That's speculation, but it would mean intelligent design is a scientific theory. You're seemingly okay with the Universe being designed by a programmer, but not God, although the programmer would be a god to us in every practical way.

If the Universe is a computer simulation, that means it was intelligently designed.

Some seriously *quality design work there. Way better than the murphy bed I had as a kid. Now THIS is real intelligent design.

21 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Oh yeah, Science is definitely: " simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us". Smoke DMT... that is Science. After you do that... it takes maybe 5 minutes. Come back and let's talk about Science.

Dawkins is ABSOLUTELY trying to inflect on to the situation with his own agenda. My position is simply not the mainstream, sell-out point of view that the media & educational system taught me considering when someone is bringing up a "nerve", "evolution" & "intelligent design" that this somehow does not denote a motive? I can think for myself. Are you kidding me? I love Science more than anything... go and fucking read some Lanza.. go read that your standpoint is cookie cutter.

If you want to focus on science, then whatever God you prefer - intelligent designer, whatever you want to call it - is completely out of the discussion. If anyone wants a scientific assessment of God, then it goes like this - "I cannot measure it with any instrument, i cannot infer its presence by its effect on something else. There is no way i can measure or quantify any aspect of God or the effect God might have on the physical universe, so why are you asking me about it?"

What is your point? I don't think Dawkins has ever said that he can prove "God" doesn't exist, and if he did he's wrong because you can't prove anything about something that doesn't exist; if it can't be measured or inferred or otherwise observed, it doesn't exist to science, because science is simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us. A non-measurable entity does not form part of that understanding if it has no measurable effect on anything we can sense. It's like asking how loud a smell is - it doesn't have that dimension to it, it's not a measurable quantity.

I'd also like to add that "i refuse to respond to responses to this" is about as arrogant a statement as you can make. "This is what i think, and regardless of any new information i can access about the situation, i will not have my mind changed and i will not even listen to the thing that may change my mind." That statement is pretty much anti-knowledge and anti-understanding and clearly demonstrates the futility of discussing science with someone who believes in so called "intelligent design."

As for talking about Dawkins being able to "create" the "tools for evolution of a giraffe".....? What on earth are you talking about? You just told the man to stick to science - but we have a working scientific explanation for evolution with gene mutation, time and selective breeding. You're the one injecting anthropomorphism into the mix (and worse, implying that Dawkins needs to disprove that nonsense explanation in order to stand so firmly behind the SCIENCE of evolution), he IS sticking to the science. When he gets asked about "God", he dismisses it - because it is out of the question when it comes to science, and he sticks to science like you ask!

Maybe the designer programmed the language of life in more simpler means than "perfect engineering". Does fucking Dawkins know how to create all of the necessary tools for evolution of a giraffe? I think not. He assumes a lot and he knows nothing. Theoretically, if we are living in some sort of programmed Universe that is somewhat randomized then the actual programming might be for self-replication and change in the simplest means in evolution over time... why would the program pull it all back for a re-drafting to make a current iteration, perfect? It doesn't appear to me that the "magic" of life is into re-drafting for perfection. That is something we have to figure out ourselves... I guess that's the whole trans-humanist sort of thing.

Science is science. No need to try and prove God or whatever does not exist, or is not an "intelligent designer" or "engineer"... focus on the Science! I really do not like Dawkins and I rarely say that about anyone.

Hi leebowman- As I just commented, you weren't being censored, nor will you ever be on VideoSift.

We have tons of automated measures in place to combat our never-ending influx of spam, and unfortunately you got caught in our net. (That's also why, as you noticed, your first comment's URL was automatically redacted.)

Please don't feel as if you aren't allowed to have a dissenting voice here. One of VideoSift's most treasured assets is its quality debates between intelligent people.

Welcome to VideoSift!

Your video, Evolution's shortcoming is Intelligent Design's Downfall, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What you posted does nothing to refute the crapiness of the design. Why the recurrent laryngeal nerve give off branches to the cardiac plexus is very simple: The RL nerve is a branch of the Vagus nerve, which is THE source of parasympathetic innervation to the heart. The fact that some fibers may branch off of the Vagus early with the RL nerve and then rejoin the cardiac plexus further along is hardly uprising. That does NOT explain why the nerve fibers that innervates the larynx have to make an unnecessary loop downwards around the aorta.

If there WAS an intelligent designer, he could have easily made those nerve fibers innervating the the larynx split off the Vagus higher up, where the Vagus nerve PASSES BY RIGHT NEXT TO THE LARYNX.

Trying to refute this video by quoting Gray's Anatomy is either a sad misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts or just willful ignorance. Almost as bad as Kirk Cameron and the banana.

I said it before, that guy Gawd is a TERRIBLE designer. At least 99.95% of his 'designs' have failed (and the rest are far from perfect, as shown clearly in this video). I would never consider hiring him, his 'designing' record suck ass.

She said it all at 2:46..."this is not an intelligent design"

Thanks again, Dawkins.

Notice how he uses the term "evolutionist"?

Now, why would someone use such an archaic, unscientific word?

Oh, right.

"In order to treat evolution as a category of religions, evangelic christians commonly use the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe scientists, thus implying through language that the issue of evolution is a matter of religious belief.

The goal of this argument is to equate the validity of the theory of evolution with the pseudoscientific concept of Intelligent Design."

If you believe DNA was the result of intelligent design, then the creator did an absolute shit job of it: there's so many ways that things can and do go wrong at the genetic level -- cancer, birth defects, aging, death -- that you would have to conclude the creator has a special love for causing suffering based on his bad designs; the creator is a rampant sadist.

Your second question is silly: how would you know if you were living in a universe where bananas are grapes and grapes are monkeys? But I understand what you're trying to get at and the answer is that the universe I live in has no empirical evidence for a creator and a very workable theory for how life came about and evolved over time.

So here's a question for you: if there is a creator, why is he so incredibly bad at it (99.9% of all species that ever lived are now extinct) and why does he like beetles so much (there's a staggering number of beetle species)?

It's interesting that you would mention DNA because there is more evidence there of intelligent design than anywhere else. Did you know that DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed? It has digital information storage and retrieval, optimization, redundancy, and error correction.

DNA is also a language, and it has an alphabet, a coding system, correct spelling, grammar, meaning and intended purpose. Because DNA can be both classified as a code and a language, both of which we know only come from minds, we can reasonably conclude that DNA was intelligently designed.

Here is a book you might enjoy on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Scientist-Incredible/dp/0890514615

"Also, the complete and total lack of any empirical evidence of a supernatural creator."

I would pose the question..how would you tell the difference between a Universe that was designed and one that wasn't? How would you know which one you were in?