Does 'Murphy's Law' contradict 'Intelligent Design'?

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (82 posts)

0
Cromperposted 12 years ago
Murphy's Law: If something can go wrong, it WILL go wrong.
Periodically, something will go right against all the odds - then it is called a 'MIRACLE'!
'Intelligent Design' is the theory that the universe was 'created' by someone/something with 'intelligence'. When I think of the word 'design', I think of all things produced by humans to serve a purpose, without the need to 'hope that nothing goes wrong'.
'Intelligence' is no more than having the ability to apply logic from memory, or experience.
So how does 'intelligent design' fit into our understanding of the universe and its origin? With so much randomness in our universe, how can we apply the word 'design' at all?
reply report
1. 71
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That seems like a pretty good argument to make. I will be interested to see replies.
  reply report
2. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Difference or randomness doesn't prove an intelligent designer wasn't intelligent. Randomness doesn't prove that there wasn't an intelligent designer. Randomness proves that the Intelligent Designer Loves Diversity. As much randomness and surprises as can be.
  
  People love conformity, sameness, regularity, even keel. Perhaps our designer differs from us in this regard.
  
  ***Intelligence is the ability to learn.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Difference or randomness doesn't prove an intelligent designer wasn't intelligent."
  How can an intelligent designer NOT be intelligent? You're approaching the argument from the wrong direction.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How so? Please do tell.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because you are assuming the intelligent designer already exists, whereas I am looking for evidence of the intelligent designer's existence.
  ...and I see none.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The proof of existence of a supreme being(God) is in my hub which also has links to the forum debates that go with it.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, your hub simply states that God exists because God exists, it is a blatant and soooo obvious fallacy of logic.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And again....
  
  I'm still waiting on the proof that backs up this claim of yours. If it is soooo obviously flawed.
  
  Prove it is flawed. Saying it is flawed proves nothing.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Logical fallacies are there for all to read and understand. If you took the time to understand and NOT use them, your hubs might have some credibility. Unfortunately, they don't pass this very elementary stage of logic.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And Again I Ask... Got Proof?
  
  ***I'll give you a little advise. Be Specific. Generalising and vague rhetoric (like 'Everyone Knows it') aren't good tools for the type of discussion you're entering.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You've got to be kidding. You seriously want someone to hand hold you through your elementary school reasoning?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From your link:
  A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.
  
  1) What specifically is my 'lack of validity' and what valid proof do you offer to support your 'Opinion'?
  
  2) What specific concept of mine can you prove has a 'lack of soundness', and what proof do you submit to prove your 'Opinion'?
  
  ****Using your previous fallacy as proof can only be termed a double fallacy.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I find it hard to believe you actually read that list, understood it and applied any of if to your hubs, in just a few minutes. Sad really.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for playing.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't.
  report
  55
  truthluverposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is his way of telling you u r a cunt. He is better than u like wot god sed.
  report
3. 59
  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What/who is intelligent?
  and what/who isnt?'
  
  To the fool the wise is just as foolish as the fool is to the wise...
  
  Which one then is the fool and which is the wise?
  
  What standard would you use to tell the difference?
  
  I tell you Truly none is foolish but each lives according to that which they perceive... and each apply their intelligence towards it.
  
  Now in this world each is his own architect building his own design as he perceive it to be....
  
  So the question is not whose design is "intelligent" as oppose to those who is not?.... but.....
  
  What does Each see.......
  
  I tell you truly The Master Architect design is perfect up to this present moment.
  
  Have you seen it?
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When we talk about 'intelligence' and 'design' we can only treat those words the way they were intended to be used. You cannot claim that we do not understand what our own words mean (that the words are not in human ownership) because the words are indeed human in origin.
  reply report
  59
  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My friend I am not questioning the meaning of the words themselves, even I used them liberally knowing that there is a common human understanding of them...
  
  What I point out to you is this... you seek to apply the common understanding of the word "intelligence" into another concept that is "creation"...
  
  Until now you are unable to fit the two together...this is why you are asking questions...
  
  Now if you are able to see that within creation there is nothing that lacks intelligence, then you have seen ït through the eyes of the Master designer.
  
  At that point Murphys law would be irrelevant and you would be answering questions rather than asking them.
  
  So the question remains ...what do you see?
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If the whole of creation were intelligently designed then the designer is a total failure. There are more things out there that work badly than work well, the human being is just one glaring example, all that reasoning ability and yet so completely stupid, all those opportunities to make the world a beautiful place and none of them taken.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Creating absolute perfection, in every being, in every circumstance, in every possibility of existence is your definition of being a successful designer?
  
  Then which is perfect, Vanilla or Chocolate ice cream? Which ever one you don't choose, is that an example of something that works badly?
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ice cream is a human creation - not that of a designer of the universe.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Got proof?
  
  Can you prove that cars that come off of an automated assembly line aren't the creations of the 'Human' that created that automated assembly line?
  
  Humanity 'may have' been created by aliens. It is possible that humanities DNA was placed on this planet by an alien race (created by God). It is possible that they did exactly what we do when we use the automated assembly line to create a car.
  
  Understanding Evolution is understanding HOW God created.
  
  Science is the discovery of How God did, some of what God does.
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The point you clearly missed is that not only is there no absolute perfection, there is glaring imperfection everywhere. The design of most things is horrendously flawed in many ways, from your coccyx that can prevent you walking for the rest of your life if you sit down hard in the wrong place to starving children living next door to some of the richest people in the world.
  
  Now if I was designing things I would, even with my limited knowledge, be able to improve almost everything I see.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is where goddidndunnit is used in place of goddunnit.
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is. Looking over the convent gardens a supercilious nun told my gardener father "it is amazing what god can do", my father replied, "well - he was doing a pretty rubbish job of it before I came along."
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think I would like your father.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God's view of a perfect flower garden isn't the same as a human's idea. God would mix it all up, allow the flowers to grow where they 'choose'. Humanity wants order, precision, conformity, so we arrange the flowers in the order we prefer.
  
  God loves 'Infinite Diversity'. People love power.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, now you're thinking for God and telling us what He thinks?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Merely observing nature(existence) when it hasn't been tampered with by humanity.
  
  If you build something it is usually built the way you prefer it right?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're doing no such thing.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The design is nature and nature isn't perfect from a human's perspective but you're blaming God for the changes Humanity did and does to nature.
  
  I admit Humanity has made a mess of things, but all creatures, while learning, make mistakes. God allowing us to make our mistakes and hopefully learn from them isn't a flawed design. Each of us think we could do it better, and for our selfish ends we could, but the next human would do it exactly the opposite way from yours. Because what is perfect for/to you isn't perfect for the next guy. That's why an absolute way, an absolute truth, doesn't exist.
  Best is different for each of us.
  reply report
  59
  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well if thats all you can see then....
  
  Your own eyes will continue to keep you stuck in the mud of imperfection....
  reply report
4. 82
  BradyBonesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I find it interesting that you are asking a question of spirituality through the lens of mortal law. If something can go wrong, but doesn't, it must be a miracle? Evidence that a God or gods exist? And if it can go wrong, and does, then God or gods do not exist?
  
  Is this really the basis of your argument? It would be my opinion then that what you are engaged in is not, by definition, logical debate, but instead a logical fallacy. Coming to a conclusion based on non-fact does not make the conclusion fact. What you end with instead is a circular logical pattern that only works within itself, but does not withstand outside investigation.
  
  With that said, I find it interesting when people imply that science trumps God. Man's version of science has been constantly evolving, and will continue to evolve. Scientific theories change with time based on current understanding. Current understanding cannot, by virtue, be tied to one point in time until either all facts are known or the collective of knowledge refuses to learn anything new or reflect on different perspectives. In the 1800's it was a common belief that eating cold leftovers caused stomach aches. We now understand that this was not the heat of the food itself, but that the bacterium in the leftover food were not killed until heating to a certain temperature. Once heated, the food could be chilled and eaten without risk of food poisoning. This understanding, also known as biological science, has evolved with our own understanding of the process of various life-cycles and the threshold of life for certain non-beneficial organisms. To bring it back to point, the idea that the relative temperature of the leftover food had an impact on stomach illness was a logical fallacy based on the incorrect information and subsequent assumptions of the unknown science of pasteurization.
  
  Do we know everything now? Absolutely not. As long as we see the things around us with the limitations of what we think we know, we will be blind to all the possibilities that may actually exist.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  BradyBones, I don't think you have fully understood my argument. There's nothing spiritual about Intelligent Design (a pseudo-science) or Murphy's Law, and the miracle part of my question was to demonstrate how we as humans misinterpret coincidence and sheer luck to be an act of God, or whatever. I'm asking about 'Intelligent Design' and how Murphy's Law fits into any 'design' at all!
  We know that when we design something we don't design to make things go wrong (unless that's what the designer intended, but then the design would function as intended and it would be right).
  reply report
5. 51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Creator God who is All-Wise; does say that He has created the Universe; this should be accepted:
  
  [2:117] And they say, ‘Allah has taken to Himself a son.’ Holy is He! Nay, everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. To Him are all obedient.
  [2:118] He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a thing, He does only say to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.
  
  http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=117
  
  Intelligent Design could be made by an Intelligent Being; there is none such being except Him; none to claim as such, truthfully.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
6. 0
  Virgil Newsomeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All the planets that are known to man have been on the same track ever since they were first discovered. Was it all just by accident? I believe everything was created not just random acts.
  
  Things may seem to be random but still be designed to do what they do. In order to prove that intelligent design is false, you must first prove that everything we call random is random and not designed to perform in the way they do.
  reply report
7. 51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am of the opinion that only an Intelligent Being could endow intelligence to others; universe or nature or evolution are deaf and dumb; they cannot bestow intelligence on others of their own; it is the Creator God- the Most-Intelligent the Most-Wise who has bestowed intelligence to others as per His design.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
Mmmm this one is going to be fun!!
reply report
71
earnestshubposted 12 years ago
G'Day Mikel!

I'm not going to enter this one for now, I want to see where this goes.

Is it just me.. or are we seeing some discussions on the religious forums in place of the usual scriptural confirmation that goddunnit?
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I believe we have turned a corner.
  
  But that doesn't change the fact that Goddunit.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
You state that the randomness of the results somehow nullifies the idea that there was a plan. I say the randomness simply shows the plan(design) was to create 'Infinite Diversity'.(An endless supply of diverse entities.)
reply report
1. 0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How diverse? To what extent?
  That a man can grow wings and fly to work (and everywhere else)?
  That a woman can give birth to a child without pain?
  That leopards can become MORE intelligent than humans?
  That stars will gather in one place and cast bright light on the earth?
  
  What exactly are you talking about?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  infinitely
  
  Do you not understand the term infinitely?
  
  That a being can exist and fly to work... We call them birds on this planet.
  
  How is that action an example of existing?
  
  I suppose
  
  also possible
  
  Infinite Diversity. Which word don't you understand?
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Was that a misquote I detect there Mikel?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ?? the quotes are your exact words. Go back and read them from your posts.
  
  or here they are again:
  
  Cromper wrote:
  
  How diverse? To what extent?
  That a man can grow wings and fly to work (and everywhere else)?
  That a woman can give birth to a child without pain?
  That leopards can become MORE intelligent than humans?
  That stars will gather in one place and cast bright light on the earth?
  
  What exactly are you talking about?
  
  End quote.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Quote Mikel: "That a being can exist and fly to work... We call them birds on this planet."
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  None of my other answers are the same words you wrote(that I quoted) either, what problem do you have with this one?
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
quite the opposite. The only way to discover the new is by accident. If it's intended, it is just duplication of what already is from the memory.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
:yawn: boring....

....gonna go watch tv.
reply report
1. 0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wouldn't you rather be out flying?
  Of course you would! But then that would require a DESIGNED universe!
  LOL!
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ??? Are you saying that in order for a universe to be designed, the entities that reside in that universe would have to be able to do or be anything they desired?
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No. I'm saying that things wouldn't go wrong. There would be no freak weather conditions that kill many people. There would be no earthquakes. No floods. No famine. No disease. Etc.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So in order for the universe to have been designed, there would have to be 'only' good? No bad occurrences?
  
  Unfortunately, in order for good to exist, so must bad.
  
  I have a hub about that too.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're obviously twisting the argument here. Who said anything about good or bad?
  I'm talking about when things go WRONG. When things are designed, they are designed to serve a purpose. They work. If they go wrong it is either down to poor design or poor operation of the design.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong doesn't equate to a 'bad happening'? Failure, poor operation...these are all 'bad' occurences...no?
  Is wrong good then?
  
  Arguing that if something fails to do what is was designed to do proves
  the design was/is flawed always isn't true.
  
  The space shuttle design is good, usually it works. However sometimes they blow up on thier way to space.
  
  You're looking for an absolute answer to existence. Absolutes are very rare, and I'm afraid there isn't an absolute answer in your logic here. Murphy's Law is also a flawed expression, an attempt at an absolute: If something can go wrong, It will. That's an absolute, every time the shuttle doesn't blow up on the way to space, it proves Murphy's Law is untrue, and flawed.
  
  The simple truth is 'sometimes' things go wrong. 'Sometimes' good designs fail. 'Sometimes' good creations go bad.
  
  'Sometimes'
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No. Wrong does not equate to a bad happening. Lots of things can go wrong without anyone getting hurt. There is nothing bad about hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc - they happen naturally without any designed intent to hurt anyone. People do get hurt though - that is unfortunate.
  However, if natural catastrophies are DESIGNED to kill people, then they are BAD! Evil!
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you're selectively deciding the meanings of words depending on what makes them agree with your point of view.
  In so doing you're contradicting yourself.
  
  On one side of the scale is the concept 'Good' on the other is the concept 'Bad' which side would you place the concept word 'Wrong'? Which side would you place the concept 'correct'?
  
  wrong is equated with bad.(I'm not saying they are identical concepts, if they were we wouldn't have two words)
  
  here's the definition from dictionary . com -so we are both clear.
  
  wrong [rawng, rong] adjective
  1.not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
  
  2.deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
  
  3.not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
  
  4.not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
  
  5.out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And you will notice that the word 'bad' does not appear in any of those definitions. Likewise you will not find the word 'wrong' in the definitions listed at dictionary .com under 'bad'.
  The two words do not mean the same thing. So you are wrong (that doesn't mean you are bad, by the way, just in case you were getting confused).
  I invite everyone reading this to speak up in your defence if what I said in my last post did not make sense.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not good means??? I can't believe you want to argue about definitions. That's the important issue to you? Not the post where I prove your assumption about Murphy's Law somehow refuting a design is wrong, inaccurate, flawed, incorrect. Jeez...
  
  Thanks for playing.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Who brought up definitions? Who posted definitions from dictionary .com?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How old are you? You come across as an adolescent. Are you a teenager?
  report
2. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  seriously... I'll be back later.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Good. I have a challenge for you.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh ...I can't wait
  reply report
73
LeanManposted 12 years ago
Can we fit the buttered toast into this discussion somewhere?? Or maybe whales and petunias....
reply report
1. 60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We'll be needing a maximum improbability drive then.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't forget the flux capacitor, you'll always need one of those too.
  
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
@Cromper

You seem to be brushing over and ignoring 98% of what I'm saying and only commenting on the 2% you can find some possibility of refuting. What about the other 98% of what I'm saying?
reply report
1. 0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Now that's just rubbish, and you know it.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The 2% being the definition of the word wrong. The 98% being:
  
  Arguing that if something fails to do what is was designed to do proves
  the design was/is flawed always isn't true.
  
  The space shuttle design is good, usually it works. However sometimes they blow up on thier way to space.
  
  You're looking for an absolute answer to existence. Absolutes are very rare, and I'm afraid there isn't an absolute answer in your logic here. Murphy's Law is also a flawed expression, an attempt at an absolute: If something can go wrong, It will. That's an absolute, every time the shuttle doesn't blow up on the way to space, it proves Murphy's Law is untrue, and flawed.
  
  The simple truth is 'sometimes' things go wrong. 'Sometimes' good designs fail. 'Sometimes' good creations go bad.
  
  'Sometimes'
  
  But have fun arguing about definitions, I'm done with you.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That means I win. Thanks for playing
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Make sure they get you your trophy.
  reply report
2. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  98% of what you say is logical fallacy. Funny you don't see it but everyone else does.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To use your words:
  So now your thinking for everyone and telling us what everyone thinks?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, just thinking.
  
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To use your words:
  
  You're doing no such thing.
  reply report
59
WD Curry 111posted 12 years ago
No, it was built in.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Does 'Murphy's Law' contradict 'Intelligent Design'?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Does 'Murphy's Law' contradict 'Intelligent Design'?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies