Discussions
Intelligent Design ?
Posted by gerryPlanetEarth • 11/11/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: intelligent_design _theory
Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught in Public Schools ?
Should religious beliefs regarding creationism be taught in Public Schools ?
Should Evolution theories be taught and/or allowed to be taught as being factual ?
What is your general impression of the Intelligent Design theory ?
This and other disussions are posted at the Global Education Group....http://www.blogcatalog.com/group/global-education-group/discuss
Any new members would be greatly welcomed....
User Comments
-
Well...
-
Not personally being the sharpest pencil in the box would you care to elaborate on the meaning of the above answer or possibly would anybody else be able to intrepit the meaning of the above answer ?
-
-
Thank-you urikalish for your clarification...
Out of curiosity do you categorize atheism as a religious belief or do you classify atheism as a science that perhaps should be taught in schools ? -
What? No pink unicorn?
No flying spaghetti monster?
No Cthulhu?
I'm disappointed
I personally don't think that religion should be taught in public schools. Atheism is a religion, or lack thereof? But not necessarily a science, because it is a belief. I can't disprove the existence of god any more than the next person can prove it. It means that these are not theories, but mere hypotheses or philosophies.
To explain why: I am from a Christian background. We had one Muslim gentleman in class, and we had compulsory Christian bible study. At one point, the teacher told the Muslim gent that he has basically the same beliefs as Jewish people and quoted some (bible) scripture to prove her point.
In her mind, she was doing him the world of good by evangelising to him. I shudder to think what was going on in his mind. I was friends with him, so I put up my hand and pointed out to the teacher that technically Jesus was also a Jew.
Well, those were still in the days of corporal punishment in my country. Six of the best later, I had a trip to the principal's office and a question mark on my permanent record. And not a single regret. -
Allusion to the Scarlett Letter, eh?
-
-
no it shouldn't be taught cause it's not factual
god causes 2 much trouble on this planet people killing for him handing down morals to judge others, very divisive leave it out -
Why don't they teach BOTH theory's (or more) and let the kids decide for themselves!?!?!
this is fair. as both of them are just that THEORY'S. there are a lot of holes on both sides and it is WRONG to teach either as fact when there are so many conflicting opinions. the education system as a huge responsibility to the children as they are too young to challenge things they are taught.-
"Why don't they teach BOTH theory's (or more) and let the kids decide for themselves!?!?!"
What about religious facts?/history?/teachings?/legends?/fairy-tales?/ etc. regarding creationism...
Should religious explanations etc. regarding the creation of our world/universe etc. be taught in our school systems ?... -
Because your theory can't be scientifically proven, prove your theory with facts and I'd be the first to say teach it.
-
-
Actually one is a theory...the other is a fairy tale -
The government should not be teaching anything. When you educate a child it is inescapable that you will teach the child values and contribute to his worldview. That is not the government's job.
If the government wants to sponsor education, it should instead give out money which is then used to send kids to the school of their parent's choice.
That way parents who want their kids taught that war is always bad and that the Prophet Al Gore says we're going to die for our eco-sins can be happy, and parents who disagree with these two particular positions (which are held overwhelmingly by public school teachers) can be happy as well.-
"The government should not be teaching anything"...."If the government wants to sponsor education, it should instead give out money which is then used to send kids to the school of their parent's choice"....
Many people agree with the merits of dota's arguments....But at the end of the day is it cheaper to fix the wheel or is it a better investment to replace or reinvent the wheel regarding education ?
-
-
Intelligent design is pseudo science and belongs in a religion or debating class, not a science class.
Sometime over the course of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, science developed into a discourse separate from religion. That is good so. Science gets into the nuts and bolts, the mechanics, the *how*, if you will. Religion deals with a whole different order of human experience, the *why*, we might say.
Science doesn't have a problem with religion, and most faithful don't have a problem with science. Both understand that they operate in separate spheres.
As science grows more powerful, though, religion (or ethics) and science should enter into a dialog---not for something like so-called "intelligent design", but for big issues like nuclear power, genetic manipulation, and so on. Attempting to manipulate such elemental forces of nature without such a dialog is dangerous. We need to consider both how and why, and not just do things because we can.
Of course, some people see things in much more primitive dichotomies. They would put science and religion in opposition to one another. Fortunately, those people are a minority, albeit an embarrassingly vocal one in the United States.-
"Intelligent design is pseudo science and belongs in a religion or debating class, not a science class"
"Evolution is based on the scientific method. "Intelligent design" is not"
The basis of so-called evolutionary theory is as follows :
Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:[3]
Species have great fertility. They have more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
Populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.
An implicit struggle for survival ensues.
In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
Some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
Much of this variation is inheritable.
Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, these variations accumulate to form new varieties, and ultimately, new species.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species#Summary_of_his_theory
The evolution theories are largely based on the hypotheses of observations...
If you were to visit and observe Mount Rushmore would you conclude that that it was the result of an intelligent design or the result of evolution etc. ?
It is really that simple(there is an intelligent design to all life forms on planet earth) and adding further to the mystery is the science of evolution showing evolution etc. of the intelligently designed life-forms that inhabit planet earth....
Despite you religious rantings that intelligent design is not a science I am of the opinion the science of intelligent design ends when we enter the parameters of who/what was the designer that created the intelligently designed life forms and why etc.
Currently to the best of my knowledge that is beyond the capabilities of our knowledge and understanding and of course the riddle of infinity who created the Creator ? Who designed the Designer?
Yet there are some groups who wrongly use the science of intelligent design to somehow validate their religious beliefs and thus ending the science of intelligent design...
Another problem is a lack of concensus on the definition of Intelligent Design...
-
-
In certain provinces in Canada, Christian schools receive public funding therefore, parents who want their children to be immersed in that religion, have the chance to do so. However, I think it would be unfair for public schools to teach creationism UNLESS the curriculum included the philosphies of OTHER religions which would probably be extremely difficult. I mean how would you choose what religions to teach since there are many other beliefs in addition to Christianity? Thats why I think religion should stay out of public schools.-
I actually wouldn't have a problem with religion in public schools (here in the US), *if* it were taught from a comparative perspective. Whether such a thing is feasible or not is an altogether different issue.
-
-
If it has no facts behind it, then it should be in a philosophy/debating/religion/etc. class. That's the only thing that makes sense, as stoneman said. Since it's not based on anything whatsoever, it shouldn't be placed as a feasible alternative for evolution, for example.-
Technically the theory of evolution has no facts behind it either...thats why its called a theory.
-
Evolution is based on the scientific method. "Intelligent design" is not.
-
Stoney Stoney Stoney. PLEASE stop yourself from makeing ridiculous prejudiced statements. I have actually investigated both theory's IN DEPTH. and to say that intelligent design is not based on scientific theory is probably one of the most ignorant statements i have ever heard. Do some research before you reach your conclusions.
-
I said the scientific method, not theory.
"In depth" meaning?
-
-
Greetings
Know pun intended JerryPlanetEarth.
There is nothing intelligent in the so called Intelligent Design theory, its just for morons.There is no scientific basis for this so call theory to be associated with learning, in anyway shape or form.
Here is an article about another moron fueling this debate.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
Need I say more.
Biobob -
I think please and thank you would be a good thing to begin with :o)in terms of teaching children anything then maybe self skills and interpersonal skills etc -
I can not imagine a more off the wall analogy,
"If you were to visit and observe Mount Rushmore would you conclude that that it was the result of an intelligent design or the result of evolution etc. ?"
Duh, shure Jethro, the stones evolved.
God save us, religion sure won't.-
"God save us, religion sure won't"
To the best of my Jethronian knowledge God helps those who help themselves and religions are only as good as their users...
"I can not imagine a more off the wall analogy"
Here's an even more off the wall analogy...
When something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes......A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified....Details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.
werelax...Do you have any opinions on what should be taught in our education systems as per...
Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught in Public Schools ?
Should religious beliefs regarding creationism be taught in Public Schools ?
Should Evolution theories be taught and/or allowed to be taught as being factual ?
-
-
I recently posted on my blog about a book titled "God--The Failed Hypothesis" which purports to be a scientific argument proving that God does not exist. This book it is said was written as a reply to the Intelligent Design movement. I believe ID is a bunch of nonsense but would urge you to read the book and decide for yourself.-
Intelligent design is simply there is an intelligent design to all life forms...
Why does this seemingly ovious observation seem so non-sensical ? -
Gerry, why do you think it's "obvious" that living things are intelligently designed? Do you understand how natural selection works? If you did, you would find it unnecessary to posit the existence of a supernatural being or force behind the scenes.
-
-
All of the posts here that cast doubt on the robustness of the theory of evolution are based on misinformation and ignorance of how science works and basic biology.
The common everyday meaning of the word "theory" (essentially a guess) is not the same as its definition in science (a explanation for a series of facts and observations). The common definition of theory is closer to the scientific definition of "hypothesis." Every scientific theory was once a hypothesis... until it accumulated a strong enough foundation of supporting evidence. The primary theory of evolution is natural selection. It explains and unifies observations such as those found in fossil record, species' morphologies and genomes, etc. that point to the common descent of all living things.
So statements like "evolution is JUST a theory" are misleading and based on ignorance.
Intelligent design is in no way a viable theory simply because it doesn't explain shit. It just conjures up an unobservable being that is, without precedent, somehow above physical law, and just magically created everything. It's an untestable and so unscientific hypothesis. Find me one single peer-reviewed journal article that presents evidence in support of intelligent design. Nobody can. They can only point to rhetorical arguments made on websites and by a few fringe scientists.
That said, I am in no way in favor of a complete gag order on intelligent design in science classrooms. I am only against teaching it dishonestly, as if it has equal credibility to theory of evolution. If a teacher says something like, "both are unproven theories" then he is lying, and let's face facts 13 year old kids do not have the experience, knowledge, or mental capacity to "choose for themselves" which "theory" suits them. If the teacher wants to set aside a single day to thoroughly explain why intelligent design is a giant pile of unscientific bullshit, then I have no problem with that.-
If you believe in serious scientific inquiry, then you have to realize that Darwin's theory is not complete, and cannot account for everything.
Read the work of Michael Behe. -
"Intelligent design is in no way a viable theory simply because it doesn't explain shit"
I would tend to agree with you that intelligent design is not a theory, it does not explain anything let alone the mystery of creation...
It is merely an observation...All life forms on planet earth are an intelligent design...
We do not know how and why and by what life etc. was created...
We do know however by observation of what surrounds us that there is an intelligent design to the life forms on planet earth.... -
But, Gerry, what makes you so confident that all life forms are an "intelligent design"? For one thing, the overwhelming majority of species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct.
Natural selection, on its own, explains how organisms continue to be refined to enhance their survival and reproduction capabilities. Again, why do you need to posit the existence of some sort of intelligence behind it? -
"But, Gerry, what makes you so confident that all life forms are an "intelligent design"?"
I am confident on the probability that this is at least possible....It is possible that all life forms show evidence of design...It is foolish to ignore this probability/possibility...
More important however than our differences of opinions what do you think should be taught in our school systems fron kindergarten to high school regarding the origin/creation of the universe and life etc. ? -
I could agree that the very first life-forms on this planet might have been designed intelligently, most likely by another intelligence such as an alien race, but after that I definitely believe that Darwin's theory as it is understood now is the more correct.
But how do you answer the people who say it doesn't matter which is correct because in fact they believe that humans were just dumb animals until aliens visited and 'uplifted' us?
-
-
What the theory of evolution has not explained does not discount everything that is has explained. There will always be some unknowns, and people who do not feel comfortable with the idea of evolution will continue to pounce on them as if they put the entire theory in jeopardy. And they'll keep shifting arguments as those unknowns become known as evidence continues to accumulate. Notice how pieces of evidence that would contradict the theory are never found. Why is that? Why, for instance, don't we find any bird fossils in pre-Cambrian rock strata? There are lots of hypothetical pieces of evidence that could effectively disprove evolution, but no creationist/ID advocate has found one... thus they continue to rely on rhetorical argument and pointing out certain things evolution hasn't explained (yet)... and they never, ever do any empirical research in support of their own weak, empty hypotheses.
And I'm familiar with Behe and the concept of irreducible complexity. That's easily refutable garbage. You should read about exaptation. Not every component of a cell necessarily always had its current function.-
"Nor do its individual parts have any functionality on their own."
My point is, and plenty of other scientist have pointed this out, they don't have any functionality on their own NOW. There are numerous examples of parts of organisms evolving for one purpose, then being co-opted for another purpose later, like insect wings: once used for temperature regulation, then flying. That's why I call the irreducible complexity argument easily refutable garbage, though okay, maybe I could have not said garbage, but the point stands. His fundamental question: how could such a seemingly irreducibly complex system evolve... has a ready answer.
-
-
Your arrogance exceeds your open-mindedness...
-
You've already run dry of arguments and need to attack me personally? That was quick.
I'm explaining what I and almost every scientist see as the strength of the theory of evolution and weakness and unscientific nature of ID. That makes me arrogant? And Im not open-minded? Because I disagree with you? -
No, your statement that Behe's work is easily refutable garbage reeks of polemicism, lack of earnest debate, and a foregone conclusion.
I don't think any argument would assuage your beliefs. -
But you didn't say anything except "read the work of Michael Behe." My response was no more broad than yours... and I at least offered the general reason why I said that about Behe: the concept of exaptation. If you want to make a more specific argument about why you think anything in the work of Michael Behe refutes or threatens the viability of evolutionary theory, go ahead.
You're wrong saying you don't think any argument would assuage my beliefs. I have no personal stake in whether evolution is true or not. If it isn't, fine. I just want to see the evidence. -
Behe doesn't say that evolution isn't true, neither does the Catholic church. Behe says it has holes in it that are ignored by secular science.
Behe points out blood clotting as having irreducible complexity quite effectively. Nor do its individual parts have any functionality on their own. Nor could the system have evolved from more primitive versions of the same thing.
I won't debate that with you, because I would just be rehashing the arguments of scientists who agree with Behe, and you've already called that easily refutable garabage.
On a message board like this all I can effectively do is point you to other scientists and authors. -
I accidentally replied to you a bit further up in the thread.
-
-
"So statements like "evolution is JUST a theory" are misleading and based on ignorance."
So where did we come from?-
"So where did we come from?"
I assume you are talking about how life originated in the first place. That is the study of chemical evolution, and as of now there is no scientific consensus on a theory of abiogenesis, only several hypotheses, some with more supporting evidence than others.
But what does that have to do with a theory of how species evolved SINCE the origin of life?
-
-
I met this girl in Georgia once that told me that absolutely no part of evolution is true or should even be considered as being scientific. It blew my mind to think about how she came up with that statement. This was a 21 year old girl who was all about her chruch I guess.
I saw an interesting show on how ancient civiliations had used different specific fossil remains to create the ideas of different mythical beasts. (These are the same people that were founding the ideas that the bible is based on remember...)
(For the record, I am religious to an extent, but I can't stomach intolerability on both sides to be honest... The beauty of spiritualism is that you can't prove or disprove it, thats why they call it faith. But the beauty of science is that we look for answers and yes... many times we are intelligent enough to come up with those answers...like I said, it blows my mind when deeply religious people completely dispell the idea of evolution because that just crazy-town...) -
Evolution is a theory and should not be taught as fact.
Since creationism is not acceptable to some, then it could also be taught as... "This is what some people believe." I think every belief should be explored in fairness. The percentage of the population that believes in creationism here in the US grossly disreflects what their kids are being taught in schools.-
Theory and fact are not two rungs on the same ladder. A scientific theory is an explanation or mechanism for a set of facts and observations. Evolutionary theory refers to how life evolved... but, yes, it is based on an established fundamental scientific fact (which is, like any other fact in science, always open to refutation): the common descent of all living things. That is not disputed in the scientific community other than by a few fringe scientists who do not do original research to support their claims, but only make rhetorical attacks on the research of others.
-
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed taking place. Every time someone refers to evolution as 'just a theory' or 'there is no evidence' tells me two important things that about the person making those claims. Firstly, they do not understand what a scientific theory is. Secondly, they have little to no knowledge as to what evolution is.
Why is ID not a science? Have a look at what modern ID is. It is a creation of the Discovery Institute whose (well documented) agenda and raison d'etre is to put christianity into the social fabric of the US by taking political control of the country. One of the primary stages is to put christianity in the classroom, to brainwash children into accepting creationism as the explanation for our existence. To do this, they need to infiltrate science.
Their 'science' is not only poor, but easily refuted. Irreducible complexity and Dumbski's 'chances are' formula for the universe being as it is, rely on three tried and tested tricks - invent something that on the surface appears plausible, repeat it ad nauseum and attack the 'opposition'. Filling gaps with god, in other words. Science is more honest. When there is no answer, "we don't know" suffices.
The science of the DI is as beneficial to us as the science on tobacco and cancer provided by Phillip Morris' own 'science' team. Take a conclusion and see what you can find that fits. However tenuous.
-
-
It has everything to do with how a species evolved since the origin of life.
Unfortunately there are too many things that can never be proven in evolution and while educated guesses are nice they are still guesses. Just because a bird fossil hasn't been found in pre-cambrian rock strata doesn't mean they never will.
Don't get me wrong Science is much more believable than a sentinent being wriggling his finger and we all just appeared but it hasn't answered a great many of the evolution questions.
t-
"It has everything to do with how a species evolved since the origin of life."
Explain to me how. One deals with how life started, the other deals with how life evolved since its inception, regardless of how that inception occurred. Even if god kicked off life, that would not change the evidence for how life evolved since that point.
"Just because a bird fossil hasn't been found in pre-cambrian rock strata doesn't mean they never will."
Correct, and that's what makes evolutionary theory, unlike intelligent design, scientific... it's falsifiable.
-
-
1. Why God put us, the goal of his creation, in the second largest galaxy in our galaxy group, and not in the larger Andromeda galaxy?
2. Why God placed us, the goal of his creation, in a solar system on an insignificant location within the Milky Way galaxy?
-
To tell you the truth I don't believe in this theory - unfortunately, in Poland, which is very religious country and Catholic religion is one of school subjects, it is taught. But during Biology classes - the theory of evolution is also taught. In my opinion teaching should be based on wisdom deriving from science not religion. Of course people should have a right to know religious dogmas and beliefs but they should be presented by priests in churches. Such theories can't be accepted by atheists and other people, for whom knowledge about the creation of Universe has nothing to do with faith. -
Is this a religious discussion ?
Will this thread be censored ? -
Either way, drudging it up from 3 1/2 months ago to give it new life is an interesting choice. -
It always seems to me that this kind of topic is a 'one world' argument. I think that this debate will become a lot more interesting if life is discovered on other planets.
Theories of intelligent design and religion will be most interesting to observe.
On the whole though, evolution and intelligent design have, to me personally, only been relevant in my school life. Evolution was taught in biology lessons and intelligent design or creation was taught in RE. You needed to know about them for exam purposes.
Unless you are directly involved in a career that relates to these issues then they are, with regards to daily life, curiosities at best.
-
"It always seems to me that this kind of topic is a 'one world' argument"
That is a very valid observation...
If the Sun we orbit sustains life on Planet Earth it is possible that life forms maybe are sustained by the Sun on other planets as well...In fact some people believe/argue the the origin of the current Morgellons Disease epidemic(www.planetearthpeaceparty.com/2007/08/morgellons-ive-got-you-under-my-skin/) is from the rocks brought back from planet Mars...
And speaking about the Sun how can one look at it each day and deny there is an intelligent design to the Sun ?
-
-
[Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught in Public Schools ?]
No. Intelligent design is a religious philosophy. A religious identity can not be fostered by a public school. Of course private schools are a different matter entirely. However, public schools cater for everyone. Best to stick to neutral science.
[Should religious beliefs regarding creationism be taught in Public Schools ?]
No.
[Should Evolution theories be taught and/or allowed to be taught as being factual ?] As long as they are taught as theories. This means explaining what it means for a theory to be a theory. Nothing is cast in stone, it is merely the current model. Teach kids how to think, not what to think.
[What is your general impression of the Intelligent Design theory ?]
It's an ironic name, because it is lacking in the intelligence department.
If you want to seriously believe intelligent design, that is your business. Expecting the rest of the world to believe it is going to take evidence, which intelligent design does not have.-
I am in 100 per cent agreement with you regarding "Teach kids how to think, not what to think"...This is especially lacking in most education systems...
I also am in total agreement with you that evolution theories should be taught as theories...
-
-
Move this thread. Another religious discussion.-
It's old, but we need to all hit that report button.
-
hey ghostytwofish; looks like gerryPlanetEarth is trying to start a religious debate.I thought these kinds of threads were banned. -
They are. Well, not banned, they just have their own space now. Which isn't here.
-
You're right, Thegnr. he bumped his own antique thread to see what would happen. It's going to go, no doubt, but I guess they're doing other things in Texas right now.
-
So far the arguments presented denying the possibility/probability of our universe and proven life forms that inhabit the universe being of intelligent design is mostly rhetoric containing very little substance...
Ironically some of those naysayers best and only arguments against the intelligent design of our universe etc. is their own personal behaviour and the behaviour of mankind in general which often shows very little evidence of intelligent design...
-
-
I don't see any uncivilised, personal attacks that need reporting.
-
curious isn't it.
-
-
Schools have been sued for this before, even Penn and Teller covered this a few years ago. Lame topic, but here's some links in case some of you are still stuck back in 1990:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10796064/
www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16372prs20041214.html
www.religioustolerance.org/evid8.htm
atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/22/pennsylvania-school-to-fight-intelligent-des...
www.livescience.com/strangenews/060111_id_calif.html
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181905,00.html
www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/01/15/california-high-school-sued-over...
stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/aclu_files_lawsuit_over_intelligen... -
All religions should be taught at school.
If this was the case, as children grow up, they would quickly realise the absurdity of religion as a whole.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
Religion is the greatest marketing ploy of all. A tool for oppressing the masses and creating single mindedness.
Still, we need the fools of the world, to appreciate the geniuses.-
Go look up the "One nation under god" pledge and tell me what it says about the history of that..
-
In high school in England we had religious studies class in which world religions were taught. I loved the class and learned so much about other cultures and beliefs. It is a shame it can't be included in America high school curriculum's, but I don't the ID group supporting that.
-
-
Your very D.N.A.suggests intelligent design.-
And this is because....?
-
You should enlighten all the scientist! Most of them must have missed that little detail because that is not the common consensus amongst most of them.
-
Actually, it does not.
(My latest blog post is about this necrofiles.blogspot.com )
Basically, the claims made are this:
DNA is a code.
Codes we know the origins of were designed by intelligent minds.
Therefore, DNA was designed by an intelligent mind.
There are many problems with this argument. It is not even valid, let alone true.
I pointed out that we do not know the origin of DNA, therefore the middle statement has no bearing on DNA.
Urikalish pointed out that there are codes in nature that do transfer information with no clear indication of intelligent design behind it(magnetic striping of the mid-ocean ridges).
You can follow the whole saga on my blog or on the discussion we have under the Popular Science group, if you are interested.
www.blogcatalog.com/group/popular-science -
Richard Dawkins says - To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it.
John Allen Paulos says - rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable.
-
-
Do you think that a blueprint, if you will.. that intricate is an accident?
-
Do you think that I blow a nasty fart, if you will...walk away and never return?
-
Some would argue those nasty farts are of intelligent design or did farts evolve ?
-
to suggest that it takes a god to design something so intricate, it must be realized that this god would have to be even more intricate, and thus using your logic, this god, because of it's intricacy, would also had to of had a designer...and so on into an infinite regression.
-
ERROR - STACK OVERFLOW
-
"to suggest that it takes a god to design something so intricate"
I am only suggesting there is intelligent design to our universe etc. and have no wish to speculate on who or what created these seemingly intelligent designs...
The Mystery you speak of is the most infinitely unsolvable mystery we could ever attempt to solve... -
Gerry, you said "The Mystery you speak of is the most infinitely unsolvable mystery we could ever attempt to solve..." about Morgan's "to suggest that it takes a god to design something so intricate, it must be realized that this god would have to be even more intricate, and thus using your logic, this god, because of it's intricacy, would also had to of had a designer...and so on into an infinite regression."
@Gerry,
The number of creators (if infinite) is countable and therefore equals to the cardinality of the natural numbers - which is aleph-null. Even the cardinality of the continuum is bigger. So you see, finding out the infinite number of creators is not the most infinitely unsolvable mystery we could ever attempt to solve. -
Well while we are on this subject I've often wondered what the definition of nothing is and how anything could come from nothing ?
-
gerry, check out vacuum energy \ zero point energy.
Also, Are you familiar with binary? I like to use it as an analogy. Imagine a "bit." It can have the value of 0 or 1. Relate this to "0" being nothingness and "1" being somethingness. Science has discovered and observed that nothingness is unstable and fluctuates, due to this, it's value could have eventually changed into a "1." Also known as a fluctuation in a quantum vacuum.
also, my comment earlier was addressing Pam's "Do you think that a blueprint, if you will.. that intricate is an accident?" comment. Not your fart!
-
-
Sorry Morgantj, My logic says that He has no beginning and no end that is part of what makes Him God.
-
If god has no beginning and no end, then it has no edges, no contrast, and thus no form, so then, how would you be able to even recognize it to know it exist?
Also, if you can believe that god has no beginning and no end, then why is so hard to believe that the universe alone could have no beginning and no end. 100% all natural. No supernatural flavor.
-
-
So far the arguments presented denying the possibility/probability of our universe and proven life forms that inhabit the universe being of intelligent design is mostly rhetoric containing very little substance...
Ironically some of those naysayers best and only arguments against the intelligent design of our universe etc. is their own personal behaviour and the behaviour of mankind in general which often shows very little evidence of intelligent design...-
Though IDist claim not to name the creator, we can see by researching the "Discovery Institute," they really want to support the god of the bible, Yahweh, whom ironically the religious supporters claim it outside of science, human reason, the universe, ect... especially when non-believers use reason and logic to successfully show that a god does not make sense.
Disovery Institute, the main advocacy for intelligent design -
The institute was founded in 1990[12] as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C. S. Lewis.
The Discovery Institute's CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, has reported much of the institute's money comes from such wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives like Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," as well as the MacLellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."
Critics, members of the press and former institute fellows consider the Discovery Institute to be an explicitly conservative Christian organization,[53][54][55][20][56] and point to the institute's own publications and the statements of its members that endorse a religious ideology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
-
-
The best argument AGAINST "Intelligent Design" is George W. Bush himself.-
Tony Blair strengthens the argument against intelligent design...
-
Yeah ... Tweedledee and Tweedledumb!
-
-
lol, wonder what they will be saying about McCain/Obama-
Tweeedlewar and Tweedlehope?
-
-
Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught in Public Schools?
As an elective, yes. As science, no.
Should religious beliefs regarding creationism be taught in Public Schools?
Not in the science class. As an elective, yes.
Should Evolution theories be taught and/or allowed to be taught as being factual?
Yes. A scientific theory is factual for all intents and purposes. A scientific theory is different from the ordinary usage of the word theory. When you say 'that's my theory' it means you are guessing. When a scientific theory is accepted, it means someone's guess was peer reviewed by the scientific community and accepted as the best current explanation of natural phenomena.
Before that guess is accepted as fact, it has the status of hypothesis. Hypothesis is the same as your theory or mine in the everyday usage of the word theory. ID is a hypothesis, because it hasn't been peer reviewed and no serious scientist would consider ID as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
See the following threads for more on this:
www.blogcatalog.com/group/religious-debate/discuss/entry/intelligent-design...
www.blogcatalog.com/group/religious-debate/discuss/entry/rapid-evolution
www.blogcatalog.com/group/religious-debate/discuss/entry/an-inconvenient-ex...
What is your general impression of the Intelligent Design theory?
It is incorrect to call ID a theory in the scientific sense of the word. A scientific theory has to meet the criteria of the scientific method in order to be evaluated by the scientific community. ID does not, hence ID is a hypothesis and not a theory.
My general impression of the ID hypothesis is that it fails to explain natural phenomena or processes, it fails to provide ways for such phenomena to be repeated, it fails to aid in the advancement of mankind. It's like saying demons cause illness therefore we should do away with modern medicine.
See this for a more patient explanation:
www.blogcatalog.com/group/religious-debate/discuss/entry/an-inconvenient-ex... -
absolutely NO religion should be taught at school the only church that have to taught by student is : Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster -
i believe in agnostic design because my problem is there's proof of everything:
intelligent design: marilyn vos savant
intelligent no design: stephen hawking
no intelligence all design: paula abdul
no intelligence no design: tonsils-
lol
-
-
Should we then teach "stork theory" in sex Ed classes in public schools too? Or as an elective?
-
My folks used to tell me that I was a baboon they caught in the mountains. Apparently they shaved me and cut off my tail. When I asked them why I couldn't remember any of this, they said because I was just a dumb baboon so obviously I wouldn't be able to remember.
That's fast tracking Darwinism a little.
-
-
Some things improve with age. Threads on BC seem to be an exception to that rule.
(Going on 8 months with this one.)-
Whoa! Impressive.
-
-
Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught in Public Schools ?
No.
Should religious beliefs regarding creationism be taught in Public Schools ?
No.
Should Evolution theories be taught and/or allowed to be taught as being factual ?
They aren't they are taught as theories. And yes, they should be taught as theories in public schools.
What is your general impression of the Intelligent Design theory ?
Nice idea, but steeped in religion, it cannot be verified, falsified, proven, disproven nor can it escape religion. It cannot be tested, observed, or measured.
Ergo, it should be taught in Sunday school, catechism, at home or in Church, not in science class, as it has nothing to do with science.
Would we teach literature in algebra class?
Oh crap, I just realized I posted to a very old thread. Shame on me! I got fooled -
Good comments Anok. Oh, are we not allowed to post to old threads?
-
Sure you can. Some of us just consider it bad form, but BC seems to like (or at least tolerate) the resurrection of these things. Maybe it gets them indexed on Google again and makes them get more hits and ad revenue.
-
Well, since FP resurrected it once more....
Thanks Morgan - I think I have my final argument about this down from the religion group LOL!
I just didn't mean to bring back an old thread because often times, well, sometimes it's best to leave sleeping threads lie. But since people seem to want to discuss it....*ahem*
-
-
oops!
-
dang I got caught too, sorry, ooooooooooold threat oops thread.
-
@jafabrit
Not to worry, someone will be along shortly to
(1) reassure you that these threads belong to the community and
(2) inform you that there is no rule against resurrecting dead threads and necro-posting to them.
Here's the link to the 8 pages of previous posts on the same topic www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/search.php?q=intelligent design
Here's the link to the current group discussion of this same topic www.blogcatalog.com/group/religious-debate/discuss/entry/just-a-reminder-to... -
Further evidence supporting the hypothesis there is not an intelligent design to the universe and its inhabitants...
-
-
touche!-
LOL -
Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught in Public Schools ?
Q: Should religious beliefs regarding creationism be taught in Public Schools ?
A: I do not believe that religion should be taught in schools.
Q: Should Evolution theories be taught and/or allowed to be taught as being factual ?
A: Yes. The theories are based on factual scientific observations of natural selection and adaptation that have stood the test of time.
Q: What is your general impression of the Intelligent Design theory ?
A: IMO it's a creation myth like many other creation myths.
I still don't understand why gerry chose to pull a dozen of TheBigRuskie's threads out of the forum searchbox and activate them immediately after one of TheBigRuskie's threads was locked by TonyB. Drowseymmonkey and TonyB both asked him why he did this but he did not answer them.
Here's the thread that was locked by TonyB www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/its-not-about-me
Here's the thread that was immediately posted after that decision was made that contains the why did you do this questions that drowseymonkey and TonyB asked and that gerry never answered www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/should-mods-leave-a-message-on-locked-thr...
And here's another thread where gerry refused to answer why he has set up this mind boggling patterned behavior www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/who-makes-your-blogroll#comment_454738
On one hand, as gerry has refused to answer the questions put to him then we are all left wondering if there was an intelligent and logical reason for him to do so.
On the other hand, we are left to wonder if his behavior simply buttresses the notion that these threads ought to be auto-closed after a period of time where no posts have been made to them. -
@timethief
Thank-you for your clear concise answers to the posted questions...
The Planet Earth Peace Party is conducting research in the area of education and are looking for 1000 respondents to answer these questions...
Unfortunately this discussion which has been running for months on blogcatalog has yielded very few answers to those questions and most of our usable data is coming from other sources and sample...Nonetheless this discussion continues to generate some very interesting and insightful comments...
re:
"I still don't understand why gerry chose to pull a dozen of TheBigRuskie's threads out of the forum searchbox and activate them immediately after one of TheBigRuskie's threads was locked by TonyB. Drowseymmonkey and TonyB both asked him why he did this but he did not answer them.
Here's the thread that was locked by TonyB www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/its-not-about-me
Here's the thread that was immediately posted after that decision was made that contains the why did you do this questions that drowseymonkey and TonyB asked and that gerry never answered www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/should-mods-leave-a-message-on-locked-thr...
And here's another thread where gerry refused to answer why he has set up this mind boggling patterned behavior www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/who-makes-your-blogroll#comment_454738
On one hand, as gerry has refused to answer the questions put to him then we are all left wondering if there was an intelligent and logical reason for him to do so.
On the other hand, we are left to wonder if his behavior simply buttresses the notion that these threads ought to be auto-closed after a period of time where no posts have been made to them."
I find it somewhat bizzare to be questioned "why" I commented in a polite,respectful and non-inflammatory mannerin 10 non-locked discussions that I was interested in...
I really do not understand the question...I was under the impression bc members are allowed to participate in the discussion forums...Am I missing something here ? -
The edit system was not working at time the above comment was posted...
"I find it somewhat bizzare to be questioned "why" I commented in a polite,respectful and non-inflammatory mannerin 10 non-locked discussions that I was interested in..."
should have read...
I find it somewhat bizzare to be questioned "why" I commented in a polite,respectful and non-inflammatory manner in 10 non-locked discussions that I was interested in... -
@timetheif...
"Ha! ha! ha! I didn't expect a reasonable or logical answer from you gerry nor did I assume you had what takes to formulate a convincing one after the fact. And I sure wasn't wrong was I?"
Thanks for you kind words unfortunately I do not recall answering your so-called question...
"I still don't understand why gerry chose to pull a dozen of TheBigRuskie's threads out of the forum searchbox and activate them immediately after one of TheBigRuskie's threads was locked by TonyB. Drowseymmonkey and TonyB both asked him why he did this but he did not answer them."
As I stated earlier I merely participated in some non-locked discussions...If any of those comments I made in those discussion offended any member please accept my sincerest apologies...
"Immediately after TheBigRuskie's thread was locked by TonyB and TheBigRuskie posted a new thread to the forum about Moderator's locking threads, "
This is "factually" incorrect...The discussion you refer to was first posted 26 days ago...
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/should-mods-leave-a-message-on-locked-thr...
The locking of the locked TheBigRuskie discussion took place 4 days ago...
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/its-not-about-me
"your story is that you had ... a bizarre politeness attack that prompted you to pull 10 of TheBigRuskie's threads out of the forum searchbox and post to all of them ..."
I again cannot recall telling you any stories let alone typing those exact words...
Irregardless I believe further discussion of this compelling Cold War drama regarding the discussions of TheBigRuskie and my perverse behaviour in replying to non-locked discussions should take place in another thread or discontinued as it has no relevance to this discussion thread...
Some suggestions you may consider for topics...
1)Is Commenting on 10 TheBigRuski Discussions Pervasive Behaviour ?
wait...better yet...I will initiate the above discussion...
please place any reply to this comment in the below thread...
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-commenting-in-10-thebigruski-discussio...
Thanks again timethief for your kind words and your concern for the integrity of the blogcatalog discussions.... -
@kat822 For pity sake you can see that I was laughing and joking when I typed my remark above. Also you were warned to stay away from me first and then following that I was asked to avoid you, which I have done, gladly. Lastly, I find it hilarious that you think you can control who visits your blog because you can't.
Also now that you have posted to another thread that "it's all good" I'm glad to hear that you feel that way because I wasn't nasty I just made a joke. www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-commenting-in-10-thebigruski-discussio... -
ha! ha! ha! ... you're so funny ... *ROTFLMAO*
-
re:
please place any reply to this comment in the below thread...
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-commenting-in-10-thebigruski-discussio...
This discussion has been removed by the community and no longer exists...
-
-
I guess the bigger question is this...
Do you consider science a religion.
If so, then no - they should not teach Evolution.
If you believe science is a religion, then no science classes should be taught in school.
But, if you believe science to be true and factual, then yes - you should teach the evolution theory.
As far as intelligent design goes...
IDK - kind of a tough nut to crack.
I would think that the Intelligent Design theory is a hybrid theory of science and religion.
The question is - is the Intelligent Design theory provable, beyond a shadow of a doubt?
If so, then yes - you should teach it.
But as far as I know, no one has yet to prove it. -
that gerry I love his gumption
-
Why can't they teach it all and give the children all information to learn from objectively rather than suppressing knowledge and calling it education?
-
I would somewhat agree with you...
-
Why can't they teach it in the science classroom? Because ID hasn't been proven to be science since it does not adhere to the scientific method, and is thus Pseudoscience. If we allowed that, we would also have to teach all other Pseudosciences as well such as Stork Theory.
-
Scientific theories are taught that can not be proven.
-
The Big Stork Theory...
4.4 billion years ago a Big Stork carried our solar system here in a Big Bag... -
They banned that theory in my school... they were afraid that the kids would try to jump out the school windows thinking that they had evolved into storks and could therefore fly!!
-
pamelabaker said, "scientific theories are taught that can not be proven."
Scientific theories are put under the scrutiny of the "scientific method." ID does not adhere to the scientific method and therefore it is not science.
Not to mention - www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/intelligent-design#comment_453295 -
The theories that science teaches can proven up until a certain point - observable, falsifiable scientific facts that are provable. The end result, the big answer, that's what has yet to be proven. And if it was proven, it would move from theory, to law.
ID doesn't even pass as a theory yet. It has not made it out of the baby stages of scientific research yet, because it relies on the supernatural to uphold the entire theory.
To answer your original question, they can't teach it as science because it's not science. it's religion. Religion isn't taught in public schools because there is a separation of church and state.
If you want kids to have all the theories regardless of validity, then send them to religious schools. -
pamelabaker said, "They banned that theory in my school... they were afraid that the kids would try to jump out the school windows thinking that they had evolved into storks and could therefore fly!!"
Yea, because Stork Theory is not science either. It falls in with ID. Thank you. -
Since the Stork theory falls into the joke category, I suppose you have a point Travis.
-
And we can't forget alchemy, that should be taught in chemistry class. and Phlogiston theory in physics class, and stork theory in sex education, because not everyone thinks stork theory is a joke. We have to give it all to them rather than suppressing knowledge and calling it education, right?
Stork Theory - www.geocities.com/calann@sbcglobal.net/Stork.html
-
-
@pamela And once again - ID does not qualify as a scientific theory.
-
One definition
"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation."
It also must be falsifiable.
A good but simple description of what a scientific theory is wilstar.com/theories.htm-
How does the theory of evolution meet the above criteria ?
How does the really really big Big Bang theory meet the above criteria ?
-
-
Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught in Public Schools ?
It is not a scientific theory so the answer is NO
Should religious beliefs regarding creationism be taught in Public Schools ?
As part of a comparative religion class OK. Probably for senior or advanced students
Should Evolution theories be taught and/or allowed to be taught as being factual ?
As a broadly accepted scientific theory, it would be considered in lay terms factual so YES
What is your general impression of the Intelligent Design theory ?
A poorly fabricated attempt to counter the theory of evolution.-
Thank-you for your answers to those questions...
At what age do think children should be taught theses type of subjects in school ?
-
-
As a religious fellow and a scientifically educated guy I've never understood why humans work so hard to bring God down to our level. We (hopefully) all agree that DNA is a reality. That the Universe, by all possible measures in 10 to 20 billion years old. That creatures (most of them in fact) have come and gone on an earth that is roughly 4.5 billion years old. That radiometric data shows the universe to be expanding. Etc. Etc.
But we have a whole bunch of yaahoos who insist that there has to be a "Powwee" moment when God stuck his finger into the mix and stirred.
How about this. And yes, it's just my opinion, but then again no scientist can go back any further, so my wild-ass guess is as good as theirs. About 15 billion years ago, God said "Let there be light." And a universe exploded upon the scene; complete with an entire set of physics and operational instructions.
We were "created" by this system. If God is ALL (repeat) ALL Powerful, he didn't need some conjurers trick 5,000 or 100,000 or 1 million years ago to create anything. It was set up in the beginning.
Oh. And if the earth really is only 8,000 years old or so, then God made it look like it is 4.5 billion years old and he made it look like natural selection is the operational organic development system.
Being all powerful, he could get away with it and I'd never catch him out. But my God isn't Zeus or Loki or Coyote. He doesn't play tricks on me. He has no reason to do so. That would be the pettiness of a God made in Man's image. So I will simply take his handiwork at face value.
"We stand in the galaxy-sized footprint of God. And we argue his existence because we can't find the marks of the crutches we've assigned him." - Me.-
Love the quote
"We stand in the galaxy-sized footprint of God. And we argue his existence because we can't find the marks of the crutches we've assigned him." - Me. -
What I fail to understand as well is why Intelligent Design is framed by some as being a religious explanation...Or conversely how the probability that there is an intelligent design to the universe and life forms in it somehow proves that a bible is the word of the creator...
If you look objectively at a mosquito,an ant, a tree, the sun etc. etc. how can one deny that it is not possible that there is an intelligent design to the universe and its inhabitants...
-
-
How does the theory of evolution meet the above criteria ?
Evolution has met the requirements in a large number of studies.
Recent results from this study are supportive and interesting.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
A recent summary of current study results
www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-... -
What I fail to understand is why people want intelligent design taught in science class.
A scientific theory needs to be verifiable by observation. It needs to make predictions about repeating the observation. It needs to explain natural phenomena. It needs to be falsifiable, in other words you need conditions which would make your theory false.
Intelligent design fails on all accounts. It is not a scientific theory. Nobody said it's not possible for intelligent design to be true, but the same argument holds for the flying spaghetti monster. Similarly, you can't test for the flying spaghetti monster, so it's not a scientific explanation for anything, really. -
I think evolution should NOT be taught in schools as factual, but merely theory. I don't think they should leave out teaching about religion and creationism and God just because some parents have issues with it. Leaving out a topic to teach a child because of that only teaches them that that topic is 'wrong' or bad and they shouldn't know about, thus leaving more people ignorant. Every topic should be brought up for discussion in schools.-
Then where is the seperation of church and state?
-
Of course, there are hundreds of creation stories out there. Even the bible has two. Which ones should be taught? And how much time should be removed from oh...reading, riting, and rithmatic to teach them? A comparative religion class might be nice, but given the declining SAT scores, certain items might be best left to the home or churches.
-
The bible has two?
*Scratches head -
Yep. There are two actual descriptions of creation in Genesis. Biblical scholars believe that genesis was assembled from two or more sources. I believe (as I recall it) that one is Babylonian based and another is an unnamed Jewish Priest or Priests. Fascinating stuff actually.
-
So I'm curious...
What are those two version? -
Yes, Don is correct. Let me do a quick search, I can't remember the verses off the top of my head.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. I could be wrong tho...but I think that's it. You can google it and get more info.
edit: just found a wikipedia link, who knew? LOL
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis -
www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/bible3do.htm
Has a pretty good coverage of it, although this particular websight takes a little too much glee (in a gotcha' sort of way) for me. -
@Don, I know what you mean ... I prefer it without 'attitude' Luckily there's lots of great Biblical scholarly writings out there that don't have that tone
-
Interesting
-
-
Should the Intelligent Design theory be taught in Public Schools ?
No.
Should religious beliefs regarding creationism be taught in Public Schools ?
Same thing, same answer.
Should Evolution theories be taught and/or allowed to be taught as being factual ?
Evolutionary biology is an applied science, of course it's factual. It works.
What is your general impression of the Intelligent Design theory ?
It's a classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam -- if we can't explain every little detail, then the only explanation must be magic. ID/creationsism does absolutely nothing to prove its own claims. All people who argue these positions do is argue against evolution.
even if they were able to conclusively prove evolution was false, it wouldn't mean that creationism automatically becomes true. There's a real lack of rational thought on that side of the argument.-
Thank-you Wisco for your answers to the discussion questions...
Putting aside the mysteries of creation and evolution does not really address the mysteries of creation either in my opinion...
Do you honestly not think there is not an intelligent design to yourself and the the life forms you are surrounded by ? (saying you think there could be an intelligent design in life forms is simply that...It does not mean the scientific evidence and studies of evolution are wrong nor does Intelligent design explain the mysteries of creation or offer proof to bible creation myths..) -
I think as we delve more in to Quantum based sciences, we will be able to see more clearly where the Intelligent Design theory fits in and it will be more widely accepted.
Until then, it is being perceived as a religious / scientific hybrid with no “real” scientific foundation, which renders it incapable of any complete hypothetical fruition (which would deem an acceptable scientific theory). People are unable to grasp, accept, acknowledge that Intelligent Design is possible.
I’m sure the religious undertones rob this theory of any “real” acceptance in the scientific community (and that is where we run in to a lot of the problems with this theory - that a consciences could determine the out come of evolution and that a scientific theory could be anything other than calculable, predictable, undeniable results).
Thus, in conclusion…until Quantum science breaks the mold for everything traditionally scientific, the ID theory will never be accepted. -
Do you honestly not think there is not an intelligent design to yourself and the the life forms you are surrounded by ?
Absolutely. When you consider the fact that the vast, vast majority of species have gone extinct, it kind of kills the whole "intelligent designer" thing -- how intelligent can this designer be when nearly all of their designs fail? -
Maybe those species were designed to die or go extinct in due time.
-
@Wisco
"Absolutely. When you consider the fact that the vast, vast majority of species have gone extinct, it kind of kills the whole "intelligent designer" thing -- how intelligent can this designer be when nearly all of their designs fail?"
Ummm..."nearly all of their designs"?
I hardly think that "all" intelligent designs fail.
Only a select few, whom...when eradicated by human life, pulverized by asteroids, or who fall to the wayside through the evolutionary process, go extinct.
I would assume that anything created with Intelligent Design has the full and utter intention of remaining in use.
Intelligent Design is not specifically deity driven. It also represents you and me. An “evil” person has the capability, just as a “good” person, to Intelligently Design a plan of their own making. The ID Theory takes in to account our own consciousness, as well as the collective consciousness of the whole.
Regardless, evolution still takes place.
The ID theory does not take the Evolution Theory completely out of context and rob it of it‘s obvious influence in the world of science. It still reserves the whole and complete process of trial and error.
Not to mention Darwanism - Survival of the fittest - and all that. -
Note -
The point I was getting at was this.
When the Intelligent Design theory is taken in to account, everything created was successful. It is when something, stronger, smarter, or more efficient is introduced - that is when these designs go extinct.
Everything created was successful! -
@Dukepro25
Ummm..."nearly all of their designs"?
Yes, I think 99.9% qualifies as "nearly all."
www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs/extinction/mass.php
I hardly think that "all" intelligent designs fail.
No. Just nearly all.
Only a select few, whom...when eradicated by human life, pulverized by asteroids, or who fall to the wayside through the evolutionary process, go extinct.
99.9% is an odd definition of "select few."
I would assume that anything created with Intelligent Design has the full and utter intention of remaining in use.
So would I. See, that's the whole problem. These designs have a bad habit of sucking,
Intelligent Design is not specifically deity driven. It also represents you and me. An “evil” person has the capability, just as a “good” person, to Intelligently Design a plan of their own making. The ID Theory takes in to account our own consciousness, as well as the collective consciousness of the whole.
That's not a "theory." At best it's a hypothesis. Put more honestly, it's a philosophy.
Regardless, evolution still takes place.
Yup. Which is why it's a fact that needs to be taught in school. ID isn't anything near a fact. If it absolutely must be taught, save it for social studies, not science. It's not science.
The ID theory does not take the Evolution Theory completely out of context and rob it of it‘s obvious influence in the world of science. It still reserves the whole and complete process of trial and error.
And this makes it factual how? Again, it doesn't even qualify as a theory.
Not to mention Darwanism - Survival of the fittest - and all that.
Darwin never said that. -
@wisco
To say that a mass extinction factually occured 65 million years ago based on a few fossils uncovered seems almost like a religious ranting...
I was taught in Sunday School the reason dinosaurs became extinct was because Noah did not have enough room on his ark for them...
I also find it surprising and interesting that very few if any religions make mention of the existence of dinosaurs in their bibles...Perhaps man was not present during the age of dinosaurs...
I would argue that the fossils of extinct species exhibit an intelligent design...
Acknowledging there was intelligent design to dinosaurs is just that and it is nothing else...It does not give us any understanding why the design was created or the identity of the intelligence that designed/created it... -
To say that a mass extinction factually occured 65 million years ago based on a few fossils uncovered seems almost like a religious ranting...
Why? Besides, there wasn't only one extinction in Earth's history, there have been many. "Mass extinction" doesn't count for all extinctions -- in fact, most are just out-competed.
I was taught in Sunday School the reason dinosaurs became extinct was because Noah did not have enough room on his ark for them...
And where is that in the Bible, exactly?
I also find it surprising and interesting that very few if any religions make mention of the existence of dinosaurs in their bibles...Perhaps man was not present during the age of dinosaurs...
Perhaps? I have to ask, are you serious?
I would argue that the fossils of extinct species exhibit an intelligent design...
Except for that whole "failure of the design" thing.
Acknowledging there was intelligent design to dinosaurs is just that and it is nothing else...It does not give us any understanding why the design was created or the identity of the intelligence that designed/created it...
In other words, no way to prove it, no avenues for discovery. As scientific theories go, this one seems pretty worthless. Even if it were true, you couldn't do anything with the knowledge.
Besides, there is zero evidence other than what people want to see. If you look at evolution impartially and unprejudiced, you see that it's obvious. ID wouldn't answer anything in the end. In explaining where the species come from, you just put the question back a bit. The next obvious question would be "where did the designer come from?" and you're right back to square one -- you've managed to explain nothing.
Really, ID and creationism are just wishful thinking dressed up in a phony lab coat. There's nothing there, because the entire line of reasoning isn't logical. -
@Wisco
"because the entire line of reasoning isn't logical."
It is quite the opposite...
If you and I were walking through a garbage dump and we saw a computer,fridge,television etc. you would have to agree there was an intelligent design to those items...You would not say those items evolved out of nothing because of a big bang 50 gazillion years ago...
Where logic leaves your view and position is that if a mosquito bit you or if a bird flew over us you would say there is no intelligent design to the mosquito and bird even though the are far more complex inventions that can reproduce biologically...
I agree with you 100 per cent however that we have to be careful about what and how we teach in schools...
There does not even seem to be any concensus on what Intelligent Design is or isn't... -
If you and I were walking through a garbage dump and we saw a computer,fridge,television etc. you would have to agree there was an intelligent design to those items...You would not say those items evolved out of nothing because of a big bang 50 gazillion years ago...
See, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. People start thinking until they reach the conclusion they want to reach, then they stop thinking. Evolution is a process of selection -- a facet of that process is sexual selection. Last time I checked, appliances didn't reproduce sexually. Neither do they mutate. The comparison is ludicrous.
Where logic leaves your view and position is that if a mosquito bit you or if a bird flew over us you would say there is no intelligent design to the mosquito and bird even though the are far more complex inventions that can reproduce biologically...
Another fine example. Just because we can't "build" a mosquito doesn't mean it takes magic to do it. I can't build a house, but I don't consider a carpenter to be a sorcerer or a deity.
I agree with you 100 per cent however that we have to be careful about what and how we teach in schools...
There does not even seem to be any concensus on what Intelligent Design is or isn't...
How about we sort that little problem out before we start teaching kids that the universe is just a big magic trick? -
@Wisco
Yawn!
You have failed to make a solid, intellectual point/statement. You are just arguing. You are leaning on the Evolution Theory (like a crutch) with little or no thought of your own and while simply assuming that all other ideas are false and/or inclusive. I have to wonder - do you really even know what you're talking about? None of your rantings are intelligent in any form, you are just throwing our words back at us.
In your case I would have to agree with you. There is no Intelligent Design in Wisco.
Is this what you call an intellectual conversation? Because so far, you have not managed to convince me otherwise.
- - - - -
"Evolution is a process of selection -- a facet of that process is sexual selection. Last time I checked, appliances didn't reproduce sexually. "
So, computers, electronics, automobiles, mechanics play no role in evolution? Why don't you tell that to the dead raccoon on the side of the road.
You can not deny that there was intelligent design in everything the human race has created. These things did not one day appear out of no where. Have you even been a part of the design process? I would have to guess no.
Since you are so big on proof, then go ahead!
Prove that there is no Intelligent Design. Prove that the universe is purely mechanical. Prove that life evolved from a puddle of mud. Prove that Intelligent Design has NO place in our current existence and that life as we know it (NOW - this very minute) was purely the luck of the draw, purely mechanical, and that no consciousness (human or otherwise) has affected our current existence.
Come on - go ahead! I’m waiting.
Scientists have yet to understand why molecules even stay together. In all reasoning, there should not be a universe. So how did the universe start? Atoms and molecules just started colliding and this existence you call a life is just an accident. Please!
You simply assume that if it can not be proven it, it has no "Truth". That is a lazy attitude. It is simply an assumption. Have you tried to prove and/or disprove the ID theory yourself? I don’t think so. Just because no one could prove that the world was round, didn’t mean it wasn’t true. And just because people couldn’t prove the sun was the center of our solar system, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. -
Yawn!
Smugness noted.
You have failed to make a solid, intellectual point/statement. You are just arguing. You are leaning on the Evolution Theory (like a crutch) with little or no thought of your own and while simply assuming that all other ideas are false and/or inclusive. I have to wonder - do you really even know what you're talking about? None of your rantings are intelligent in any form, you are just throwing our words back at us.
I'm sorry, is answering your arguments point by point too complicated for you? I suppose I could resort to empty-headed knee-jerk insults, rather than engage in debate. That seems to be your strategy here.
In your case I would have to agree with you. There is no Intelligent Design in Wisco.
Case in point.
Is this what you call an intellectual conversation? Because so far, you have not managed to convince me otherwise.
Oh dear, I've failed to convince you that the Earth is round? Must be flat then, huh? Before you begin attacking my logic, it might be a good idea to find out what logic actually is.
So, computers, electronics, automobiles, mechanics play no role in evolution? Why don't you tell that to the dead raccoon on the side of the road.
Are you actually trying to seem stupid? The example I was answering was of machines having an intelligent design. I never said that our tools didn't have a place in evolution. Why don't you try answering the arguments I've actually made?
Since you are so big on proof, then go ahead!
Prove that there is no Intelligent Design. Prove that the universe is purely mechanical. Prove that life evolved from a puddle of mud. Prove that Intelligent Design has NO place in our current existence and that life as we know it (NOW - this very minute) was purely the luck of the draw, purely mechanical, and that no consciousness (human or otherwise) has affected our current existence.
Come on - go ahead! I’m waiting.
I'm not the one saying that over a century of proven, applied science is wrong. You are. I bear no burden of proof, you do. That's the way this "empiricism" thing works.
Scientists have yet to understand why molecules even stay together. In all reasoning, there should not be a universe. So how did the universe start? Atoms and molecules just started colliding and this existence you call a life is just an accident. Please!
Pretty much none of that is true. Why do you think you can fool me into thinking you know what you're talking about? The force holding atoms and molecules together is the strong nuclear force. Contrary to what you say, this is not a big mystery.
We also know there are hydrocarbons on other planets. Hydrocarbons are organic chemicals -- it's not a huge step between organic chemical and simple life. Again, not really a big mystery.
You simply assume that if it can not be proven it, it has no "Truth".
That's pretty much the size of it, yeah. There are undiscovered truths, sure. But you're never going to find them if you dick around wasting time disproving screwball hypothesis some religious nut comes up with. If the burden of proof weren't on the claimant, we'd never have even figured out math. The process of elimination doesn't work when the possibilities are limitless. By your version of reasoning, we'd have to prove that 1+1 wasn't 3, then 4, then, 5, then 6, on and on and on into infinity.
That's no way to learn anything.
That is a lazy attitude. It is simply an assumption. Have you tried to prove and/or disprove the ID theory yourself? I don’t think so. Just because no one could prove that the world was round, didn’t mean it wasn’t true. And just because people couldn’t prove the sun was the center of our solar system, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
See above. I don't have to prove it, you do. That's how science works.
Get crackin', buddy. -
I rest my case!
"There are no atheists in foxholes."
Cummings, William T. -
@Wisco
One last question...
Where did all the matter, elements, atoms, molecules from the Big Bang come from?
Did they just magically appear out of thin nothingness?
Just wondering.
If you can scientifically prove where all those elements came from, then you have my attention.
Until then, stop spouting off scientific rhetoric you don't even understand properly. -
-
Where did all the matter, elements, atoms, molecules from the Big Bang come from?
Did they just magically appear out of thin nothingness?
Terms like "come from" and "appear" suggest time -- i.e., one thing happens, then another, then another. These terms are useless in describing the Big Bang, since time began at that point. There was no "before" to it, only after.
Besides, you can accept a deity that's as old as time, but a universe that began with time is ridiculous? I'm sorry, but that's pretty inconsistent reasoning.
Another inconsistency us that I have to explain how everything began, but you think saying "Goddidit" answers everything. It doesn't. If I have to explain where the universe came from, you have to explain where your designer came from. Did he just "just magically appear out of thin nothingness?"
The fact is that I have a better explanation than you do -- mostly because your explanation explains almost nothing. -
Dukepro25 said, "There are no atheists in foxholes."
For one, that is an ad hominem fallacy.
Second, Any "faith" and a belief in God which exists merely as a reaction to the fear and danger in situations like war isn't a genuine religious faith, it's just a temporary religious or motivation prop to make it thought.
Thirdly, it's simply not true.
"My great-grandfather returned from the Somme in the winter of 1916. He was an officer in a Welsh Guards regiment. He had been gassed and shot and had seen his platoon numerically wiped out and replaced more than three times since he first took command of it. He had used his side arm, a Webley revolver, so much that its barrel was pitted into uselessness. I heard a story about one of his advances across no-man's-land in which he set out with a full company and by the time he arrived at the German wire was one of only two men left alive.
Until that time, this branch of my family had been Calvinistic Methodists. . . But when he returned from the war, my great-grandfather had seen enough to change his mind. He gathered the family together and banned religion in his house. 'Either god is a bastard,' he said, 'or god isn't there at all." - Paul Watkins
"I suffered through horrifying moments, expecting to be killed. I was convinced that no cosmic rescuer would same me. Besides, I believed life after death was merely wishful thinking. There were times when I expected to suffer a painful, agonizing death. My frustration and anger at being caught in a dilemma of life-and-death situations simply infuriated me. Hearing the sound of bullets whistling through the air and popping near my ears was damned scary. Fortunately, I was never physically wounded." - Philip Paulson
-
-
@Dukepro25
Intelligent design is not a theory just a probability...
If you look, closely at a fridge, a car, a computer etc. you would have to agree there was an intelligent design to those items...
Now when you look at lifeforms that can reproduce and are more complex than the above mentioned items why can you not recognize the intelligent design in life forms that can reproduce...-
I think where people are having a hard time is at the molecular and sub-atomic levels.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the ID theory goes so far as to say that the universe was formed through a one, singular (or collective) consciousness.
I could be wrong though.
It is much more than a probability or we wouldn't be having this discussion. If it were simply a probability, then why are people throwing a fit? The reason people are flipping out is because this "theory" could replace the traditional Evolution theory - an explainable, provable (by and through all accepted scientific “facts”, methods, and likelihoods), yet hypothetical (which would make it a theory) assumption. -
Good question.Though the argument seems to be that ID is based on the supernatural which can not be proven. The supernatural has never been proven false.
-
The only thing supernatural about it is the fact that there is a universal consciousness that is holding together and directing the actions of the universe - which has yet to be proven.
Anything scientific must have a probably, provable (within the laws of accepted science) likelihood of happening. Anything that can not be measured through scientific means, is not consider factual, thus…has no role in the outcome of physical reality.
That is where the ID theory hits head-on with the Evolution theory.
That is also where quantum mechanics comes in. Quantum mechanics states that there must be an observer in order for reality to become reality. That there are endless probabilities in the universe and my observing the current reality, it brings all of the probabilities in to one physical reality. And so…if this is true, there must have been some type of observer (or consciousness) for the universe to even form it’s most basic and fundamental building blocks.
-
-
... and so does our assumptions and hypotheses.
I simply doubt the idea of universal consciousness...
-
And so...the problem!
It's not provable, so why teach it? -
Other things not provable are taught, it would seem that there is a double standard for this
-
In school?
Like what?
-
-
If both ID and evolution are theories why can they not both be taught as the fact that they are two schools of thought that exist based on different ideas which both can not currently be proven?
-
Simply because the ID theory has religious, supernatural undertones that can not be proven by traditional science.
That is where we get in to the "separation of church and state". -
Because one is a scientific theory based on the "scientific method" and the other is not. Therefore, ID is not science and should not be taught in the science classroom.
-
-
Which is a phrase used to the opposite of its design.
-
lol
-
-
Intelligent Design should only be taught as religion, not as science because it is a self-defeating "theory" (to be kind I'm calling it a theory).
If there is intelligent design behind all things complex - then the argument has to be continued so there must also be intelligent design behind the ones who create, meaning somebody would have had to create the "god(s)" Thus the theory falls easily.
It becomes a "Could God create a stone so large he couldn't lift it" type argument. If he can't create it - he isn't almighty. If he can't lift it - he isn't almighty.
So no way could it ever be considered science.
It should be taught in religon-class - it is important that kids learn the different religions and how they are the same and how they are different.
Because there are different religons and nobody have been able to state why one surpasses the others in credibility either. It is a matter of faith - not science.
Evolution at least has basis in scientific methodology and theory and should be taught as such.
"Religion must stay 500 yards away from science at all times"-
"Religion must stay 500 yards away from science at all times"
I find that phrase somewhat ironic as religions cannot harm or influence science but science is a perceived threat to many religions when actually science is a potential friend of religion that could help make the world a better place... -
I second that.
-
I find that phrase somewhat ironic as religions cannot harm or influence science
Religion or religious beliefs used to enforce personal/subjective opinions upon others (fundamentalism, creeping into legislation etc), are actually what I would perceive as one of the largest threats to the advancements of our societies. And there amongst scientific advancement.
Religious opinions often find themselves wanting to do "battle" with scientific theories on an equal validity but without wanting to play by the equal rules. -
So...you're an Atheist?
Just wondering. -
I guess more essentially, the ID theory is a hybrid of science and religion, so it's going to get enemies on both sides regardless.
People can't accept a merging of science and religion in any form - yet.
The real question is, can this “Theory” survive both sides and come out in the end looking good? -
@Svelmoe
"Religion or religious beliefs used to enforce personal/subjective opinions upon others (fundamentalism, creeping into legislation etc), are actually what I would perceive as one of the largest threats to the advancements of our societies. And there amongst scientific advancement."
You make a good point as oviously religion does and can influence the funding of scientific projects etc...
However religion cannot harm or influence the principles of science used to conduct science.. -
True
Religion can in no way impede on set scientific facts and/or beliefs.
Until religious elements can be proven on a scientific level, they have no effect on established science.
I guess that's why people are making such a big deal out the ID theory.
People from both camps, traditional religions and traditional sciences have invested so much in these beliefs and are worried that the ID theory will replace traditional beliefs.
When you think about the degree to which these camps are entrenched in modern society…
Research, books, doctorates, Bishops, Pastors, Rabbis, etc.
Billions of dollars are flowing through these established belief systems.
As soon as the ID theory is accepted world wide, the money and resources will dramatically decrease and these establishments will lose their grip on modern society. -
ID is not a theory. It is a belief. There is nothing scientific about ID at all. It is not a mixture of faith and science - it is 100% faith.
It is 100% faith, because it breaks by setting up parameters it can't function by itself and which have to be accepted only due to, and via, faith.
The fact that everything complex, except "God", has to be created is a paradox - not a theory.
ID is pure based faith attempted to be masked as science to be allowed to indoctrinate youth in schools because "traditionalist" creationism no long could do the job. To educate them in the "One True Faith" - despite there being many "One True Faiths" around (many with their form of creation-myths).
Keep faith in churches and personal life, or in a religion class - but not in a science class. -
Svelmoe,
Amen.
All irony intended. -
@Svelmoe
"There is nothing scientific about ID at all. It is not a mixture of faith and science - it is 100% faith."
That's just ignorant.
Of course it has a scientific basis. -
Of course it has a scientific basis.
Then why aren't you sharing that scientific basis? Is it some sort of secret or something? -
No, it's not scientifically based. It does not adhere to the "scientific method". It is religious based as we can see from - www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/intelligent-design#comment_453295
-
So...the ID theory has absolutely no scientific basis what so ever? It is simply fantasy? Just because it doesn't adhere to the definition of a "true" scientific theory does not mean it doesn't have a scientific basis.
Why don’t you guys try researching the very thing you’re debating? You guys don’t even understand the basis of the ID theory, so what are you trying to disprove? You would shoot off your own foot if it showed signs of intelligent design. -
It has no scientific basis.
It has a religous basis. It is founded in the root that there must be a creator (God) of man. Then who created God in this "scientific theory" - if all things must be created, God must to. It is a "theory" conceived to try and convince people about the "one true God", now that traditional creationism is no longer so hot. Except all most all religions have creation myths. Ancient Greeks had theirs as well. Those myths aren't science either.
It is faith. It isn't science. It is at most "pseudo-science" attempted to mask it as more appropiate for a science class.
It doesn't adhere to scientific scrutiny or methodology and unless you can offer scientific evidence then I might as well say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is known to be pink because of "scientific basis" (pink is scientifically pink - just the faith part of it being pink, and invisible, and a unicorn which isn't explained).
Calling something science doesn't make it science.
Call me ignorant if you wish, but that doesn't change the issue one bit.
Education about religion and the various ideas of various religions belong in a religion class, not in science class. -
Just because it doesn't adhere to the definition of a "true" scientific theory does not mean it doesn't have a scientific basis.
Yes, it does actually. Read up on the scientific method and realise that you can't even scrutinise ID under those terms. Those are the terms that determine scientific basis. If you can't meet those terms, your theory does not have scientific basis. -
Just because it doesn't adhere to the definition of a "true" scientific theory does not mean it doesn't have a scientific basis.
Dude, that's exactly it means. Without any empirical evidence, it's not a theory, it's a wild guess. We don't teach wild guesses to kids in school -- they have absolutely zero value.
-
-
I am looking for the day when science proves ID....
-
confirmation bias.
What if it dispoved it. Wouldn't you look foward to that? Wouldn't you look forward to what ever the truth is no matter what it is? -
Absolutely...would you?
-
But that is not what you said, you specifically said you are "looking for the day when science proves ID."
You didn't say, "I am looking forward to the day when science proves or disproves ID." -
And you did not answer the question.
-
So you agree. Very good!
To answer your question now, Yes, I look forward to knowing the truth. -
Even if it is not the truth as you expect it?
-
What? If I expected something was true, and it turned out not to be true, then it wasn't the truth to begin with even if I believed it was true before finding out it wasn't.
As I said, I look forward to knowing the truth. And yes, even if it is not what I expect. Those can the best truths to learn because it corrects a previously misheld belief. You become enlightened. When what you expect to be true is proved to be true, you don't learn anything new, it only confirms what you already believed to be true.
-
-
I am intelligently design..don't you think? -
Yes...
-
no, at least I couldn't tell by the grammar mistake.
-
Only if you've had work done.
-
-
what are you the grammar police morgantj lol
-
no, I simply answered the persons question and explained why I took the stance I did.
-
I like to think she was being sarcastic.
If not - how ironic. lol
-
-
This is a complicated subject, to say the least.
Evolution is a science...it can be proven through archeology and anthropology. Only now we've reached a phase of de-evolution. as technology gets better, we use less and less of our brains.
intelligent design is a faith-based theory. and as every person of faith believes something different, depending on what faith you believe in(labels, always labels,) it is an opinion.
while we're allowed opinions in life (at least we should be)opinions of ONE group in power should not be allowed in school (I could be wrong, but I believe that's fascism.)
faith should be taught at home...science in school.
live and let live.-
Evolution can also be demonstrated in the lab
www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-... -
Great link werelax.
I found this one on the same site:
www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconcept...
It tries to explain why evolution is a fact and that ID is not a scientific alternative. It is indexed, with each topic enjoying nearly a full page of text. Sorry, ID fans, not that many pictures. -
@werelax
Evolution can also be demonstrated in the lab
www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-...
What possible extrapolations or conclusions from this ridiculous limited irrelevant data could anyone using the principles of science actually make ? -
gerry asked. "What possible extrapolations or conclusions from this ridiculous limited irrelevant data could anyone using the principles of science actually make?"
It tells you right in the article. -
Gerry, read that link again. Also follow my link. What they did was prove that evolution is not that random. The same features developed under the same conditions, but only after a certain amount of time, and after that time it boomed.
Despite being statistically highly unlikely, after an amount of time, the cesspool of bacteria started evolving rapidly. In directed ways. And it was done more than once. An experiment that can be replicated.. scientific method wins again.
Now replicate intelligent design in the lab? -
What possible extrapolations or conclusions from this ridiculous limited irrelevant data could anyone using the principles of science actually make ?
Those are the principles of science. It's not irrelevant, it's a demonstration of the mechanism of evolution in action. In other words, it's proof -- as if anyone needed more. -
@flamingpoodle
I am not going to read that link again...After a gazillion observations and a gazillion generations it was still bacteria...not a dinosaur, mammal, insect,plant,marine life form etc.
Perhaps lighting off some 4th of July firecrackers making a big bang would evolve the bacteria into a watermelon....
"Now replicate intelligent design in the lab?"
The building housing the lab does not appear to have evolved from nothing and is probably an intelligent design...
The lab equipment shows evidence that it did not evolve from nothing and is intelligently designed...
The humans,insects, rodents etc. in the lab are far more sophisticated inventions than the lab equipment and building as they can reproduce and apparently evolve...More than likely these lifeforms were intelligently designed and at the very least science compells us to allow that it is possible that the lifeforms such as humans were intelligently designed...Of course science compells us to allow that it is possible that lifeforms such as humans were not the result of an intelligent design... -
@Wisco
re:Those are the principles of science. It's not irrelevant, it's a demonstration of the mechanism of evolution in action. In other words, it's proof -- as if anyone needed more."
If that is all the proof you require perhaps I could interest you into purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge or some swampland.... -
gerryPlanetEarth said, "I am not going to read that link again..."
It's settled then, you have decided to be willfully ignorant on said matters.
gerryPlanetEarth said, "The lab equipment shows evidence that it did not evolve from nothing and is intelligently designed...
Negative. That is simply a lie. Science labs do not indicate intelligent design. If you want to start with the argument of "how something came from nothing" then you need to explain how the intelligent designer came from nothing. -
@morgantj
"Science labs do not indicate intelligent design."
I beg to differ.
How do you explain the Observer Effect and the Double Slit Experiment? If you're not familiar with the Double Slit Experiment, I'll refresh your memory. It proves that by simply observing an experiment (which in this case is the Double Slit Experiment), you can alter the outcome of the experiment. In the case of the Double Slit Experiment, the very act of looking or observing caused the electrons being shot through a slit screen (which presented a wave pattern on the other side) to behave like particles (thus leaving a particle type pattern on the other side). The very act of consciously observing the experiment changed the outcome.
How do you explain that? -
@morgantj
The only matter that is settled is that both you and flamingpoodle agree that I am willfully ignorant...
I am not sure how to categorize your position that buildings and lab equipment etc. do not show evidence of an intelligence design...
Actually as we speak I am looking for some bacteria that will hopefully evolve into the larger house my family desires... -
lol
Good one Gerry.
BTW: I read that wrong.
"Science labs do not indicate intelligent design."
I thought you were talking about experiments in science labs, not the labs themselves. But even then, it still stands. How do you explain the observer effect? I would love an explanation Morgantj and/or Wisco. -
gerryPlanetEarth,
I am not going to read that link again...After a gazillion observations and a gazillion generations it was still bacteria...not a dinosaur, mammal, insect,plant,marine life form etc.
Golly, and that sure is weird, seeing how the fossil record shows a miraculous leap from bacteria to freakin' dinosaur in one generation.
Geez, why don't you read Darwin before you criticize him. That'd really help you avoid these embarrassing, ignorance-based mistakes.
darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html
Evolution isn't a sudden, abrupt change from a freakin' bacteria to a banker. It's a slow change over generations. Ironically, in your defense of magic as a scientific theory, you expect magic from actual, real-world science.
Perhaps lighting off some 4th of July firecrackers making a big bang would evolve the bacteria into a watermelon....
Do you honestly not know the difference between the Big Bang and evolution?
"Now replicate intelligent design in the lab?"
The building housing the lab does not appear to have evolved from nothing and is probably an intelligent design...
The lab equipment shows evidence that it did not evolve from nothing and is intelligently designed...
The humans,insects, rodents etc. in the lab are far more sophisticated inventions than the lab equipment and building as they can reproduce and apparently evolve...More than likely these lifeforms were intelligently designed and at the very least science compells us to allow that it is possible that the lifeforms such as humans were intelligently designed...Of course science compells us to allow that it is possible that lifeforms such as humans were not the result of an intelligent design...
I've already shot this argument down. It's a ridiculous comparison. Buildings and lab equipment don't reproduce or mutate. You seem stuck on this distinction -- things that aren't alive aren't comparable to things that are. It should be pretty obvious. -
And the Heisenberg uncertainty principle indicates intelligent design... how?
-
Dukepro25,
What does the Observer Effect or the Double Slit Experiment have to do with ID? Is the argument that, just because they're weird, there must be some God behind it?
Because that's an incredible leap of logic. -
Dukepro25 asked, "How do you explain the Observer Effect and the Double Slit Experiment?"
How does that suggest intelligent design? -
"How does that suggest intelligent design?"
The fact that by observing an experiment, it changes the outcome. How is it possible that a conscious being can alter the outcome of a scientific experiment. In a “perfect” scientific world, shouldn't the outcome be definite? Makes you think twice about all you "tried and true" methods.
Quantum mechanics goes hand in hand with Intelligent Design. It backs up and scientifically explains many of the "fanciful" facets of the ID theory you guys are throwing a fit over.
When talking about Intelligent Design, it doesn't necessarily designate the "Designer" as just God. Some believe it to be a collective consciousness in which we are all a part. One might say that “God is in us“, or “We are in God“. You don't have to admit you believe the ID theory, but you have to admit that there is Intelligent Design in human creations.
To deny the fact that there is intelligence in human creations is just plain ignorance.
Like I’ve said before, just because you can’t prove it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there, affecting the world around us. -
The fact that by observing an experiment, it changes the outcome. How is it possible that a conscious being can alter the outcome of a scientific experiment. In a “perfect” scientific world, shouldn't the outcome be definite? Makes you think twice about all you "tried and true" methods.
That's not an answer at all. How does a counter-intuitive fact suggest some godly designer? And, when you ask, "In a 'perfect' scientific world, shouldn't the outcome be definite?" I can only answer the question with a question -- why? Because that's where your preconceptions of what is and isn't "science" lie?
Quantum mechanics goes hand in hand with Intelligent Design. It backs up and scientifically explains many of the "fanciful" facets of the ID theory you guys are throwing a fit over
Declarations aren't facts and they sure aren't arguments. Frankly, it looks to me like your just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. If quantum mechanics backs up ID, it's sure news to just about every physicist on the planet. You're going to have to demonstrate something here.
When talking about Intelligent Design, it doesn't necessarily designate the "Designer" as just God. Some believe it to be a collective consciousness in which we are all a part. One might say that “God is in us“, or “We are in God“. You don't have to admit you believe the ID theory, but you have to admit that there is Intelligent Design in human creations.
And some believe it was UFOs or yeti or leprechauns. Again, you're dealing with philosophy, not science. Wild speculation is basically meaningless.
And, no, I don't believe the farting, fragile, rapidly decaying meatbag I walk around in is "intelligently designed." How many genetic diseases (which in a design could only be described as "flaws") pollute our DNA? How many people have had their "perfectly engineered machine" fail after they did something a simple as choke on a peanut? How many of these wonderful designs are schizophrenic or manic/depressive or autistic or retarded?
Seriously, if I had the ability to make a meat machine, this one never would've left the drawing board.
To deny the fact that there is intelligence in human creations is just plain ignorance.
It also has Jack Bo-Diddly to do with ID.
Like I’ve said before, just because you can’t prove it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there, affecting the world around us.
Just like the mummies who blew up the Hindenburg. Go ahead, prove it wasn't mummies. Bet you can't. Must be true, then. -
*Sigh
The "farting, fragile, rapidly decaying meatbag" still has yet to make a good, solid, intelligent, conclusive point.
You’re just arguing my points.
Oh well.
Expected. -
@Dukepro25
I am fairly certain that we are relatively on the same page regarding this subject...
The truth of the matter is the Mystery of Creation is a paradox because "What is Nothing and how could Something come from Nothing ?
Regarding the so-called Intelligent Design Theory I would say it would be better framed as the "Hypotheses" of Intelligent Design to existing and past life forms etc. -
Dukepro25 said, "Like I’ve said before, just because you can’t prove it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there, affecting the world around us."
Goodness. So just because you can't prove their isn't tiny invisible shoelace fairies that hold your shoelaces together to make sure they don't come untied when you walk or run doesn't mean they are not there. -
*Ugh! Smacks head repeatedly.
Come one guys.
Get serious.
When there is clearly an undiscovered and obvious force in existence (which affects the known world) that you can't prove, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
!!!OBVIOUS FORCE!!!
I’m not talking about fairies and monsters here people. Get with it!
Are you all familiar with Columbus? Up until Columbus sailed around the world, many people believed the world to be flat. And amazingly enough - WOW!!! - it wasn't.
And you're familiar with the common assumption in Galileo's time that the earth was the center of the universe. Yet Galileo amassed enough evidence that would eventually prove the sun was the center of our solar system.
- See Heliocentric Model
Come on people. -
Dukepro said, "When there is clearly an undiscovered and obvious force in existence "
Which is it, it is obvious or undiscovered? I know! It's "obviously undiscovered" and thus there is no reason to reason that there is ID to discover. Not to mention, "clearly there is an undiscovered and obvious force in existence" is a fallacy known as "an appeal to self-evidence" which is used to propose something is true without providing proof.
Dukepro said, "Are you all familiar with Columbus? Up until Columbus sailed around the world, many people believed the world to be flat. And amazingly enough - WOW!!! - it wasn't. "
Great example! Like, up until science fills in the gaps, many people will continue to believe in the god of the gaps.
Dukepro said, "you can't prove, doesn't mean it doesn't exist"
It doesn't mean it does exist either! Yet another fallacy. The "appeal to ignorance." ie. "We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist" Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence. It is fallacious to assume god exist because you don't have evidence that god doesn't exist. -
The "farting, fragile, rapidly decaying meatbag" still has yet to make a good, solid, intelligent, conclusive point.
Insults aren't arguments, fella.
You’re just arguing my points.
That's right, I am. Point by point, argument by argument, I'm shooting you down consistently -- it's known among those familiar with logic and debate as "rebuttal." There's a system of inquiry that you use to arrive at truth and rebuttal is part of it.
And, again, I'm not the one who's declared the Earth is flat, so I don't have to prove anything. That argument's already been made -- over a century ago. The burden of proof is on you and you're not really bearing up to the task very well.
Get crackin' buddy, prove your "designer." -
When there is clearly an undiscovered and obvious force in existence (which affects the known world) that you can't prove, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
!!!OBVIOUS FORCE!!!
If it's so obvious, why are you having such a hard time demonstrating it? What experiment do you propose to demonstrate this obviousness?
It seems to be "obvious" only to you and Gerry -- for everyone else, it's just adding an extra step to a mechanism that's already been explained adequately. -
oops! wrong spot
-
-
The building housing the lab does not appear to have evolved from nothing and is probably an intelligent design...
Yes, but the first human dwellings were straw huts and caves. After that, humans learned to make stone buildings. After that, humans learned how to make their own bricks. After that, humans learned how to make steel reinforced structures with bricks and mortar filling out the gaps. After that, humans learned how to use other building materials and consider insulation, etc.
So in short, the lab you see is not the product of intelligent design in the sense that someone thought it up out of thin air. It is not a sky hook. Buildings as we know it evolved from earlier dwellings, just like life as we know it evolved from simpler lifeforms.
I am not going to read that link again...After a gazillion observations and a gazillion generations it was still bacteria...not a dinosaur, mammal, insect,plant,marine life form etc.
Well, that's your choice. I personally don't like staying ignorant. -
What a shock it is to note that some people look at bacteria and see a divine presence.
-
That's the problem, they have already concluded there is a divine presence. They hold a conclusion, yet do not have sound evidence or premises to support it. They then adhere to confirmation bias (also known as: belief bias, belief preservation, belief overkill, hypothesis locking, polarization effect, positive bias, the Tolstoy syndrome, selective thinking, myside bias, Plate pick-up, Morton's demon, and Murphy's Law of Research) and twist things any way that can to try to make it seem compatible with what they have already concluded.
-
Ok - so we're delusional.
*Rolls eyes
And blindly, unintelligently assuming that current science is 100% perfect and needs no revision isn't biased?
Yesh!
Sorry for making you guys think.
Many scientists were persecuted for their beliefs and considered mentally ill you know.
Keep up your self righteous indignation. -
Indeed I do understand that point. What boggles my mind is why people choose to perpetuate this discussion. In the end, everyone will walk away with the same beliefs and the same mindset they had when the topic was first posted.
But it won't end there because in the future someone will resurrect it, and if the previous pattern holds true, the necro-posting to the enlivened thread will feature the same individuals unsuccessfully attempting to change each others minds, again. -
lol
I'm sure you're 100% right timethief.
What's the use? -
re:"In the end, everyone will walk away with the same beliefs and the same mindset they had when the topic was first posted."
I disagree with you 100 percent...There have been many useful and helpful links posted on this discussion and I have learned alot so far and have a growing library of evolution bookmarks entirely from this discussion... -
Oh good!
I'm glad someone got something out of this discussion! lol
Very good.
Now I can sleep tonight.
All is well with the world. -
Dukepro25 said, "And blindly, unintelligently assuming that current science is 100% perfect and needs no revision isn't biased?"
Oh, the ol argument of, "science doesn't hold all the answers, therefore god exist."
*Rolls eyes*
-
-
And blindly, unintelligently assuming that current science is 100% perfect and needs no revision isn't biased?
Nobody said that. The topic is intelligent design. Scientifically speaking, it is OK to admit there are things you don't know yet, like the origins of DNA, for instance. It is however not a scientific explanation to say we don't know, therefore some kind of mojo must be behind it.
The theory of evolution is constantly being revised and updated, but the broad strokes are still valid and replicable in a lab.-
Exactly flaming, nobody said that except for Duke just now. Quite the opposite is true. Science is always updating its data and has a fantastic quality control system to encourage accurate results. Nobody said science is perfect, and just because science is not perfect, doesn't mean, "therefore god exist." Science is open to critism, that is how it improves it's results.
The ones claiming to have all the answers are the ones saying a god or intelligent designer does exist. They have already concluded an intelligent designer exist! Then they look at everything in relation to their already held conclusion. There is the bias. -
@flamingpoodle
re:"The theory of evolution is constantly being revised and updated, but the broad strokes are still valid and replicable in a lab."
Please forgive my ignorance but I'm still having trouble trying to understand how the evolution of billions of life forms over millions of years could possibly be "replicated" in a lab...
Breeding and monitoring bacteria in a lab as you have alluded to earlier in this discussion is like making conclusions about a beach from a single grain of sand... -
But you don't want to follow the link? All your questions are answered there. They even deal specifically with creationist ignorance. If you want to know the scientific view on these matters, just follow the link:
www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconcept...
That's from new scientist magazine (thanks to werelax for the link). It deals with 24 myths and misconceptions about evolution. Here is a list of the topics covered:
Shared misconceptions:
Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection
Natural selection is the only means of evolution
Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity
Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment
Evolution always promotes the survival of species
It doesn't matter if people do not understand evolution
"Survival of the fittest" justifies "everyone for themselves"
Evolution is limitlessly creative
Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality
Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution
Creationist myths:
Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant
Accepting evolution undermines morality
Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide
Religion and evolution are incompatible
Half a wing is no use to anyone
Evolutionary science is not predictive
Evolution cannot be disproved so is not science
Evolution is just so unlikely to produce complex life forms
Evolution is an entirely random process
Mutations can only destroy information, not create it
Darwin is the ultimate authority on evolution
The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
Yet more creationist misconceptions
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics
Breeding and monitoring bacteria in a lab as you have alluded to earlier in this discussion is like making conclusions about a beach from a single grain of sand...
Yes. Making conclusions about a beach from a single grain of sand is exactly what forensic investigation does. -
Careful with the term Creationism when referring to Intelligent Design. This is only one school of thought. There are many different concepts and beliefs. I would say yes - Creationism is faith based. But Creationism is not Intelligent Design. Creationism simply resides within Intelligent Design as a school of thought, much like a sect in a church. There are many different schools of thought within Intelligent Design. I would say that Creationism is the religious extreme of Intelligent Design, where as there are other ideologies that rely heavily on science and evolution and in no way discredit the thousands of years of acquired scientific knowledge.
Do not just clump them all together. Would you clump Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, and Unitarians just because they are all Christian? No - they all have distinct, very different ideas and thoughts about what it is to be Christian. Would you clump Christians, Jews and Muslims together because they are all Monotheistic? No! That would just be a ridiculous and absurd generalization.
So, with all do respect, do not generalize.
If you’re going to criticize, then know enough to know in which direction you are directing it.
You might want to look in to the more scientific based ideologies within Intelligent Design, you might be surprised.
I’m sure there are a few people in this thread who don’t know the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design and they’ve based their whole arguments upon it. Understandable - But if they are basing their arguments on finding and gathering proof, they should at least research the very thing they are trying to disprove and check it out for themselves instead of blindly assuming.
Let me repeat - certain beliefs within Intelligent Design rely heavily upon established science and in no way discredit evolution. Where as, Creationists have a faith based theology and do look to discredit evolution simply because they rely so heavily upon the Bible. The Bible (as it stands today) and Science (as it stand today in reference to evolution) can not coexist on the same plain of thought.
Not yet any ways. -
Careful with the term Creationism when referring to Intelligent Design. This is only one school of thought. There are many different concepts and beliefs.
Creationism is a type of ID. This is what the court decided. Beliefs.. yes. You nailed it.
Would you clump Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, and Unitarians just because they are all Christian?
As a non-Christian, yes I would. They are all different flavours of Christian, but Christian nonetheless.
If you’re going to criticize, then know enough to know in which direction you are directing it.
I have not read up much on ID because it is simply religious propaganda courtesy of the Discovery Institute.
"A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community."
...
"the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
ID is not science because it can't be tested using the scientific method. On Wikipedia, several concepts of ID are refuted as being based on faulty logic and just plain bad make-believe science (irreducible complexity and specified complexity, to name 2). Note that creationism is also discussed under the Wikipedia entry of ID.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Now, if ID becomes peer reviewed (note: getting peer reviewed is different from getting published by a publishing house that usually publishes peer reviewed material) and respected as a viable, workable, falsifiable scientific theory, and if it becomes the point of agreement among most scientists in the field, then it should be taught in the science class. Until such time, it should remain in bible school, or be taught as an elective. -
flamingpoodle said, "Creationism is a type of ID. This is what the court decided. Beliefs.. yes. You nailed it."
I thought the courts decided that ID was Creationism in disguise. Not the other way around.
And yes, the Discovery Institute exposes IDs real identity. -
I would say yes - Creationism is faith based. But Creationism is not Intelligent Design.
Even if I were to buy that ID wasn't creationism dressed up in a lab coat, I'd still have to call it faith-based. All of your arguments have demonstrated that. There's no evidence for it, no reason to believe it, no discoveries could be made from investigating it, its adherents produce nothing, no one can get it to do anything in the real world -- it's an article of faith. It's not science. It's something you believe because you want to believe it.
-
-
The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Yes, the courts decided ID is a kind of creationism. Thanks.-
from timethief..."Indeed I do understand that point. What boggles my mind is why people choose to perpetuate this discussion. In the end, everyone will walk away with the same beliefs and the same mindset they had when the topic was first posted.
But it won't end there because in the future someone will resurrect it, and if the previous pattern holds true, the necro-posting to the enlivened thread will feature the same individuals unsuccessfully attempting to change each others minds, again"...
lol...ain't that the truth and we have centuries and centuries of warfare and wars to prove it. -
@flamingpoodle
"Yes, the courts decided ID is a kind of creationism. Thanks."
I hardly think any U.S.A court decision is relevant to science...The same U.S.A. legal system found O.J. Simpson and Jacko innocent... -
I hardly think any U.S.A court decision is relevant to science...The same U.S.A. legal system found O.J. Simpson and Jacko innocent...
No, it's not the same legal system. The burden of proof is different in civil trials and criminal trials. Scientific findings are codified in civil trials all the time -- i.e., this chemical is harmful or that medical treatment provides no demonstrable benefit.
Besides, ID is creationism. The only real difference is that one says the creator was Yahweh and the other doesn't name it. Both say that some magical being created the universe. -
I believe the universe was intelligently designed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. -
@Wisco
Yet again, you terribly simplify ID.
Look it up.
You still haven't done adequate due-diligence on your part.
You still don't have a clue about ID.
If you’re going to make a statement, I would have to ask you back in up with proof, quotes, links and statements, because your comments are not even close.
Creationism is a form of ID, ID is not Creationism.
Creationism is a school of though that is categorized under ID.
Why? Because they believe that the creator or designer is the Christian God.
There are plenty of other ideas, theories, speculations, schools of thought on the matter that do not subscribe to the Christian God.
There are schools of thought within ID that believe the designer to be a collective consciousness.
There is also a school of thought that subscribes to the idea that the creator/designer is a singular consciousness, but in no way does it automatically categorize this consciousness to be the God of the Christians.
Like I said before Wisco, stop generalizing. -
Duke did you miss flamingpoodles link?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Here are some more:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Disovery Institute, the main advocacy for intelligent design -
The institute was founded in 1990[12] as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C. S. Lewis.
The Discovery Institute's CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, has reported much of the institute's money comes from such wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives like Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," as well as the MacLellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."
Critics, members of the press and former institute fellows consider the Discovery Institute to be an explicitly conservative Christian organization,[53][54][55][20][56] and point to the institute's own publications and the statements of its members that endorse a religious ideology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People -
I'm not a member of Discovery Institute.
Do I have to be to believe in ID?
And is Discovery Institute the official authority on all things ID? -
What scientific evidence is there that indicates ID rather than Abiogenesis?
EDIT: Also, where do you get your information? Creationism in its purest form dictates that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. -
Concepts
- Irreducible complexity
- Specified complexity
- Fine-tuned universe
- Intelligent designer
- Theistic realism
- Creationism
Some people believe that aliens created the universe. lol
I do not subscribe to this concept. -
dukepro said, "If you’re going to make a statement, I would have to ask you back in up with proof, quotes, links and statements, because your comments are not even close."
We have provided numerous supporting links and sources that support what we have been saying, but you have yet to provide even a single one for anything you have said. Practice what you preach. -
There are plenty of resources out there, but I know that unless it is a "universally accepted" (with in all of the ideologies of ID) you will shoot it down without a second thought.
ID is young and aside for the Discovery Institute who has a more Creationism view on the subject, there aren't many organizations who have come up with a "standard" for the belief, or a "universally expectable consensus".
That's like trying to make Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, and Unitarians to come up with a "universally acceptable agreement". When have all these groups ever decided on one thing unanimously? Never to my knowledge.
And I when I said that, I was talking about Wisco.
Yes - he has provided a few links. I agree.
Even if I provided links, you would say, they aren't creditable.
The reason I said that to Wisco was because he has no problem spouting something out, but then he just assumes it is common practice in science - not bothering to give any “evidence” (which you guys are so big on) to his comments and claims. -
[Even if I provided links, you would say, they aren't creditable.]
Nice excuse. -
It does appear that the longest running thread on BC may be this one.
If so, then IMO it also will win the prize for being the most idiotic one as well.
Perhaps then I can crown myself as an idiot for contributing to it. -
You wouldn't say that huh?
You guys are all about proof and creditability.
I unless you can see it, taste it, and/or test it, it is inconclusive.
Right? Right?
I'm wrong? -
I don't care for the reputation of the website(s) you provide; I care for scientific authenticity.
-
Exactly - so even if I provided you a link, it wouldn't matter.
After all, ID is a "religious belief" with "no scientific basis what so ever", that relies on "100% faith".
That's the conclusion you have all come to - am I wrong? -
[Exactly - so even if I provided you a link, it wouldn't matter.]
If your link was based on pure evidence and not baseless speculation or assumption, then yes it would matter.
[After all, ID is a "religious belief" with "no scientific basis what so ever", that relies on "100% faith".
That's the conclusion you have all come to - am I wrong?]
That's our conclusion based on the evidence gathered SO FAR. (And no, not 100% faith; ID is essentially Evolution+"God did it" instead of Evolution+Abiogenesis). If you have evidence that indicates that ID is science, please provide it. -
And so now we're back to square one.
I feel like I'm goin in circles.
Yeesh!
My head is dizzy. lol -
No, we're not going in circles. I said, "Provide some links IF they have scientific basis." You said we wouldn't listen if you provided said scientific links (implying that we're close-minded), and I say to post them anyway.
Sounds to me like you're bluffing more than anything. -
I'm just talking to a brick wall.
Even if I provided you with good solid points, which I have, over and over again, you wouldn't accept them because…they are not acceptable practices in science.
You are close minded.
You’ve already come to your conclusion, so what’s the point in convincing you any long? -
@Voodoo
I forgot who I was talking to.
- www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/hypothetical-situation
Shame on me.
-
Oh, you've resorted to the troll spray image? How clever.
Either post the links or state that you have no evidence to support your claims. -
How do you kill trolls?
By ignoring them.
No point in convincing an Agnostic that God exists.
What would they do with it even if you did prove it? lol -
You're dodging the issue. Be serious.
Post the evidence, or concede.
EDIT: Also,
[No point in convincing an Agnostic that God exists.]
This isn't about proving that God exists; it's about proving that ID has any scientific basis. -
Concede what?
I've made my points.
They are all documented here.
You want to refute something, then go ahead.
But I will no longer play with a troll. -
IMO the likelihood that he will concede is next to zero. And now he has tossed out the troll label as though it doesn't apply to himself ... weird.
-
Your reliance on the assertion that I'm currently trolling indicates that you have no evidence in favor of the scientific basis of ID. Either confirm or disprove this claim.
-
[And now he has tossed out the troll label as though it doesn't apply to himself ... weird.]
It's a defense mechanism; a vain attempt to disregard the statements made by another poster as just "troll posts." -
"...neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt. 7:6
FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU.
FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME. -
Irrelevant Bible scriptures don't make a solid case for ID.
EDIT:
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU.
FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME.]
I think you're fooling yourself here, bub. -
And now we have "sacred" scripture been tossed about as an insult in bold lettering yet. OOOOOOwww ... we are close to getting this thread deleted.
-
[And now we have "sacred" scripture been tossed about as an insult. OOOOOOwww ... we are so close to getting this thread deleted.]
No, don't delete it. Just close it.
It can serve as evidence that some ID proponents are unwilling to back up their claims. I can just cite this thread next time I make that claim. -
@TimeThief
LOL -
@Voodoo
I've told you - my stance is made very clear.
What more is there to say? -
@voodoo
Agreed that it would be better to see this thread locked than it would be to see it deleted.
@dukepro25
You have no produced no evidence of the existence of ID and your stance appears to be equivalent to trying to stand upright in quicksand. Your choices are either produce empirical evidence supporting ID or to graciously concede the fact that you have none to present. -
[I've told you - my stance is made very clear.
What more is there to say?]
Your stance is just an opinion if you have no facts to back it up with, and baseless opinions are not science. -
Just because I can‘t prove it, doesn‘t mean it‘s false.
Just respect my opinion and move on.
It sounds to me like you're trying to drag this post out as long as you can.
I made that mistake once before and never again.
- www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/hypothetical-situation -
[Just because I can‘t prove it, doesn‘t mean it‘s false.]
Correct, but if you can't prove it, it isn't scientific.
[Just respect my opinion and move on.]
I'll respect your opinion when you admit that you have no factual basis for it and it is nothing MORE than opinion.
Edit to add:
[It sounds to me like you're trying to drag this post out as long as you can.]
What ever floats your boat, Duke. -
*Sigh
Factual basis on what exactly?
Like I've said before, ID (most schools of thought) follows science very strictly.
There are many things I could prove to you.
But the proof you're looking for is, proof of a divine being.
How do you suppose I prove that?
*He talks to me. Wooooo...
Ok - not enough proof for you? lol
J/K BTW
But there are many things in science you can't prove either.
Does that mean they are non-existent?
Explain the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th dimensions.
Do you have proof for them?
No
Does that mean they don't exist?
No
*Sigh
An impossible round about with you.
Expected I’m sure.
- Don't get mad because I'm not playing your game. -
What do multiple dimensions (for which there is no significant evidence) have to do with proving that there exists a purely scientific basis for the so-called "SCIENTIFIC" theory of Intelligent Design? (Furthermore, I believe string theory is a load of shit, but I'm waiting for more data to be collected before I make a judgment on that.)
If you can't prove it scientifically, it isn't science. That's my point. -
[Like I've said before, ID (most schools of thought) follows science very strictly.]
Provide a source for this please. That would be great, thanks. -
@dukepro25
"Like I've said before, ID (most schools of thought) follows science very strictly. There are many things I could prove to you."
So what's stopping you? Please provide your source(s). -
Sorry, but I have to interject
@Voodoo: How do you prove something scientifically. With physical observable data. Intelligent Design can be re-inforced and proven when and if we create artificial life ourselves. For instance, an advance artificial intelligence that is alive. If we can prove an advance form of AI in the future is alive then we have just supported the idea of Intelligent Design. Just because it hasn't been proven yet doesnt mean we cant prove it in the future.
So when you say "but if you can't prove it, it isn't scientific." Is just plain incorrect. There are plenty of things we dont have the means to prove but that doesnt mean they are not scientific because we dont know everything that occurs as a natural phenomenon. It implies a certain arrogance in saying it isn't scientific because that implies you know everything that ocurrs as a result of nature. And we dont. -
thefly: Yes, you COULD prove that ID is POSSIBLE. However, that doesn't prove that ID ever happened in the past.
-
No, but now there is a scientific base for that argument and that contradicts your previous statement as it not being scientific.
buzz buzz -
@Voodoo
"thefly: Yes, you COULD prove that ID is POSSIBLE. However, that doesn't prove that ID ever happened in the past."
So even if we did prove it, it wouldn't matter to you.
You would just say - it never happened.
So, what are we arguing about?
@thefly
Don't waste your breath Fly. -
Oh duke, Im not trying to prove anything. Im trying to show them the holes in their arguments. Its easier that way.
-
thefly: You are talking about any possible form of intelligently manufactured life. I'm talking about Intelligent Design as the theory of how WE came to be here. Arguing over semantics.
Duke: Please stop being immature. -
*sigh* still no sources.
-
Immature
LOL!!!
Ok - will do! -
[*sigh* still no sources.]
I'm beginning to doubt that there ever were any sources. Timethief even said "please," and nothing.
In fact:
PLEASE POST YOUR SOURCES. -
Yes, thats what Im saying. If we can intelligently design life then there is a scientific possibility we were intelligently designed as well. Who the designer is, is an entirely different question all together.
-
MOVED BELOW
-
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1cKD93W3yg
Christopher Hitchens - The Absurdity of Religious Belief
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj_uv3tgrXM&feature=related
Richard Dawkins Interview 2-11 On The Importance Of Science
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqySxBGxgaE&feature=related
Q&A w/ Dawkins: "We Found 3,000 Year Old Dinosaur Fossils!"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ob6PxBQuTM&feature=related
Richard Dawkins Reads Hate Mail (HILARIOUS)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHIwUJHAT7A&feature=related
Richard Dawkins Public Lecture (2008) - Part 1of 10
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAbK0s45Pkk&feature=related-
Haha Dawkins reading Hate Mail.
-
I just cracked up when I listened to the hate mail from hypocrites sent to Dawkins. The cursing, the continuous use of the "f" word and the name calling is so adolescent it's almost beyond belief.
What happened to: Love your neighbors/enemies, even as you love yourself? -
Apparently "Thou shalt not kill" is negotiable.
-
*LMAO*
-
-
Intelligent Design is Bullshit, Part 1: The Pseudoscience
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h30C0mONkM&feature=related
Intelligent Design is Bullshit Part 2 John Doesn't Love Mary
www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrQhx3dhgk&feature=related-
oops
-
-
(I hate scrolling.)
[@dukepro25
"Like I've said before, ID (most schools of thought) follows science very strictly. There are many things I could prove to you."
So what's stopping you? Please provide your source(s).]
Please continue the discussion here, from this point. Thank you.-
I'm going to start posting responses here because I hate scrolling. Please do the same.
-
[If we can intelligently design life then there is a scientific possibility we were intelligently designed as well. Who the designer is, is an entirely different question all together.]
Yes, but so far the evidence points to Abiogenesis and Natural Selection, not Intelligent Design. If there was any empirical evidence of Intelligent Design, scientists would take it more seriously.
Probability without evidence is just speculation, and not a "scientific probability."
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis -
Voodoo -
"thefly: Yes, you COULD prove that ID is POSSIBLE. However, that doesn't prove that ID ever happened in the past."
Duke -
"So even if we did prove it, it wouldn't matter to you.
You would just say - it never happened.
So, what are we arguing about?" -
You have to ACTUALLY prove it happened, Duke. And even if you could, you then have to account for how the Designer came to be.
-
What's the point in proving it?
You're obviously biased.
Or just playing the devil’s advocate for the fun of it.
You’ve done that before. -
[What's the point in proving it?
You're obviously biased.
Or just playing the devil’s advocate for the fun of it.
You’ve done that before.]
The only bias I have is against unconfirmed assertions. POST YOUR SOURCES. PLEASE! If you have sources, WHY HAVEN'T YOU POSTED THEM YET? -
You never bothered to adequately explain how the Universe appeared out of nothing either.
Where’s your proof Voodoo?
No proof?
Oh - I guess it never happened!
Then how in the heck do you explain were all the matter in the universe came from?
Out of thin air?
Where’s your proof? -
[You never bothered to adequately explain how the Universe appeared out of nothing either.
Where’s your proof Voodoo?]
We have nothing more than a hypothesis, and I never claimed anything more than a hypothesis. Ever. -
No misdirection. First provide your sources Duke.
-
-
Im posting down here now.
Im not saying Intelligent Design is how we became or even that it is the most likely, Im just saying it is a scientific theory. Keyword there is "scientific" You were saying it wasnt. And Im saying it is. And you have proven my point. "Yes, you COULD prove that ID is POSSIBLE." If its possible to prove then it is scientific. Just realize that. Peace out.-
No, ID is not a scientific theory because it doesn't adhere to the "scientific method."
-
@thefly
We've been through this one already.
Don't get sucked it. -
A scientific theory explains facts, not the lack of evidence. Unless you have evidence that ID has happened, then you cannot prove that ID has happened. Saying it could happen in the future is undisputed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science -
Exactly ... sheesh ...
"Like I've said before, ID (most schools of thought) follows science very strictly. There are many things I could prove to you."
Simply alleging ID "follows science very strictly" without providing us access to your sources is a strange position to take. Please provide your source(s) so we can examine them and enter a discussion about them. -
Well, if you want to say its not scientific then your argument is that it isnt a natural phenomenon, because that is what the scientific method is. A way to reproduce events in nature to explain certain events. But if we prove that we can intelligently design life then will there be a new subcategory to explain that. Will it not be science? ID does imply that it isnt a natural phenomenon and I will agree with you there.
-
We're arguing over semantics again.
ID, in the broadest terms that life CAN be designed, is scientific. ID in the terms that life WAS designed, however, has no scientific basis.
-
-
True, damn semantics. But, and this is a question, if we can intelligently design life then it wouldnt be a natural phenomenon which is what science studies. Events in the physical world acting naturally. Then what would that say about life. Is life not science anymore?
-
Keep in mind that Intelligent Design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
The assertion (theory, in the vernacular but not technically) says nothing about our possibility to create life. And saying that these features are "best explained by an intelligent cause" is a greater claim than the features are "best explained by natural causes," so in a scientific setting, ID has the burden of proof.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design -
And because ID has the burden of proof, you don't have to prove a darn thing.
Right? -
[And because ID has the burden of proof, you don't have to prove a darn thing.
Right?]
Not quite. I mentioned the burden of proof because the conversation was leading up to the inevitable, "Why should ID defend its claims first?"
Evolution (accepted theory) and Abiogenesis (subject of great scientific study at the moment) are both backed by evidence. -
Sources please duke, come on. You asked for sources, we gave. You have not.
-
Abiogensis says it happened naturally. And life as we know it happens naturally. What Im asking is, if we artificially create life then is it science because it wouldnt have happened naturally?
And I know what ID is. -
If we create life, then the evidence that, "Humans created life in a laboratory" would exist, but that wouldn't explain how life was previously created. And since that's what ID makes claims about, that ID would still be unscientific.
-
Im not asking about ID Voodoo. Im asking what science would say about life if artificially created in an unnatural way.
-
[if we artificially create life then is it science because it wouldnt have happened naturally?]
This "artificial life" still wouldn't have been created "supernaturally" though. It would still be natural in that we simply harnessed nature to create life. -
I know, thefly. I'm trying to not give Duke any words to twist around.
-
@morgan: so you are saying that a designer of life is possible and that it could be science. And Im not arguing about ID here, Im just saying that if there is evidence that a designer of life can exist then maybe there was a designer. Not a supernatural one, but just that there was one.
But then you are also claiming that human nature is science because we are harnessing nature to sustain life and create life which then implies that our ideals and opinions stemmed from these lives are science. And if that is science then religion is science. Because of course, we are just harnessing nature to create everything anyway, even opinions.
-
*Yawn
We've been over this already.
Face it thefly - they won't give you an inch.-
[We've been over this already.]
I still don't see a source. Please, for whatever reason you can use to justify it, provide your sources. -
Yea, some sources would be great duke.
-
I repeat -
Voodoo -
"thefly: Yes, you COULD prove that ID is POSSIBLE. However, that doesn't prove that ID ever happened in the past."
Duke -
"So even if we did prove it, it wouldn't matter to you.
You would just say - it never happened.
So, what are we arguing about?"
- - -
So what's the point? -
The point is that you claimed to have sources and, despite my BEGGING, you haven't provided any.
Also, don't twist my words. I meant ID as in "Humans creating life in the future" as being possible. It's still baseless. -
If I didn't have any sources I wouldn't argue about it too duke. So why are you here if you don't have a point nor sources?
-
Freak guys - look it up yourselves!
Are you handicapped or something?
You can’t do your own dang research?
Ok...here's a freakin source, are you happy?
You'll probably attack it like a pack of rabid dogs.
Freak!
You are a bunch of trolls.
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Then you'll say - "Well...it's from Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't reliable. It‘s not creditable."
Whatever!
Just accept it - you guys are biased.
There's no convincing you.
You'll find something against ID.
And this thread will go on and on until the end of time. -
[Freak guys - look it up yourselves!]
You're the one making the claim, you should bring your own evidence.
[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design]
I've read that page thoroughly, and it provides no evidence in favor of ID over Abiogenesis.
Based on your actions, I have concluded the following possible explanations (listed from most likely to least likely):
1. You have no evidence, and your claim to have evidence was a bluff. You don't want to admit this, so you keep dodging it.
2. You have no evidence, and you're stalling while you try to look for it.
3. You have no evidence, and just outright refuse to admit you're wrong.
4. You are just trying to troll because I convinced you with my previous trolling performance.
5. You are incapable of rational thought. (Note where this one ended on the list.) -
Don't act like a big baby. If you ask for sources, then you should be able to provide some of your own too. Need a Kleenex?
-
Don't accuse me of trolling.
Who's the one that publicly admits trolling?
That would be you.
Proof?
I have proof.
- www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/hypothetical-situation
Don't ever accuse me of trolling.
@Morgan
Baby?
Ha - real mature. -
@dukepro25
Hurling insults about makes it appear that you have loss self control. Twisting words about past activities likewise does not look good on you. Voodoo is not trolling and you know that so please stop making false allegations. -
lol
Ok!
Will do TimeThief.
-
-
-
[Don't ever accuse me of trolling.]
Just because I've trolled in the past doesn't mean I'm trolling now. BAM! Critical hit with the sledge-hammer of fallacy.
-
-
I think Dukepro25 needs some time off to cool down. He's not being very rational at the moment. Two hour recess? If hypothesis #2 is correct, you'll be given time to search and collect evidence with a cool head. If #2 is incorrect, you'll at least have the opportunity to calm down.
-
lol
Whatever Voodoo.
Just because I have proof that you troll doesn't make me the bad guy.
After all - you're all about PROOF!!!
Now the burden of proof is on you. lol -
[Just because I have proof that you troll doesn't make me the bad guy.
After all - you're all about PROOF!!!]
That's irrelevant. Besides, "I do troll" is different than, "I am trolling."
Also, I listed that as #4 (SECOND LEAST likely).
Another thing: "Bad guy?" There are no "good guys" or "bad guys." It's about evidence, facts, and logic. Good and bad are human mental constructs; nothing more.
-
-
My point is stated quite clear and it's obvious this thread is being trolled.
So - I'm out.-
[My point is stated quite clear and it's obvious this thread is being trolled.]
You're absolutely right, this thread is being trolled. The troll is the person who keeps making absurd claims and refuses-- WHEN BEGGED, EVEN-- to back them up with evidence.
Do you accept the two hour recess? If so, start a new thread in 2 hours. I'd like to recommend that this thread be locked. -
Why does it need locked Voodoo?
You're afraid someone will make a logical point and that you won't be able to debunk it? lol -
No; for convenience. Same topic, and we'll pick up where we left off, but without the excess baggage that is the load time of this topic. My computer isn't as new as I wish it was.
-
LOL!!!
You just want to get away from the proof of Trolling!
LOL!!!
ROTFL
Clever Voodoo.
You clever dog you. -
Feel free to post the "proof of trolling" at the start of the old thread, if you feel that it helps your cause. However, I will not be the one to create the thread.
As for the burden of proof of you trolling:
"LOL!!!
You just want to get away from the proof of Trolling!
LOL!!!
ROTFL"
You're obviously not being serious, while I am. -
Ok
-
@dukepro25
"My point is stated quite clear and it's obvious this thread is being trolled.
So - I'm out."
IMO you are the person who has come undone here. You have made false accusations and if I had to label anyone "troll" it wouldn't be voodoo. Look into a mirror and see who I see trolling. -
False accusations?
How so? -
Pardoning my exasperation earlier where I used abundant profanity, I've maintained a constant level of civility and logic. You're sticking to irrationalities, fallacy, and intellectually dishonest (www.johntreed.com/debate.html) debate tactics.
-
@dukepro25
False accusations?
IMO you have accused voodoo of trolling here in this thread by implication and that is simply not true. He's not behaving in the least like a troll.
Moreover 14 minutes ago You said you were leaving and hear you are. www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/intelligent-design#comment_479942 -
Ok - my bad.
He's not trolling.
But there's no proof he isn't trolling, so there is the possiblity he is trolling?
Right? lol -
Without reading my mind, it's impossible to say that there is a 0% chance of me trolling. However, the evidences do not indicate that I am trolling.
-
lol
Ok then.
But there isn't any evidence, there isn't any proof.
Point made!
-
-
Damn, my posts are getting lost in the bombardment of nothing-posts.
morgantj said:
[if we artificially create life then is it science because it wouldnt have happened naturally?]
This "artificial life" still wouldn't have been created "supernaturally" though. It would still be natural in that we simply harnessed nature to create life.
@morgan: so you are saying that a designer of life is possible and that it could be science. And Im not arguing about ID here, Im just saying that if there is evidence that a designer of life can exist then maybe there was a designer. Not a supernatural one, but just that there was one.
But then you are also claiming that human nature is science because we are harnessing nature to sustain life and create life which then implies that our ideals and opinions stemmed from these lives are science. And if that is science then religion is science. Because of course, we are just harnessing nature to create everything anyway, even opinions.-
If you are arguing ONLY a natural designer, then it becomes a question of who/what designed the designer. Without evidence of this ever happening, it becomes a needlessly complex problem. However, if evidence is ever found, it will be eye-opening.
-
@voodoo
You still have yet to prove where the matter from the universe came from.
So - there must not be a universe.
Doo, doo, doo, doo...doo, doo, doo, doo. -
I never said I had an answer, did I? Without me making a claim, your argument falls flat on its face.
-
Well...you keep assuming that unless you can prove it, it must not exist.
So...where's the proof?
Our universe obviously doesn't exist according to your rules. -
well, like I said before, who or what designed the designer is an entirely different question. If there is proof that a designer can exist then I think that is eye-opening enough.
-
No, I said if you can't prove it, it isn't a scientific theory.
We have evidence that allows us to build a hypothesis or two (Cosmic inflation, Big Bounce), but so far the scientists DON'T KNOW. I've been saying that for months now. -
@voodoo
IMO dukepro25 has lost all credibility. Unless or until he produces this "science" he alleges exists I would suggest that we simply choose not to acknowledge his presence. Perhaps that will give him enough time to put himself back together again and locate his sources. -
[If there is proof that a designer can exist then I think that is eye-opening enough.]
But without evidence, it becomes a speculation. COULD there be a god? Certainly. Is there a god? Almost certainly "No," if you ask me. -
So, it is possible there is an Intelligent Creator?
That's what you're saying right? -
There is no evidence for an Intelligent Creator, but you can't disprove a negative.
-
duke, you think you can you stay on topic? Look at the OPers first post at the top of this thread. Thanks.
-
My bad - I was just responding to Voodoo's inquiries.
Sorry I got off track.
My OP -
"I guess the bigger question is this...
Do you consider science a religion.
If so, then no - they should not teach Evolution.
If you believe science is a religion, then no science classes should be taught in school.
But, if you believe science to be true and factual, then yes - you should teach the evolution theory.
As far as intelligent design goes...
IDK - kind of a tough nut to crack.
I would think that the Intelligent Design theory is a hybrid theory of science and religion.
The question is - is the Intelligent Design theory provable, beyond a shadow of a doubt?
If so, then yes - you should teach it.
But as far as I know, no one has yet to prove it."
-
-
I think we are going in circles voodoo. Because right here I can repeat what Ive said in the beginning and we can do this dance all over again but I will have to say that if we continue we will just continue to go into circles. Like rock beats scissors but paper beats rock but scissors beats paper. On and on. This discussion served one purpose. That long threads suck to reload.
-
Yep lol
-
That's why I suggested a second thread.
thefly: I can't prove that there is no Intelligent Designer, but there is no rational reason to assume that there was, nor is there any evidence that directly indicates that the universe and/or life was created by an Intelligent Designer. There is no logical requirement for one; the universe from point 0 onwards can be explained by natural causes, and scientists are working on possible explanations for how point 0 came to be. -
This thread should be renamed the circle dance
-
lol
-
well voodoo, I wasnt saying as of today. I was hypothetically proposing the idea that if one day there was evidence to suggest that a designer could create life then what does that say about life in science.
-
[Answered in other thread.]
-
-
Guys, continue it here:
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/intelligent-design-2
NINE is going to lock this one to save our processors (and the servers) the pointless workload.
Add Your Comment
This discussion has been locked.
