Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest $iLk

What is Intelligent Design?

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

By stating that purpose is irrelevant I am (for the sake of discussion) taking a neutral ground on religion - but focusing on the way things are as being the result of intelligence rather than randomness.

I see two choices, hardly a false dilemna that things either occurred randomly - or things occurred as part of an intelligent being's purpose.

The first can be scientifically proven, in other words with Falsifiable evidence.

The 2nd cannot be falsifiably proven, therefore it is NOT and CAN not be considered scientific.

Just as ID is NOT scientific, and therefore should NOT even be considered teachable in a SCIENCE class.

Any other class is fine with me, but NOT science class, because it is NOT science, and has NO place next to an ACTUAL scientific theory like evolution.


Well until science knows EXACTLY how the universe works and can PROVE without a doubt that it is not by intelligent design, life being created by ID and life being created by a spontaneous reaction of chemicals in a split-pea soup are both THEORIES that as of now can't be proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Matchoo:

Well until science knows EXACTLY how the universe works and can PROVE without a doubt that it is not by intelligent design, life being created by ID and life being created by a spontaneous reaction of chemicals in a split-pea soup are both THEORIES that as of now can't be proven.

Sorry, wrong answer.

ID cannot even be considered a Hypothesis, because it has NEVER been peer reviewed in a scientific journal of ANY sort, as a matter of fact, the founder of ID has NEVER even given a paper for peer review, therefore it cannot be considered scientific in ANY, WAY, Shape, OR FORM...

And as far as your split pea soup crap, that's abiogenesis, NOT evolution.

Please don't stray from the ACTUAL discussion.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

The problem comes from men trying to say that they understand the mind of God. Not only is this foolish and arrogant, it is potentially dangerous. Misrepresentation of God's motives by those with no knowledge whatsoever of them weakens and destroys the faith of many who might otherwise try to understand what faith is all about.


Ah, but isn't that what you are doing by choosing one faith over another? By choosing Christianity over others aren't you claiming to understand the mind of God?

I personally don't see a difference in accepting the existence of God on faith and accepting random creation through chaos. Isn't questioning how the Universe came into being akin to questioning God's motives? Ultimately you have to throw up your hands and accept the question as unanswerable.

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason Religion is so prolific is because we lacked the means to explain so many mundane things for so long it's become entrenched in much of societies psyche.

Curiously I've yet to be struck by lightning because of my lack of faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Ah, but isn't that what you are doing by choosing one faith over another? By choosing Christianity over others aren't you claiming to understand the mind of God?

I personally don't see a difference in accepting the existence of God on faith and accepting random creation through chaos. Isn't questioning how the Universe came into being akin to questioning God's motives? Ultimately you have to throw up your hands and accept the question as unanswerable.

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason Religion is so prolific is because we lacked the means to explain so many mundane things for so long it's become entrenched in much of societies psyche.

Curiously I've yet to be struck by lightning because of my lack of faith.

That's why I am a Deist...LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

That's why I am a Deist...LOL

Aye..

Here's something to consider. God is the Universe. He exists neither within nor without it.

To use the human body as a metaphor, our cells are constantly being created and destroyed, our brain continues to fire it's synapses, we breath and perform uncountable tasks all without consciously doing so. There are forces at work within our bodies that once set in motion at conception, are self controlling and self sufficient. It will continue to function as long as there is sufficient energy to do so, or until said processes breakdown due to age.

The Universe, much like our bodies, does not require conscious intervention to function. It is self controlling and self sufficient without a single controlling force. It is for all intents and purposes, alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Ah, but isn't that what you are doing by choosing one faith over another? By choosing Christianity over others aren't you claiming to understand the mind of God?


In a word, no. I am aligning myself with the religion that I believe God set forth for mankind to follow when He sent His Son to Earth. You'll not catch me extolling the virtues of my religion over another, I can assure you. To use a metaphor, religion is like a car. When you have a destination that you must arrive at, it doesn't matter so much whether you drive a yugo or a vette, so long as you get there.

As far as your assertion that religion is a leftover from primitive man's need to explain the unexplainable, I can only say I disagree. Not much use in arguing about it, I suppose. And I certainly hope no lightning ever DOES find you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Anyhow, religious texts accepted as a viable explanation for all the marvels of our universe just replace one problem by another.


Yes,exactly.

Why are there animals?-Cause God created them.

Why did God create animals?-Cause he has a grand plan.

Why does god have(need?) a grand plan??

...

See,when we start asking questions,we should continue doing so..For some strange reason some people just cut it at one point and never go beyond..

Concerning Big-Bang:I always found the Big-Bang model in which there are infinite number of bangs(since infinity), the most consistent.I just cant see any reason at all for a "beginning of time" concept and I think its contradictory.

I also have an objection to the concept of absolute emptiness,but I'll hold myself(too off-topic )..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, can't ID be disproven by using computer simulations or watching bateria(or some other animal) for a really long time or create life and then watch it (takes a long time, may not be possible and if it is, we're not quite to that technological level). Please Note: The Theory of Evolution only states that complex life can (and did) arise by itself, after the start of life.

Granted, if ID supporters want to actually try and make a theory, they need to work a bit harder.

[ 10-25-2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Aperson ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What seems to have happened to me during the 20th Century is that science has BECOME a religion.

Science has gone down the road of elitism; that is to say, scientists are considered 'impeachable sources' and become very threatened when their collectively held belief system is in any way threatened by something so "silly" as religion. What I find amusing is that when science makes a guess to fill in the gaps, it is called a 'theory'. But when religion fills in those empty spaces for some people, it is called wishful or primitive thinking. Why is science viewed any different in this regard?

As SILK has said, there are MANY instances where science can't prove the theories that we hold practically as law, yet we DO hold them as such. Science can prove that gravity exists and determine its basic rules, but it can NOT in any way explain what MAKES the rules that way. It doesn't have to; it is not really necessary for science to explain WHY the rules for gravity are as they are. Science's worth is figuring out WHAT rules govern our universe, and using that knowledge to better life in said universe.

The biggest myth in my opinion when discussing science and religion is that intellect is somehow inversely proportional to adherence to religious beliefs and principles. From a vast amount of personal experience coupled with an extensive study into the personal lives of several key scientific historical minds has proven quite the contrary.

To briefly cover my background, I studied nuclear engineering and physics as well as electrical engineering in the military for my position as a nuke electrician; I studied to be an engineering labratory technician, was extensively trained in every system on board a Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarine (SSBN), the machine Omni Magazine voted the second most complex man-made machine second only to the space shuttle in 1999, and spent 3 years as a Nuclear Instructor to young Naval recruits before leaving the Navy and entering the industrial electrical engineering field for a local production plant in Memphis.

I am not trying to brag; I wanted to illustrate my familiarity with science and scientific analysis. With what I consider a pretty technical background wholly grounded in science, I still believe that our existence is by intelligent design, and our evolution was part of a plan, and very little of any significance in our universe is random. Any chaos or randomness that exists was expressly created for a reason.

I would never insult someone else for believing differently from myself, and I would hope for the same respect for my personal belief system from anyone who disagreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Science has gone down the road of elitism; that is to say, scientists are considered 'impeachable sources' and become very threatened when their collectively held belief system is in any way threatened by something so "silly" as religion. What I find amusing is that when science makes a guess to fill in the gaps, it is called a 'theory'. But when religion fills in those empty spaces for some people, it is called wishful or primitive thinking. Why is science viewed any different in this regard?

I have a feeling that (as with most things) the elitist scientists are the vocal minority.

If its just a guess it should be called a hypothesis (I think).

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

The biggest myth in my opinion when discussing science and religion is that intellect is somehow inversely proportional to adherence to religious beliefs and principles. From a vast amount of personal experience coupled with an extensive study into the personal lives of several key scientific historical minds has proven quite the contrary.

Meh, the only time that really happens is one a person holds onto a belief even against directly observed effects. Otherwise the other people are being idjits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

What seems to have happened to me during the 20th Century is that science has BECOME a religion.

Science has gone down the road of elitism; that is to say, scientists are considered 'impeachable sources' and become very threatened when their collectively held belief system is in any way threatened by something so "silly" as religion. What I find amusing is that when science makes a guess to fill in the gaps, it is called a 'theory'. But when religion fills in those empty spaces for some people, it is called wishful or primitive thinking. Why is science viewed any different in this regard?

As SILK has said, there are MANY instances where science can't prove the theories that we hold practically as law, yet we DO hold them as such. Science can prove that gravity exists and determine its basic rules, but it can NOT in any way explain what MAKES the rules that way. It doesn't have to; it is not really necessary for science to explain WHY the rules for gravity are as they are. Science's worth is figuring out WHAT rules govern our universe, and using that knowledge to better life in said universe.

The biggest myth in my opinion when discussing science and religion is that intellect is somehow inversely proportional to adherence to religious beliefs and principles. From a vast amount of personal experience coupled with an extensive study into the personal lives of several key scientific historical minds has proven quite the contrary.


Complete and unmitigated BS, Christians and others are having a MAJOR persecution complex going.

Worry about your first amendment rights, god in school, and such REAL important things, instead of going after science that might disagree with your RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Science doesn't CARE what you believe, it has NOTHING to say abut what you believe, it doesn't care if you believe that god created the universe, earth and everything on it, it doesn't care if you believe in the Flying spaghetti monster or whatever.

It doesn't CARE....

Science is limited in it's scope, it is NOT an end all be all of knowledge, and sure as heck does not claim to have the one true answer, as a matter of fact, one of the MAIN tenets of science is that ANY theory, NO matter how proven, can be proven wrong. NOTHING is definite in science, BUT ANY theory MUST be falsifiable, ANY evidence MUST be falsifiable, ANYTHING in used in science, MUST be able to be PROVEN WRONG.

I do get SO tired of the persecutorial BS that religious folks throw onto science.

HINT... Science doesn't give a CRAP about your religious beliefs, and has NOTHING to say about them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jag -

I really am not sure what the HELL you're ranting about... could you please show where I claimed persecution? Hell, if I did think I was being persecuted, I still wouldn't care, since I live in a country where I can pretty much believe and do as I want.

What you seem to fail to comprehend is that I was attempting to debunk the myth that only less intelligent people have need of religion, and that once you become an "intellectual", religion is supposed to become obviously bogus. The thinking goes, once you are smart enough to try to seek scientific causality in a situation you are not "dumb" enough to need religious fulfillment.

Anyway, I'm not sure who pissed in your wheaties, but your beligerence and vehemence is a perfect example of why I normally stay the hell out of religious discussions. I for one am through with this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sorry Prez,

I am having this same debate on another board abd it angers me no end.

IS is NOT science and never can be considered such.

I just tire of people of religious faith attacking or attempting to change science to fit their religious worldview, and that is exactly what ID is.

Again, I apologize for being so terse....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prez,

I understand your point about intellect and religious belief, so just for the record, I for one don't believe the two are related. I know many very intellectual people that are very devout in their faith. As far as I'm concerned there is no correlation and I hope I've never given that impression.

I don't think calling scientists elitists is appropriate however, they have their beliefs just as the religious do. I think we would all agree that no matter what one believes that it shouldn't be force fed to anyone. Personally that's where I draw the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

...I just tire of people of religious faith attacking or attempting to change science to fit their religious worldview, and that is exactly what ID is.

That's understandable, and if science can prove something then great. I'm not going to try to 'change' science so that it fits my religious views, but I'm also not going to let science tell me that even though they don't know why certain things happen, they do know it couldn't possible be due to a supreme being.

Science and religion CAN co-exist peacefully, as long as science is able to recognize that until it can gather enough evidence to prove otherwise, a supreme being MAY still be responsible for some things. On the other side, once science is able gather enough evidence, religion has to be willing to recognize and accept it.

DISCLAIMER: the opinions given above are the views of Matchoo and in no way represent the views of the forum owner, moderators, members, or graemlins. Any copying and distribution of the above text with the expressed written permission of the author is fine with me, although you may receive a if you take it too much out of context...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to get so out of countenance, myself, Jag, but I feel like I'm always on the defensive when discussing this topic, even though I'm trying to discuss it intellectually and objectively.

Bah, I'm probably too senstitive about it to be able to discuss it anyway.

Grizzle, your point about scientists having the beliefs just like the religious is SPOT ON. The difference is that if a scientist doesn't know something, he or she will make it a point to find out what they want to know through study, experimentation, and analysis. If a religious person sees something they can't explain, they might call it a "sacred mystery", refer to their faith, and move on.

I see the value in both myself. In regards to scientifc elitism, I will only refer to Nomad's previous point about elitism.

quote:

Elitism is to be found in every human activity, regardless of the nature of said activity.

Clearly, religion has its elitists as well. Ever been told that if you don't join religion 'x', your doomed to eternity in Hell? I have. Absolute rubbish. Who is man to say what will be the final judgement? I have no time for people like that, and if you think about it, you could probably think of a few religious elitists yourself. Don't judge all religion based soley on them. Conversely, I'll be more clear when referring to scienctific elitism by illustrating that I understand that is not the norm; moreover, as I see it, most of scientific elitists are not the scientists themselves, (though some are, in my view) but those who would use the findings of science to demean another persons faith. (No one here of course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

I didn't mean to get so out of countenance, myself, Jag, but I feel like I'm always on the defensive when discussing this topic, even though I'm trying to discuss it intellectually and objectively.

Bah, I'm probably too senstitive about it to be able to discuss it anyway.

Grizzle, your point about scientists having the beliefs just like the religious is SPOT ON. The difference is that if a scientist doesn't know something, he or she will make it a point to find out what they want to know through study, experimentation, and analysis. If a religious person sees something they can't explain, they might call it a "sacred mystery", refer to their faith, and move on.

I see the value in both myself. In regards to scientifc elitism, I will only refer to Nomad's previous point about elitism.

quote:

Elitism is to be found in every human activity, regardless of the nature of said activity.

Clearly, religion has its elitists as well. Ever been told that if you don't join religion 'x', your doomed to eternity in Hell? I have. Absolute rubbish. Who is man to say what will be the final judgement? I have no time for people like that, and if you think about it, you could probably think of a few religious elitists yourself. Don't judge all religion based soley on them. Conversely, I'll be more clear when referring to scienctific elitism by illustrating that I understand that is not the norm; moreover, as I see it, most of scientific elitists are not the scientists themselves, (though some are, in my view) but those who would use the findings of science to demean another persons faith. (No one here of course.)


And as far as the elitist religious fanatics, oh dude, I am with you.

The other board that I am discussing this on, they have called me, Liberal, Atheist, hellbound, etc, etc, for calling them on the carpet about ID and Creationism, and defending Evolution as a scientific theory.

Dude, THEY CALLED ME A LIBERAL!!!

I mean, geez, sorry, but I was on a short fuse, and nothing angers me more then being called the L word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm with you then, because I believe evolution is a viable scientific theory as well. My theory is that intelligent design AND evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

What if mankind, and indeed all life, were designed to evolve? Just a thought.

As far as liberal and hellbound, I'll go on record and vouche for you ANYWHERE that you are neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Well, I'm with you then, because I believe evolution is a viable scientific theory as well. My theory is that intelligent design AND evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

What if mankind, and indeed all life, were designed to evolve? Just a thought.

As far as liberal and hellbound, I'll go on record and vouche for you ANYWHERE that you are neither.

That's where we disagree, they ARE mutually exclusive, One is science, and one is religion.

As far as designed to evolve, that's my personal belief, but it ain't science.

And good, I can put you on my reference list then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Well, I'm with you then, because I believe evolution is a viable scientific theory as well. My theory is that intelligent design AND evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

What if mankind, and indeed all life, were designed to evolve? Just a thought.

Eh? Most people don't seem to realise that evolution only states how living things became the way they are, not how life started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

Eh? Most people don't seem to realise that evolution only states how living things became the way they are, not how life started.

I wish that wasn't true Asperson, how I wish that weren't true.

Most people do NOT realize that, and of course they realize very little about evolution, except what their preacher lies to them about it,

I have never heard such craziness as I have on some of the evolution threads on other boards..

I have never seen a cat turn into a dog, or a cow have a bird, and other such nonsense, I just sit there staring at my screeen, wondering how people can REALLY be THAT stupid....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all, just popping in and couldnt resist dropping my 2 bits.

I for one am a "Christian". If only because the label was given to people like me since somewhere around ~50 AD by the people of ancient Corinth. (if im not mistaken) I do indeed profess faith in Jesus as my Lord and Savior and have no doubt that God created life on this planet intentionally and with deliberation. "AKA ID"

However I have no buff whatsoever with Science and the basic logic of adding up proven facts to reach a probable conclusion. Logic is indeed on the side of Truth regardless of what anyone ever has to say... because it is reasonable to say that there is an absolute Truth that exists independant of individual belief.

There is only one possible flaw with logic. Let us referr to the definition as per:

www.dictionary.com

Logic: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

Basically the clinch-pin in logic upon which the whole of science stands is the ability to reason. But more the point... Who's ability to reason exactly? It would be foolish to say that my reasoning ability is upon which much of anything stands for I am a mere human the sphere of influence of which is the size of my tiny community. I just havent seen it all and nor will I ever see it all. And somethings I see I dont have the knowledge or even the wisdom to reason it correctly.

So, what I do with my limited reasoning is to invest it in someone who's own reasoning surpasses my own....someone of whom is within my own sphere of reliable deductive reasoning. And the only person who fits the bill is the person who never dies and has been around since the beginning...my Lord Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If religion depends on the teachings and strict guidance of others, how pray tell did religion originate in the first place? I go to church with many young men and women whose parents and spouses are either non-practicing, agnostic, or atheist. People who come from no religious background whatsoever find religion ALL OF THE TIME. The claim that religion is solely a family-centric fabrication like Santa and the tooth fairy is completely bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×