənəl] > adj > > 1. **using reason or logic** in thinking out a problem > 2. **in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable** > 3. of sound mind; sane the patient seemed quite rational > 4. endowed with the capacity to reason; capable of logical thought man is a rational being > 5. (Mathematics) Maths expressible as a ratio of two integers or polynomials a rational number; a rational function > n > (Mathematics) Maths a rational number > [from Latin ratiōnālis, from ratiō reason] > > **log·i·cal** (lj-kl) > adj. > > 1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic. > 2. **Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable:** Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year. > 3. \*\*Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. > \*\* > \*\*ir·ra·tion·al \*\* (-rsh-nl) > adj. > 4. > > a. **Not endowed with reason.** > b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; **incoherent,** as from shock. > c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike. > 2. > a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern. > b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable. > 3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number. > n. Mathematics > An irrational number. No the actual definitions are helpful and not an annoyance. Here’s the problem, the definition of logic and rational are fairly close in proximity. So I simply made it clearer in my own mind what the difference was. Normally, I do use your definitions. Also, I consider most of the arguments made by posters to be rational and I apologize if some people don’t think my arguments aren’t. Also, I apologize for not being able to respond to some questions because of time constraints. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/348 "2013-01-25T17:00:25Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Here’s the problem, the definition of logic and rational are fairly close in proximity. So I simply made it clearer in my own mind what the difference was. Right, you “made it clearer” by doing something you’ve had to spend probably a dozen posts explaining. Stop trying to redefine words, and stop explaining why you’ve done it. Try to use plain English. Imagine all the time you’ll have for answering actual questions once you’ve stopped this ridiculous behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/349 "2013-01-25T17:23:59Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I understand that most people think of logical and rational as being somewhat similar. However, for me this is not helpful. > > I modify the terms as follows: > > 1. What the vast majority of people believe is logical. > > 2. What a significant minority of people believe is rational. > > 3. What doesn’t fit into 1) and 2) above is irrational. In other words, the words are just a popularity contest. So it becomes impossible to discuss anything rationally or logically. Your version of the words amount to “who made the best emotional appeal, and got the greatest numbers of unthinking emotional followers.” As you use the terms, logic and reason are useless in examining and learning about the world around us. They are only useful in grading the popularity of ideas, which may or may not have any actual correspondence with the real world. Relativity was irrational in 1916, was rational in 1945, and is logical now. The words have no useful meaning with those definitions. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/350 "2013-01-25T17:34:10Z")
But the OP has cleverly shifted the discussion to a merry go round pedantic discussion of semantics and word definition and away from the original discussion about intelligent design verse An Accident. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/351 "2013-01-25T17:35:31Z")
> [@XT](#): > > But the OP has cleverly shifted the discussion to a merry go round pedantic discussion of semantics and word definition and away from the original discussion about intelligent design verse An Accident. 😛 Are you suggesting that was an intelligent design or an unintelligent one? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/352 "2013-01-25T17:42:45Z")
> [@XT](#): > > But the OP has cleverly shifted the discussion to a merry go round pedantic discussion of semantics and word definition and away from the original discussion about intelligent design verse An Accident. 😛 But there _is_ no original discussion until we determine what the OP was actually putting forth in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/353 "2013-01-25T17:44:50Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Perhaps, but it is rational as I’ve defined the terms. Someone once asked Lincoln, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?” Lincoln responded, “Four, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/354 "2013-01-25T17:57:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Are you suggesting that was an intelligent design or an unintelligent one? You know I can’t answer that without getting Mod smacked. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/355 "2013-01-25T17:58:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But there _is_ no original discussion until we determine what the OP was actually putting forth in the first place. After 8 pages I think that the hope of clarification is sadly misplaced. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/356 "2013-01-25T18:03:05Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You know I can’t answer that without getting Mod smacked. 😛 In case this was muddy, I should point out I was attempting to make a crack about the design of the thread, not the intelligence of **pchaos**. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/357 "2013-01-25T18:14:52Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > [QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper] > How do you know the entity in question ain’t an evil deceiver? That’s where belonging to a church is important. It’s important that the church has a rational view of Christianity and helpful people. Once you start sharing your experiences with God, you begin to have a better sense of God’s nature. [/QUOTE] Since you’ve now explained that you’re using _“rational”_ to mean _“believed by a significant minority of people,”_ I’m kinda unclear on how this fits in with the comment that sparked my reply in the first place: > [@](#): > > Well, I’m not going to attempt to speak for other religious people. But for me I rely a lot on intuition and revelation. God reveals himself to me, as I get older, He reveals His path for me. So (a) what’s been revealed to you would be of dubious value – except you’ve run it by other religious people, each of whom is as fallible as you; and (b) it now turns out that you were speaking for other religious people, since your claim that it’s _“a rational view of Christianity”_ rests solely on them agreeing with you? Have I got that right? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/358 "2013-01-25T19:02:45Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If the ethical question is something like “How should I treat others?”, then religion can provide you an answer, and science cannot. Religion can’t give you an answer any better than science can. All religion can do is _make up_ an answer, and scientists can make something up just as easily. It won’t be very scientific of them, but their moral opinion is just as valid as that of some priest or pope; more so, probably. Being religious doesn’t give you a special edge in moral judgement (if anything it’s a handicap); “science can’t do it” doesn’t mean that religion can. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/359 "2013-01-25T19:11:49Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721/360 "2013-01-25T19:14:24Z")
I responded too soon with my last one. I should have read the rest of the posts since last night. There are some _really **interesting** _ ones to respond to, by comparison: > [@pchaos](#): > > Yes. Seldom, but don’t tell my clients because I’ve been practicing law for over 20 years. Can you tell us what state you practice law in, so we can reassure ourselves that we’re not one of your clients? I wouldn’t want to wind up in prison because my lawyer thinks that the prosecutor’s successful emotional appeal to the jury makes it ‘logical’ to conclude that I’m guilty, regardless of ‘empirical’ evidence to the contrary. Basically this other poster’s comment is apropos: > [@simster](#): > > I have no problem with your ‘belief’ in a God or Christianity - even if you don’t seem to have any consistentency on the matter - I do have a problem thinking you made it thru Law School and are a practicing lawyer with the way you present arguments on this board - one of these things is not like the other. _My_ lawyer is a devout Catholic. I don’t have a problem with that, because he argues like a Jesuit. But my fundie Baptist Brother-in-Law can argue his _creationist_ views with less gratuitous redefinition of words in his favor than you are engaging in. > [@pchaos](#): > > Face it guys, if my arguments weren’t on some level rational, you wouldn’t bother responding. By your redefinition of ‘rational’, perhaps, but not on the _actual_ definition of the word. > [@](#): > > It seems like some of the atheists on this board don’t like it when one of the religious guys argues back. Not at all. **Friar Ted** , for example, makes excellent arguments for his faith. The atheistic posters don’t _buy_ his arguments, but at least they are ‘logical’ and ‘rational’ by the _dictionary_ definition of those terms. From my perspective as an ex-Catholic, who studied my religion, to the point of learning to read the NT in Koine Greek, and reading Aquinas, Polycarp (hey, there’s another religious guy on this board who took _that_ as his user name, and could argue logical rings around you), Thomas More, etc. etc., before rejecting my former faith, you can’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Relying on the _popularity_ of an idea, to determine its ‘logic’ or ‘rationality’, renders your arguments _illogical_ and _irrational_, by the actual definition of those words, as they are actually used, by people who actually _use_ logic and reason to examine the real world. > [@pchaos](#): > > I’m not insisting that people follow my definitions. However, my definitions make it easier for me to follow your arguments. Except for the fact that it makes utter hash of the arguments you _claim_ to be following. Other than _that_, you’re following them quite well. :rolleyes: > [@XT](#): > > But the OP has cleverly shifted the discussion to a merry go round pedantic discussion of semantics and word definition and away from the original discussion about intelligent design verse An Accident. 😛 I suspect that was his intent. And he alledgedly studied at UC Berkely. I guess that makes me smater than a Berkely grad. I feel so smate. Worship me. I are Smate! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-all-an-accident-or-did-an-intelligent/647721.md?page=19)