Discussion on 'Is a rainbow an example of an intelligent design?'

(5) On June 23, 2008 at 08:37 am Quirkyquantummechanic [624] said:

I originally supplied this answer:

A rainbow is a natural phenomenon that has well understood principles of physics at its core. Intelligent design is a concept that deals with biological phenomenon. There is no relationship between rainbows and intelligent design.

None of this, however, matters to the rainbow. And it never has. It needs no explanation for its existence. It just is.

A link to the Wikipedia article on the rainbow is provided.

My answer was simple and held an elegance that I believe none of the malicious pair who initially edited it could begin to comprehend. Eletra and Tek, whom I believe to be one in the same, trashed the post I made. I have checked on them to see if they have made any other "contributions" similiar to the ones they made here. They seem to have left the boards. R.I.P. I cannot say I am sorry to see them (him) go.

(4) On May 14, 2008 at 09:17 am PeteNco [262] said:

Re: 'Crossed wires'

In looking at the answers it would seem possible that there are two different streams of thought based on a different understanding of the question. Originally it referred to intelligent design which is a movement in science with a very specific meaning. After a time it was changed to 'an intelligent design' - I'm not sure if this hasn't muddied the waters for some, as they are two different things, the latter being much more general and so maybe the specific answers about ID no longer apply.

If it was general I would agree with much that has been said -rainbows are indeed beautiful examples of design. If it is the specific science movement - nothing at all to do with theology, then answers relevant to that issue apply. So, what I mean is that people are trying to answer 2 different questions and so are talking across one another and in disagreement when they don't need to be.

Anyway, regarding the ID movement, although many see it as 'back door creationism' most creationists do not agree with ID since they don't wish to name the designer. Creationists also believe that God created everything not just man.

Regards

PeteNco

(3) On May 13, 2008 at 9:19 pm PeteNco [262] said:

Re. the alleged 'Argument from beauty' - the point is not the beauty itself but our perception of it. Animals don't sit and gaze at the stars either. ID people would suggest this is part of the total package of complexity found in the incredible human brain. They may well point to evidence which demonstrates that this cannot have come about by chance (although I have not seen the brain specifically discussed by ID theorists).

The whole argument of ID is really based on the analogy of design. Philip Johnson put it well when he said something like this: 'If you look at things which have the appearance of having been designed you must allow for the possibility that they look like they have been deigned because they have been designed.'

PeteNco

(2) On May 12, 2008 at 03:26 am Patwoods [137] said:

A rainbow is simply one example of refracted light; the comment in question employed the comparison of manufactured prisms - another example of refracted light. The coloured light these things refract is identical but a rainbow is a specific and highly recognizable shape, a natural phenomenon and not manufactured by man.

Whether or not it is an example of intelligent design, I suspect those who need to worry about this are rather missing the point of beauty. Our ability to perceive beauty in anything from the complex to the sublimely simple is possibly the best evidence of intelligent design - or evolution - available.

Our ability to feel love, tolerance and compassion is more evidence.

I don't personally need to believe "someone" or "something" sat at a drawing board and created the world and its inhabitants; I just simply enjoy. I see a contributor has said to perceive a rainbow as beautiful appears to have no evolutionary advantage.

This makes no sense when speaking of humans. Part of our evolution has depended on our constant learning to see, and create, beauty, which is another aspect of love. Without that ever-growing - evolving - gift, we'd not be able to express ourselves in terms of art in all its forms, nor be able to feel the complexity of emotions available to us.

And this learning is not confined to humans. Just take the domestic dog, horse, bird, or other creature. Once wild and considered untameable by early humans these creatures have developed over the centuries into wonderful and highly useful workers and companions who adore their humans and clearly see beauty in the people and things they love.

Nobody who has a well-loved pet can fail to comprehend that pet's view of its world. Well, okay, cats rely on humans considering the *cat* a thing of beauty, before it climbs the fence to be be a thing of beauty for the neighbours putting fish on the barbecue, but cats are cats.

It's interesting to contemplate the motives behind the actions of the first humans who, having seen wolf packs and wild horses, and very wisely stayed out of their way, took in a pup or pups or a foal or two, and raised them with sufficient respect that today we have an marvellous relationship with these creatures.

That was certainly intelligent, though not down to any supernatural design.

(1) On May 11, 2008 at 6:46 pm ElectraDescending [7] said:

Note: ElectraDescending changed "Is a rainbow an example of intelligent design?" to "Is a rainbow an example of an intelligent design?".

See the Discussion for "Is a rainbow an example of intelligent design?"

Sign in to add your own comment. (This only takes a few seconds.)