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

What is Intelligent Design?

Recommended Posts

Your challenge is cake. I know of 3 personally. My best friend in the military, born into a religiously devoid family, changed with no prodding from me, unless you count him simply being aware of my faith, which I don't. I NEVER push my faith on anyone else. Your "sociological patterns" do not speak to the individual spiritual experiences that any one of us can have throughout our lives that can potentially cause us to embrace some form of faith.

Take my case for example. My parents were devout Catholics, and I wanted nothing to do with any of it. The more they preached at me, the more anti-religious I became. Well before my 'rebellious years', I decided religion was invented solely to crimp my fun and that I would never shackle myself with something so illogical. Years later, well after I was out of my family's influence, my wife and I, both completely non-practicing and indifferent to faith up to that point, met, fell in love, and almost simultaneously embraced a life of faith, and we were married and now have two great kids. Do I fit into one of your "sociological patterns"? Do you have some socio-scientific model that I so conveniently fit snuggly into and neatly explains my situation in a logical fashion? Wait, don't answer that... you probably do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If a man EVER showed up on an American street claiming he was Jesus, no matter how much proof he had, he would be arrested and sent off to an insanasylum.

If anyone tried to create a religion from whole cloth by claiming they were a messiah, a miracle worker or whatever, he would either be put away where he would not harm others, or murdered.

The ONLY religion that has been started in modern times NOT based on another religion was the Church of scientology, and that was started by L Ron Hubbard on a bet with Robert Heinlein.

A lot of scientologists claim that it's not true, and so did L Ron Hubbard after he realized how much money he was making, but Heinlein payed him his 10 bucks.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad:

No offense, but that is a stupid and senseless litmus test anyway. This thread was supposed to be about the 'theory' of intelligent design, not thinly veiled attempts to label relious people as silly and simple-minded.

Just come out and say it: people of faith are brainwashed illogical beings and can't really be taken seriously. It won't hurt my feelings - I've heard it countless times before. And anything I say can be conveniently dismissed by the 'enlightened intellectuals' such as yourself as being the opinion of someone gullible and irrational.

"Oh yeah, like I'm going to listen to you - you're the guy who believes in the God and the Easter Bunny!"

Really, your predujice is quite plain. But don't worry, I take no offense to it. If I did, I would walk around being constantly offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad:

You misinterpeted on how humans are creative; We're creative at putting a new spin on orignal things.

Prez: Jesh, its like your implying the Easter Bunny dosn't exsit or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I wish EVERYONE would just chill out, and get educated on these 2 FACTS!!

Religion is NOT science, and Science is NOT religion, one has NOTHING to do with the other.

One is a faith based belief system, the other is a tool to explain and help build man's knowledge of the universe.

If your belief system is so based on stuff that Science refutes, then don't worry about it, it has NOTHING to do with your religion.

2nd fact, some of the greatest scientists in the world have been and ARE religious.

MOST, and I say MOST, do NOT let their religious beliefs interfere with their scientific UNDERSTANDINGS.

As long as you can argue science, within a scientific context, and not attempt to fight it with your religious beliefs, we will get along fine, but if you decide that you need to fight science with your religious beliefs, we are going to be at loggerheads BIG time, because Science has NOTHING to say about you religion, and your religion has nothing to do with science.

If science scares your religious belief system, well, it ain't sciences fault, and it's not gonna change because it makes you uncomfortable...

Whoa, sorry, rant mode off, I keep forgetting where I am.... LOL

Long day....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad

- your ENTIRE posts imply simple-mindedness on the part of 'fools' who beleieve in religion. Gullibility, irrationality, etc, etc,. If I was to cite examples, I'd just cut and paste your last 3 posts in their entirety.

Honestly, are you really not just trying to justify why you are not religious? There is no need, I can assure you. I do not judge another man that way; you should know that by now.

You continually put down the religious for their illogical lack of requirements of proof. What you absolutely and steadfastly refuse to see is that people of faith PUT THEIR TRUST in something bigger then they are; something awesome and powerful that causes them to be humble. Trusting in something does not lend itself to meticulously questioning EVERY minute detail. If you are incapable or unwilling to do that, that is your perogative. That science and religion are different IS inheritantly obvious.

Intelligent design, however, is every bit as much as a legitimate theory as utter random chaos. Should it be taught in schools? Probably not. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence to support it, and it cannot be outright disproven, but it is far to controversial and offensive to some people, and school is an institution of learning, not a forum for endless debate.

You love to say "What I find amusing..." and go on to belittle the stance of the religious - you DO realize this is condescending? It has a nasty ring of elitism to it. In other words, you are not willing to consider the 'what or the 'why' of someone else's point of view; it only exists for your derisive amusement. The point is, maybe you are not QUALIFIED to discuss this matter objectively, much like a jury who already has its collective mind made up before entering the courtroom is not qualified to hear a case.

To finish, I think it is almost time to bow out of this conversation as it is going in circles. (I WILL read your answer if you write one, though, so as not to be rude. )

quote:

Prez: Jeesh, its like your implying the Easter Bunny dosn't exsit or something.

Just in case you thought I missed that, Aperson, I didn't. Good one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jag -

Believe me, science does not scare me at all. It fascinates me to no end. I LOVE science. If science contradicts something I believe as a person of faith, well, so what? Neither is perfect, so SOMEONE has to be wrong. The basic tenets of fundamental Christianity are certain to me, and, if anything, my scientific background only solidifies my religious beliefs. Let me reiterate: I believe God is 'perfect'; however, it is clear to me our understanding of Him, and our religions, are not. Religion is a man-made vehicle that is just as fallible as anything else. I DO understand that.

I'm okay with the fact that you don't consider ID to be a valid scientific issue. A lot, maybe even most, scientists agree with you. But there are some that do not, and while I agree that science and religion are completely different, I find ID to be a curious overlap, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've obviously been going to all the wrong funerals Most of the Christian funerals that I have been to were celebrations of a life well spent, and the only sadness we feel is the same as when a close friend moves away to a distant country- we simply miss their company.

I also much prefer unanswered questions to dogmatic deceptions, and am well aware of my limited capacity on many issues. I find the ID/Evolution debate irrelevant to my life, but occassionally interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Intelligent design, however, is every bit as much as a legitimate theory as utter random chaos. Should it be taught in schools? Probably not. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence to support it, and it cannot be outright disproven, but it is far to controversial and offensive to some people, and school is an institution of learning, not a forum for endless debate.


Problem is, supporters of ID have never had a peer-reviewed scientific paper published and until then it is no where close to being considered a "legitimate theory" (unless you feel that its perfectly ok for it to completly bypass the whole scietific procedure that has been set-up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding of the "Fundementalist Movement" (that is, people taking literal interpratations of their holy book and then filtering, or even ignoring, scientific knowledge through that) is mostly concentrated in the U.S. and Middle East, with a lesser effect in Asia and Europe being pretty much immune (I am unaware of the situation in South America, Africa or Canada).

So, hopefully there isn't going to be another dark age and said unaffected region would shorten the length of it if there is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article.

2 points -

1) I don't think being against stem cell research is 'anti-science' - it is more of an objection to a reason to encourage abortion. The stance on the issue by most Americans as far as I can tell is that stem cell research is okay as long as it is limited to existing stem cell lines.

2) I find the pursuit of the legitimization of intelligent design by certain people is more of hope for validation through scientific recognition, thus it is actually embracing science and looking for its approval. Whether it actually possible for science to accept ID has been discussed at length already, but the point is, ID is not so much a fear or a dismissal of science as it is recognition of its importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

1) I don't think being against stem cell research is 'anti-science' - it is more of an objection to a reason to encourage abortion. The stance on the issue by most Americans as far as I can tell is that stem cell research is okay as long as it is limited to existing stem cell lines.

Abortions were dropping and continued dropping after the time that stem cell research was first developed. Also there is very little incentive, except maybe the "you'll help people" agrument, to get an abortion to give stem cells (at least in most western countries as they have laws preventing embryos from being payed for). Finally, most stem cells are received from IVF embryos that would have been thrown out anyways. On the other hand, there are new techniques that do not damage an embryo and pretty much void that argument.

linky

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

2) I find the pursuit of the legitimization of intelligent design by certain people is more of hope for validation through scientific recognition, thus it is actually embracing science and looking for its approval. Whether it actually possible for science to accept ID has been discussed at length already, but the point is, ID is not so much a fear or a dismissal of science as it is recognition of its importance.

It'd be nice if ID supporters were trying to legitimize ID through science, but they arn't. As was already mentioned, they did not get a peer-reviewed paper published and they went straight to the schoolboards. That was a pretty good way to make sure they would have a snowball's chance to try to make their theory legitimite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be that as it may, I think it's a little early to herald the New Dark Ages. There's more to it than that of course, as you didn't quite properly represent the latest movement of ID supporters to be viewed as legitimate, but as I've stated before, I don't really care if it's taught in school or not. My kids are home- schooled, and it's taught in theirs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of any ID supporters that have tried going through proper channels. Unfortunatly for them preveious people have "burned the bridges" so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Be that as it may, I think it's a little early to herald the New Dark Ages.

I wasn't suggesting this would happen anyday soon or that it would happen. It's a possibility. One that scares the hell out of me. There's plenty of historical accounts of scientists ages past that ran afoul of ID/Creationist/Religious acolytes.

It amazes me that in this day and age some still are. Then again there are still cultures out there that believe that you capture their soul when you take their picture. But we know better, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Be that as it may, I think it's a little early to herald the New Dark Ages. There's more to it than that of course, as you didn't quite properly represent the latest movement of ID supporters to be viewed as legitimate, but as I've stated before, I don't really care if it's taught in school or not. My kids are home- schooled, and it's taught in theirs!

I didn't know you homeschooled!!

Welcome to the club!! LOL

I homeschool as well, but ID is NOT taught in our science curriculum..LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

I wasn't suggesting this would happen anyday soon or that it would happen. It's a possibility. One that scares the hell out of me. There's plenty of historical accounts of scientists ages past that ran afoul of ID/Creationist/Religious acolytes.

It amazes me that in this day and age some still are. Then again there are still cultures out there that believe that you capture their soul when you take their picture. But we know better, right?

It scares me as well LIS, if Science is perverted to include god, it is no longer science, it is religion, and who knows that would happen after that.

It scares me too, and that is why I fight ID in science class whenever I see it, ID is NOT science, and therefore should NOT be taught in science class, religious studies, social studies, hey, have a ball, but not in a science class....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry too much about the 'militant religious'. All of them use cell phones, drive cars with 'Onstar' and gps mapping systems, take advantage of the most advanced medical care available, use state of the art PC's, fly in airplanes, etc. The only group who could really rail against science without being hypocritical would be the Menonites and the Ahmish.

The vast majority of religous people happily avail themselves of all of science's great advancements like my family does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something I thought you guys should read. Maybe there is hope for peace between the religious and the scientific yet:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174489,00.html

Excerpt: "A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason. "

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  

×