NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this is going to cause tonnes of flaiming but i need to know some things.

Firstly, im not religious at all. Also i definately do not wan't intelligent design to be taught in schools. However, I just want to know exactly what angers people so much about Intelligent Design. There are so much worst things out there.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy. Say you have the very begginings of life. The most simplist cell still has DNA which has enough information to fill entire volumes of books, apparently all the amino acids and proteins or whatever just floated around and just happened to float perfectly into this combination that causes life. Thats a bit like millions of dust particles floating together to form the Monalisa. So the idea that some sort of intelligence is behind this, isn't that crazy. I do believe in evolution but sometimes that can sound a bit stupid. "Oh we look like gorillas so therefor we are related"(I edited this because so many people were taking it literally). Also there is also something called the missing link, technically we should have found millions of these all over the planet. But we only found at most a few, which some people just claim to be irregular mutations. Also what about Charles Darwin saying that if a cell is anymore complex then a pile of mucas (or something like that) then the whole idea of evolution would fall apart. I would be helpful if someone could just clear up these questions for me.

Is there no answer to this?

Firstly, im not religious at all. Also i definately do not wan't intelligent design to be taught in schools. However, I just want to know exactly what angers people so much about Intelligent Design. There are so much worst things out there.

I personally see very few things that are worse than people happily embracing logical fallacies, deliberate deceptions and outright lies - and then brainwashing their children with it. It in fact scares me much more than any terrorist attack could.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy.

It isn't crazy at all in fact. The problem is that the arguments the movement uses to support the idea are.

I do believe in evolution but sometimes that can sound a bit stupid. "Oh we look like gorillas so therefor we used to be gorillas".

That is not evolution - that is evolutionism. Evolution is a scientific theory, evolutionism is something religious folks thought up to make evolution look bad.

Also there is also something called the missing link, technically we should have found millions of these all over the planet.

And we do. The problem with "the missing link" is that there will always be one. If you find the missing link B between A and C, opponents will claim we still need to find the missing links between A & B and B & C.

Is there no answer to this?

This is a forum. Responses can take over a day ;)

I personally see very few things that are worse than people happily embracing logical fallacies, deliberate deceptions and outright lies - and then brainwashing their children with it. It in fact scares me much more than any terrorist attack could.



It isn't crazy at all in fact. The problem is that the arguments the movement uses to support the idea are.



That is not evolution - that is evolutionism. Evolution is a scientific theory, evolutionism is something religious folks thought up to make evolution look bad.



And we do. The problem with "the missing link" is that there will always be one. If you find the missing link B between A and C, opponents will claim we still need to find the missing links between A & B and B & C.

Ok and what about the bulk of my message.

Ok and what about the bulk of my message.

Which parts weren't adressed then ?

Which parts weren't adressed then ?

Actually, when you say it isn't crazy, are you refering to my arguments. Because then you have adressed them. Sorry to bother.

People who have studied science dislike ID because it's proponents lie and mislead. How would an American feel if they read on Wikipedia that Yuri Gagarin was the first man on the moon and that Nikita Krushov saved Cuba from evil Americans that were building nuclear missiles there? They'd probably feel pretty pissed off.

ID supporters lie. Sure they lie to themselves first before they lie to other people, but it is still damaging and misleading. What IDists do is not science, it is religion. Scientists don't know how life started on earth, but a scientist admits, "We don't know, but we have lots of good ideas and we're working on it and learning more everyday." Saying God or other forces for which we have no evidence did it is not science.

If you can't find your keys you are free to believe that God or aliens took them, but without any evidence that's not science that just unsupported faith on your part and faith belongs in the realm of religion.

Actually, when you say it isn't crazy, are you refering to my arguments.

No, I referred to the idea that life on earth was designed. I really do not think that is a crazy idea - I just do not think it is true. Somewhat like how the idea of lemons being blue can look very good on paper, but a simple observation will teach they are not.

Unfortunately, the ID crowd refuses to go out and take an actual look. And I do not wish that attitude to be taught to my children.

And what are all these alleged lies.

I thought the whole founding of ID was some little sea creature with an immensely complicated extremity which the crazy religious folk were saying could not be used if a single part of it were missing. It turned out that it could be used with a certain part missing...

No, I referred to the idea that life on earth was designed. I really do not think that is a crazy idea - I just do not think it is true. Somewhat like how the idea of lemons being blue can look very good on paper, but a simple observation will teach they are not.

Unfortunately, the ID crowd refuses to go out and take an actual look. And I do not wish that attitude to be taught to my children.

Ok but can you explain away my arguments?

There are many problems with ID. Just as many as there are with Evolution. Check 'Howstuffworks' if you want to learn about them.

Evolution should be taught as a biological science and ID should not. This isn't because I don't like ID, not that I do like it, but because of the entire point of primary and secondary schooling. We don't send kids to school not to learn about the underlying truths of the universe. We send them to school to learn things that will open their career paths. Things that are necessary in order for them to acquire employment when they leave school. You teach them maths so that they can go to university to become a mathematician, or a statistician, or an engineer, or a computer programmer. You teach them Evolutionary Biology so that they can study the evolutionary link between humans and bacteria and find cures for illnesses. Teaching them ID will do no good whatsoever. Evolution is being taught in schools because it has some use in the real world. ID is a waste of time and money because it leads nowhere.

There are many problems with ID. Just as many as there are with Evolution. Check 'Howstuffworks' if you want to learn about them.

Evolution should be taught as a biological science and ID should not. This isn't because I don't like ID, not that I do like it, but because of the entire point of primary and secondary schooling. We don't send kids to school not to learn about the underlying truths of the universe. We send them to school to learn things that will open their career paths. Things that are necessary in order for them to acquire employment when they leave school. You teach them maths so that they can go to university to become a mathematician, or a statistician, or an engineer, or a computer programmer. You teach them Evolutionary Biology so that they can study the evolutionary link between humans and bacteria and find cures for illnesses. Teaching them ID will do no good whatsoever. Evolution is being taught in schools because it has some use in the real world. ID is a waste of time and money because it leads nowhere.

You must of misread my post, i also do not support the teachings of
intelligent design in schools.

And what are all these alleged lies.

1. Irreducible complexity as defined by Behe would be evidence in favour of intelligent design
2. Irreducible complexity has been found in nature .
3. Design inference as defined by Dembski is valid logic.
4. Intelligent design was not designed to fit the Christian genesis story, but is religion neutral.
5. Intelligent Design can be tested through experiments
6. Science works by finding supporting evidence for theories (it doesn't; science works by negating theories - proving they are flawed instead of right; and in the end keeping something which resists any attempts to be shown wrong)
7. There are only two options: ID or evolution.

There are more; but this is a good start.

You must of misread my post, i also do not support the teachings of
intelligent design in schools.
Oh, dear. So I have. Terribly sorry.

And what are all these alleged lies.

I think the biggest is calling non natural explanations science. Science by definition cannot have non natural explanations. There is no way that science can study the supernatural. If science could be applied to the supernatural it wouldn't be supernatural.

Statement of faith as fact. For example stateing that such and such system could not have evolved, is too complex to evolved, is a complementary system, etc. They are stateing as fact something we do not know. We do not know that systems are too complex to evolve and they haven't produced any evidence that they are. They are stating a belief as a fact. Their belief may be sincere but it's not true. I might really believe that Angelia Jolie is in deeply in love with me, but if I ingnore all the evidence that shows she isn't I can't honestly state that my claim that she loves me is scientific, it is an unsupported belief and I should have the courage to admit it.

And what are all these alleged lies.

1. Irreducible complexity as defined by Behe would be evidence in favour of intelligent design
2. Irreducible complexity has been found in nature .
3. Design inference as defined by Dembski is valid logic.
4. Intelligent design was not designed to fit the Christian genesis story, but is religion neutral.
5. Intelligent Design can be tested through experiments
6. Science works by finding supporting evidence for theories (it doesn't; science works by negating theories - proving they are flawed instead of right; and in the end keeping something which resists any attempts to be shown wrong)
7. There are only two options: ID or evolution.

There are more; but this is a good start.

Thank you. Much more succinct than my post.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy. Say you have the very begginings of life. The most simplist cell still has DNA which has enough information to fill entire volumes of books, apparently all the amino acids and proteins or whatever just floated around and just happened to float perfectly into this combination that causes life. Thats a bit like millions of dust particles floating together to form the Monalisa.


Sure. The chances of a dust cloud forming the mona lisa is extremely small. But say that there are an infinite number of dust clouds. This makes the forming of the mona lisa an almost cerainty.


I do believe in evolution but sometimes that can sound a bit stupid. "Oh we look like gorillas so therefor we used to be gorillas".


It's less of a stretch of the imagination that "We were all created by an invisible all powerful being who loves us very much and refuses to prove that he/she/it exists."
And we didn't evolve from Gorillas. We both evolved from a common ancestor. It's not as crazy as you might think. We don't say "we look like them". We say "They have an extraordinarily similar genetic make up compared to us. It's possible that the principles of random mutation and natural selection have created each of us from a common ancestor."



Also there is also something called the missing link, technically we should have found millions of these all over the planet. But we only found at most a few, which some people just claim to be irregular mutations.

Big Bang went through the same thing. That's now a fact. Just be patient, as you should be will all science that is still in the 'theory' stage.


Also what about Charles Darwin saying that if a cell is anymore complex then a pile of mucas (or something like that) then the whole idea of evolution would fall apart.

Ahh....I'm not aware of this. Can you direct us to where you heard this from?

The primary problem with the Intelligent Design movement is not the idea; it is the force with which the idea is proposed.

Of course it could be the case that universe is some sort of entirely designer-controlled computer program. There may even be some social value in acknowledging this hypothetical as a form of philosophy. But to say it is with no more support than "We can't prove it isn't" is to arrogantly claim that we know every form of proof and knowledge that there is to know.

Wasn't this idea actually thought up in the 18th Century or something?

Didn't someone or other talk about how "the world is complex like a watch, so it must have a maker"?

That might be relevant, I dunno...

I don't understand how people can jump from "infinitely complex' to 'requires a maker'. Where's the logic in that?:confused:

Thank you. Much more succinct than my post.

Thanks :)

A little addition, to illustrate point one and two as well as my earlier "blue lemon" comment:

In the beginning days of ID Behe used to illustrate the concept of "irreducible complexity" by pointing at the flagellum of a certain bacteria. The flagellum is an organ that serves as a propulsion device; and is quite similar to a rotary motor. Behe's key argument was that if you remove part of this "motor" it no longer functions - and that it therefor had to have been designed and implemented as a whole instead of having been evolved from less complex organs.

On paper and on first sight this looks quite reasonable. However, when one actually looks at bacteria in nature one can actually *see* that more primitive versions of the flagellum exist. True, they do not serve as a propulsion system, but to aid excretion or even as a weapon - but they definately are the flagellum with "missing" parts.

Behe could have known this, could have known the whole "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum was nonsense if he had only bothered to check if his hypothesis fitted the facts.

But he didn't. And it scares me that people are so willing to teach that attitude to their children.

Just some things. Firstly, im not trying to argue intelligent design as a science, and weather it is or it isn't does not mean it's true or not. Secondly someone mentioned that the Big Bang went through the same thing and it is now a fact, however most scientist do not believe in the Big Bang anymore and believe in more alternate and complex theories such as String Theory. However that is irrelivant. It also botheres me to see that everytime this is debated, people only ever refer back to the flagellum as a example of ID when there are thousands of others. For instance, DNA itself is an example. Also someone refered to, if there was an infinate amount of dust clouds then the Monalisa must happen. The point is, there wasn't an infinate amount of time or an infinate amount pools with all the right "ingrediants" for life in. Infact it would be exceptionly hard to ever find one.

One more thing, allthough many people use it to fuel their religious ideas. The idea of ID itself is religiously neutral as it does not mention a specific god, nor does it give any sort of lesson in theology. However i admit that it is massively supported by Christians.

Just some things. Firstly, im not trying to argue intelligent design as a science, and weather it is or it isn't does not mean it's true or not. Secondly someone mentioned that the Big Bang went through the same thing and it is now a fact, however most scientist do not believe in the Big Bang anymore and believe in more alternate and complex theories such as String Theory. However that is irrelivant. It also botheres me to see that everytime this is debated, people only ever refer back to the flagellum as a example of ID when there are thousands of others. For instance, DNA itself is an example. Also someone refered to, if there was an infinate amount of dust clouds then the Monalisa must happen. The point is, there wasn't an infinate amount of time or an infinate amount pools with all the right "ingrediants" for life in. Infact it would be exceptionly hard to ever find one.

One more thing, allthough many people use it to fuel their religious ideas. The idea of ID itself is religiously neutral as it does not mention a specific god, nor does it give any sort of lesson in theology. However i admit that it is massively supported by Christians.


Firstly, scientists don't believe. If they did that they wouldn't be scientists. And Big Bang is a fact. General theory of relativity predicts it, and the observation of the right amount of Cosmic Background Radiation proved it. Nobody believes string theory, because there is no one complete "String theory" to believe. People just recognise that the idea of 'strings' looks promising, and it does. And none of the current forms of a 'string theory' contradict Big Bang. They merely supply a cause for it.

Secondly, as both relativity and quantum mechanics, and many of the 'string theories', predicts, there would appear to be an infinite number of universes. Infinite number of universes, finite number of probability of life occurring, life becomes a guarantee.

Just some things. Firstly, im not trying to argue intelligent design as a science, and weather it is or it isn't does not mean it's true or not. Secondly someone mentioned that the Big Bang went through the same thing and it is now a fact, however most scientist do not believe in the Big Bang anymore and believe in more alternate and complex theories such as String Theory.
String Theory is not designed to deal with either universal origin or universal expansionism. If it does provide any insight as to early behaviour, it is only in the effect that strings might have in forming the universe from the energy that was released.

The point is, there wasn't an infinate amount of time or an infinate amount pools with all the right "ingrediants" for life in. Infact it would be exceptionly hard to ever find one.
There doesn't need to be an infinite number of successes. It just needs to get it right once.

One more thing, allthough many people use it to fuel their religious ideas. The idea of ID itself is religiously neutral as it does not mention a specific god, nor does it give any sort of lesson in theoligy. However i admit that many of the people use it for their cause.
This is blatently wrong. It is not even religiously neutral, never mind theologically neutral. The very notion of God being something outside of the universe and creating it by conscious intelligent design is contrary to a vast number of theological ideas; the Hindu Brahman, for instance, becomes supplanted as the head of the heirarchy by the very notion of ID.

Firstly, im not religious at all. Also i definately do not wan't intelligent design to be taught in schools. However, I just want to know exactly what angers people so much about Intelligent Design.
It's the fact that "Intelligent Design" (Creationism) is just religion disguised as a science.

Firstly, scientists don't believe. If they did that they wouldn't be scientists. And Big Bang is a fact. General theory of relativity predicts it, and the observation of the right amount of Cosmic Background Radiation proved it. Nobody believes string theory, because there is no one complete "String theory" to believe. People just recognise that the idea of 'strings' looks promising, and it does. And none of the current forms of a 'string theory' contradict Big Bang. They merely supply a cause for it.

Secondly, as both relativity and quantum mechanics, and many of the 'string theories', predicts, there would appear to be an infinite number of universes. Infinite number of universes, finite number of probability of life occurring, life becomes a guarantee.

Thats just as theoretical as ID. Backround radiation has been explained away easily by things like supernovers, black holes and just decaying rock in genral. Phase shift in light shows that some things are expanding, but it also shows that some things are (whats the word?) coming back in. Im not saying it is not true, but it is definately not proven fact.

It also botheres me to see that everytime this is debated, people only ever refer back to the flagellum as a example of ID when there are thousands of others.

Main reason for that is that the flagellum used to be the ID movements poster child. Second reason is that there *aren't* thousands of other examples of irreducible complexity - or at least none that we have found sofar.

For instance, DNA itself is an example.
Of what ? It is not irreducibly complex, nor does it fit design inference.

One more thing, allthough many people use it to fuel their religious ideas. The idea of ID itself is religiously neutral as it does not mention a specific god, nor does it give any sort of lesson in theology. However i admit that it is massively supported by Christians.

And that its followers call you a blasphemer if you dare to suggest anything but the Christian account. The flying spaghetti monster is an excellent example: it fits ID *perfectly*, yet the ID people do not embrace it and instead send hatemail.

Thats just as theoretical as ID. Backround radiation has been explained away easily by things like supernovers, black holes and just decaying rock in genral. Phase shift in light shows that some things are expanding, but it also shows that some things are (whats the word?) coming back in. Im not saying it is not true, but it is definately not proven fact.

Yes it is a fact. What you're describing, supernovas and whatnot, cannot explain the exact distribution and temperature that Big Bang does. Relativity is a proven fact. Relativity says there was a Big Bang. Big Bang is a proven fact. Perhaps a little more research into relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmic background radiation will enlighten you further. There are certain things that can only be achieved with a big bang. You'll be surprised how convincing the evidence is.

There doesn't need to be an infinite number of successes. It just needs to get it right once.

The point is that, getting it right even once, to some people is highly unlikely.

This is blatently wrong. It is not even religiously neutral, never mind theologically neutral. The very notion of God being something outside of the universe and creating it by conscious intelligent design is contrary to a vast number of theological ideas; the Hindu Brahman, for instance, becomes supplanted as the head of the heirarchy by the very notion of ID.

It doesn't claim that it needs to be a God or that he is outside of the universe.

Relativity says there was a Big Bang.

How?

There are certain things that can only be achieved with a big bang.

Like what?

Yes it is a fact. What you're describing, supernovas and whatnot, cannot explain the exact distribution and temperature that Big Bang does. Relativity is a proven fact. Relativity says there was a Big Bang. Big Bang is a proven fact. Perhaps a little more research into relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmic background radiation will enlighten you further. There are certain things that can only be achieved with a big bang. You'll be surprised how convincing the evidence is.
Supporting evidence in science, convincing or not, is instantly refuted in the light of contrary evidence.

There is no scientific fact beyond that which is observed. One cannot prove a scientific theory; they merely submit it to a continuous assessment of disproof and build a model of prediction on the result of their findings.

Perhaps the worst effect ID can have on us is to make the people who use this process think that it is anything else.

The point is that, getting it right even once, to some people is highly unlikely.
Even if it is unlikely, that doesn't matter. Any probability at all is enough for it to be capable of occurring.

It doesn't claim that it needs to be a God or that he is outside of the universe.
Yes it does. Intelligent Design directly implies conscious external modification. One does not design that which is internal to one's self.

How?

In order for you to know how you'd need to understand the mathematics of linear equations, complex numbers, contour integrals and vector space.



Like what?

The unification of the forces electric, magnetic, weak and strong. The appearingly equal distribution of background radiation but with hot and cold spikes upon closer investigation.

Yes it does. Intelligent Design directly implies conscious external modification. One does not design that which is internal to one's self.

Hmmm... That still fits in with most of the major religions. So even if the theory itself excludes certain religions, that doesn't actually matter.

Supporting evidence in science, convincing or not, is instantly refuted in the light of contrary evidence.

There is no scientific fact beyond that which is observed. One cannot prove a scientific theory; they merely submit it to a continuous assessment of disproof and build a model of prediction on the result of their findings.

Perhaps the worst effect ID can have on us is to make the people who use this process think that it is anything else.

I did say proven fact, not proven truth. There is a difference between the two.

Hmmm... That still fits in with most of the major religions. So even if the theory itself excludes certain religions, that doesn't actually matter.
... Except in that it is neither religiously nor theologically neutral.

Hmmm... That still fits in with most of the major religions. So even if the theory itself excludes certain religions, that doesn't actually matter.

Would you please stop referring to it as a theory. It has no scientific merit whatsoever.:headbang:

... Except in that it is neither religiously nor theologically neutral.

It is to 99% of the religions.

Even if it is unlikely, that doesn't matter. Any probability at all is enough for it to be capable of occurring.
.

If you admit that its unlikely then you must admit that ID isn't that crazy.

If you admit that its unlikely then you must admit that ID isn't that crazy.

No. It is cray because it's saying that a 'very small' probability is exactly the same as a 'zero' probability. That's idiocy.

No. It is cray because it's saying that a 'very small' probability is exactly the same as a 'zero' probability. That's idiocy.

It doesn't need to be 0 probability for something to be more likely designed.

It is to 99% of the religions.

Considering Hinduism is the third biggest religion on the planet that is a rather silly claim. About 60% would be more accurate.

Considering Hinduism is the third biggest religion on the planet that is a rather silly claim.

I don't know much about Hinduism, but I am pretty sure they regard life as being "created".

It doesn't need to be 0 probability for something to be more likely designed.

The theory claims such a small probability, yet it has no means of measuring the probability. It assumes. Assumption is, as Clancy would put it, "the mother of all fuckups." Perhaps the universe naturally directs itself towards extreme complexity. Even if the assumption is correct, it doesn't imply a creator. It implies nothing. And so the infinite universes come in, making the problem go away. It is in no way a reasonable or considerable scientific theory.

I did say proven fact, not proven truth. There is a difference between the two.
... I'm a little confused. What do you mean by fact?

To say that the existence of something is fact is trivial, and can be extended to even the most ridiculous concepts.
To say that it is based on real occurrance implies that there is a strong dependence on perception. By those standards, 200 years ago Newton's Laws would have been fact while Einstein's postulates would not have been. It certainly seems to be the case that many today are stuck in the dark ages, which implies that to them, Creationism is Fact where Special Relativity is Sci-fi prattling.

Is there something else I'm missing?

I don't know much about Hinduism, but I am pretty sure they regard life as being "created".

Created is however not the same as "purposefully designed". The ancient Egyptian story of how life was created because Atum gave himself a blowjob is a well known example.

Intelligent Design is utterly worthless. Why?

Evolution explains how complexity can arise from simplicity.

ID tries to explain the existence of complexity by postulating a designer which must be more complex in itself. In other words it doesn't explain the existence of complexity, it just kicks it back a stage.

Sure. The chances of a dust cloud forming the mona lisa is extremely small. But say that there are an infinite number of dust clouds. This makes the forming of the mona lisa an almost cerainty.

when you consider how often the image of the virgin mary is found in water stains, potato chips, and tortillas i'd say that if we had the same obsession with the mona lisa we would have also found that image in various places all over the world.

intelligent design is a "logical idea" that isnt scientific. sure it makes some kind of sense that the universe was created by some creator that is itself uncreated. but its not scientific. therefore it doesnt belong in science classes nor is it useful in advancing scientific knowledge.

the other problem with intelligent design in schools is that it is endorsing a particular religious view. that discriminates against all other religions and against atheists/agnostics. it was designed to masquerade as science so that it would also pass the "seperation of church and state" principle that keeps religious education out of public schools.

... I'm a little confused. What do you mean by fact?

To say that the existence of something is fact is trivial, and can be extended to even the most ridiculous concepts.
To say that it is based on real occurrance implies that there is a strong dependence on perception. By those standards, 200 years ago Newton's Laws would have been fact while Einstein's postulates would not have been. It certainly seems to be the case that many today are stuck in the dark ages, which implies that to them, Creationism is Fact where Special Relativity is Sci-fi prattling.

Is there something else I'm missing?

Fact is prone to change. Yes. 'Fact' is that which is not absolute truth but is logically correct assuming that the observed premises are correct. Relativity is a fact, but if any of the postulates are observed to be incorrect, the theory becomes non-factual. It may not be truth, but it's the best we can do.

So basicly, we agree. I'm not "religous", but I am God-fearing, and I embrace evolution. There is no reason why they both can't exist. The world is far to incredible, when you think about it, to exist on it's own. And yet God (it sounds to me like you were describing God) would not create things without what appears to be a fuctioning system. Nature was created by God, and no technology made by man can surpass it.

Nature was created by God, and no technology made by man can surpass it.

Actually the cheapest camera you can buy down at the discount store has better visual acuity than your eye.

(If you have bionic eyes I take back that last sentence.)

Actually the cheapest camera you can buy down at the discount store has better visual acuity than your eye.

(If you have bionic eyes I take back that last sentence.)

:D

Actually the cheapest camera you can buy down at the discount store has better visual acuity than your eye.

(If you have bionic eyes I take back that last sentence.)
Bionic eyes would be an awesome feat. Heck, bionic anything would be spectacular. The trick is not so much in the manipulation and encoding of light but rather the management of the right electrical pulses to and from the body's nervous system. I don't think we've developed that just yet, but who knows? Maybe that's the next field of research.

Intelligent Design is utterly worthless. Why?

Evolution explains how complexity can arise from simplicity.

ID tries to explain the existence of complexity by postulating a designer which must be more complex in itself. In other words it doesn't explain the existence of complexity, it just kicks it back a stage.

That seems more reasonable. I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe, although I do not believe it myslef, but the more involved and specific Gods involvement becomes, the less sense it makes. And to teach kids that we did not evolve, but were designed, is insane.

I know this is going to cause tonnes of flaiming but i need to know some things.

Firstly, im not religious at all. Also i definately do not wan't intelligent design to be taught in schools. However, I just want to know exactly what angers people so much about Intelligent Design. There are so much worst things out there.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy. Say you have the very begginings of life. The most simplist cell still has DNA which has enough information to fill entire volumes of books, apparently all the amino acids and proteins or whatever just floated around and just happened to float perfectly into this combination that causes life. Thats a bit like millions of dust particles floating together to form the Monalisa. So the idea that some sort of intelligence is behind this, isn't that crazy. I do believe in evolution but sometimes that can sound a bit stupid. "Oh we look like gorillas so therefor we used to be gorillas". Also there is also something called the missing link, technically we should have found millions of these all over the planet. But we only found at most a few, which some people just claim to be irregular mutations. Also what about Charles Darwin saying that if a cell is anymore complex then a pile of mucas (or something like that) then the whole idea of evolution would fall apart. I would be helpful if someone could just clear up these questions for me.

The basic question here seems to be "what angers people so much about Intelligent Design?"

The simple answer is - the fact that it is being portrayed as science, yet fails to meet the most basic 'scientific' requirements.

Teach it in Religion classes, and I'm all in favour.

So basicly, we agree. I'm not "religous", but I am God-fearing, and I embrace evolution. There is no reason why they both can't exist. The world is far to incredible, when you think about it, to exist on it's own. And yet God (it sounds to me like you were describing God) would not create things without what appears to be a fuctioning system. Nature was created by God, and no technology made by man can surpass it.

I like your thinking!

The main problem with "intelligent design" is determining what intelligence we are actually talking about. It's like when someone has an unfortunate experience and states "I don't understand". The implication is that if something doesn't make sense, it should just disappear. Life doesn't work like that. Things that make no sense will continue to exist, regardless of someone's understanding of them.

Anyway, as far as intelligent design goes, the intelligence comes from the observer. If one did not have the capacity or the desire to understand life, there would be no appearance of intelligent design at all.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy. Say you have the very begginings of life.....
Evolution has nothing to do with the begining of life, evolution deals with everything afterwards.

Evolution has nothing to do with the begining of life, evolution deals with everything afterwards.
It has something to do with the origin of human life. To the speciest "creationists", that is all that matters.

I know this is going to cause tonnes of flaiming but i need to know some things.

Firstly, im not religious at all. Also i definately do not wan't intelligent design to be taught in schools. However, I just want to know exactly what angers people so much about Intelligent Design. There are so much worst things out there.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy. Say you have the very begginings of life. The most simplist cell still has DNA which has enough information to fill entire volumes of books, apparently all the amino acids and proteins or whatever just floated around and just happened to float perfectly into this combination that causes life. Thats a bit like millions of dust particles floating together to form the Monalisa. So the idea that some sort of intelligence is behind this, isn't that crazy. I do believe in evolution but sometimes that can sound a bit stupid. "Oh we look like gorillas so therefor we used to be gorillas". Also there is also something called the missing link, technically we should have found millions of these all over the planet. But we only found at most a few, which some people just claim to be irregular mutations. Also what about Charles Darwin saying that if a cell is anymore complex then a pile of mucas (or something like that) then the whole idea of evolution would fall apart. I would be helpful if someone could just clear up these questions for me.

Because Intellignet Design makes absoultley no sense. We have scientifc prof for evoultion, and there is not a shred of evidence of ID except for someone sayign that they dont understand it so god must have done it. Also, we did not evolve from gorillas, becuase they are still here. We evolved from a gorillia like creature. It is more than that we look like them. We have simialr bone structes, we both have opposable thumbs, we are both primates, and we have many other similarites. ID is another attempt by the church to impede scientific progress.

Because Intellignet Design makes absoultley no sense. We have scientifc prof for evoultion, and there is not a shred of evidence of ID except for someone sayign that they dont understand it so god must have done it. Also, we did not evolve from gorillas, becuase they are still here. We evolved from a gorillia like creature. It is more than that we look like them. We have simialr bone structes, we both have opposable thumbs, we are both primates, and we have many other similarites. ID is another attempt by the church to impede scientific progress.
so for you, lack of evidence is proof that it doesn't exsist?

show me proof that a supreme being did not start the process.

oh and as ID gets it wong, so do people who believe in Evolution. we did not evolve from Gorillias. we are genetically closer to Chimpanzese. a different species... so it's not just the ID supporters that are passing off wrong info and not doing their studies.

hope you didn't tell your kids we evolved from Gorillas. :p

oh, and most ID supporters, (Not Creationists) believe in evolution also.

The basic question here seems to be "what angers people so much about Intelligent Design?"

The simple answer is - the fact that it is being portrayed as science, yet fails to meet the most basic 'scientific' requirements.

Teach it in Religion classes, and I'm all in favour.
thougth that was "Creationism"

ID people tend to be "God created everything and Evolution is how he did it"

The main problem with "intelligent design" is determining what intelligence we are actually talking about. It's like when someone has an unfortunate experience and states "I don't understand". The implication is that if something doesn't make sense, it should just disappear. Life doesn't work like that. Things that make no sense will continue to exist, regardless of someone's understanding of them.

Anyway, as far as intelligent design goes, the intelligence comes from the observer. If one did not have the capacity or the desire to understand life, there would be no appearance of intelligent design at all.

What an exquisite insight!
Definitely a fresh take on the issue.

thougth that was "Creationism"

ID people tend to be "God created everything and Evolution is how he did it"

There isn't much to tell between ID and Cereationism, in terms of scientific support - both start with an assumed hypothesis to which observation must be applied - and the facts are assumed to be wrong where they don't fit the 'theory'.

ID and Creationism are the antithesis of science.

ID people tend to be "God created everything and Evolution is how he did it"

Packaged any way you like, it is still THEOLOGY and not science.

thougth that was "Creationism"

ID people tend to be "God created everything and Evolution is how he did it"

No, if that were the case there wouldn't be such a big row.
The underlying principles of Intelligent Design, like irreducible complexity, are that "an unnamed designer" designed everything, down to the propulsion system of bacteria, in great detail. For ID evolution is a deviation from the design, not an integral part.

thougth that was "Creationism"

ID people tend to be "God created everything and Evolution is how he did it"
Wouldn't that make God fallible?

There isn't much to tell between ID and Cereationism, in terms of scientific support - both start with an assumed hypothesis to which observation must be applied - and the facts are assumed to be wrong where they don't fit the 'theory'.

ID and Creationism are the antithesis of science.
creationism yes,
but ID(ists? alists? whatever) tend to support evolution as well. thus, by teaching evolution in school, you are also teaching what they believe in. (and no, I do not support tossing Evolution out of school because it's supporting someone's beliefs. :D )

the fact that intelligence may have started the process does not hamper the scientific obervations and findings of Evolution. nor does it change anything Anthropologists and Paelotogists have found or will find. infact, if you will, it can be an incentive to find Proof of God by using scientific processes.

Wouldn't that make God fallible?
no. why would it?

no. why would it?
Evolution can be seen in certain circumstances as design flaws correcting themselves. How could an infallible God make a design flaw?

Does any intelligent person really believe that a State sponsored version of the origin of life is a good idea?

In order for any flavor of ID to be taught in a PUBLIC school, it would have to pass curricular muster and stipulate to a version approved and decided on by State/Federal criteria. As a Catholic, I don't want ANYONE outside of my self to teach ANY version of creation to my child. That is my privilage. And I sure as heck don't ever want to see Creationism or Origin of LIfe concepts legislated and enforced in the education system. What a Pandora's Box!

No, if that were the case there wouldn't be such a big row.
The underlying principles of Intelligent Design, like irreducible complexity, are that "an unnamed designer" designed everything, down to the propulsion system of bacteria, in great detail. For ID evolution is a deviation from the design, not an integral part.
take a cake.

no really take a cake.

the chemical bonding and processes can be explained scientifically, yet we know that someone made that cake.

I can marvel at how a car is designed, yet I know that somewhere out there is a man who designed it.

an Olive is poisonous, the process to make it edible took years before modern machines, yet someone had to start the processes.

those who claim to be ID yet against Evolution are actually Creationists.

Evolution can be seen in certain circumstances as design flaws correcting themselves. How could an infallible God make a design flaw?

Conceptually, an omnipotent Creator certainly has the ability to install design flaws intentially. But that begs another question--Why?

Does any intelligent person really believe that a State sponsored version of the origin of life is a good idea?

In order for any flavor of ID to be taught in a PUBLIC school, it would have to pass curricular muster and stipulate to a version approved and decided on by State/Federal criteria. As a Catholic, I don't want ANYONE outside of my self to teach ANY version of creation to my child. That is my privilage. And I sure as heck don't ever want to see Creationism or Origin of LIfe concepts legislated and enforced in the education system. What a Pandora's Box!And i don't want to see CREATIONISM taught also.

but where does ID come in? as I said, Most ID believers follow Evolutionists as well. so if you don't want any flavor of ID taught, that means no theories of Evolution as well.

Conceptually, an omnipotent Creator certainly has the ability to install design flaws intentially. But that begs another question--Why?
to see us overcome those flaws and what paths his lifeforms would take to overcome such flaws.

creationism yes,
but ID(ists? alists? whatever) tend to support evolution as well. thus, by teaching evolution in school, you are also teaching what they believe in. (and no, I do not support tossing Evolution out of school because it's supporting someone's beliefs. :D )

the fact that intelligence may have started the process does not hamper the scientific obervations and findings of Evolution. nor does it change anything Anthropologists and Paelotogists have found or will find. infact, if you will, it can be an incentive to find Proof of God by using scientific processes.

Well, obviously you can't just start axing any course that has material people 'believe'... because math would be the first to go.

That is not the complaint. Intelligent Design starts from the assumption of an (unverifiable) intelligent designer. That is it's central premise. It doesn't matter if they include a proviso to say "Okay, but THEN evolution happens", it is that basic assumption that is the flaw.

Let me just digress for a second - I know people who are Christian, who accept evolution as the likely model. No problem. If you THINK God was the originator, it's all good. But THAT is not 'science'... again, we are in an area where the 'theory' predates the 'observation'.

So - believe it as personal faith. Teach it as religion. But, ID has no place on a science syllabus.

Packaged any way you like, it is still THEOLOGY and not science.
so if as a Theology they support Evolution. and you want nothing that supports theology taught in school... then you don't want evolution taught in school.

And i don't want to see CREATIONISM taught also.

but where does ID come in? as I said, Most ID believers follow Evolutionists as well. so if you don't want any flavor of ID taught, that means no theories of Evolution as well.

That doesn't follow. ID is like 'evolution+god'. If you want to teach science, you teach the evolution part, if you want to teach religion, you teach the 'god' part.

To say you have to drop evolution if you drop ID is like saying you must drop 'addition' if your syllabus doesn't include algebra.

to see us overcome those flaws and what paths his lifeforms would take to overcome such flaws.
An omipotent God would already know. It would be like painting over a famous painting using the exact same shades of color. A nice trick but why do it?

so if as a Theology they support Evolution. and you want nothing that supports theology taught in school... then you don't want evolution taught in school.

The 'evolution' is not the 'theological' part of the equation.

Should we stop teaching Hebrew, because a holy book was written in it?

Well, obviously you can't just start axing any course that has material people 'believe'... because math would be the first to go.

That is not the complaint. Intelligent Design starts from the assumption of an (unverifiable) intelligent designer. That is it's central premise. It doesn't matter if they include a proviso to say "Okay, but THEN evolution happens", it is that basic assumption that is the flaw.

Let me just digress for a second - I know people who are Christian, who accept evolution as the likely model. No problem. If you THINK God was the originator, it's all good. But THAT is not 'science'... again, we are in an area where the 'theory' predates the 'observation'.

So - believe it as personal faith. Teach it as religion. But, ID has no place on a science syllabus.
And people tend to make religion out of anything they believe in.

however, the OP asked what's wrong with ID and the arguments here seem to be more aimed to the CREATIONIST people. I'm just trying to distinguish the difference between ID and Creationists. after all, why alienate those who actally are on your side.

The 'evolution' is not the 'theological' part of the equation.

Should we stop teaching Hebrew, because a holy book was written in it? dunno, should we? Latin is also a language deeply invovled with Religion.

so was Greek.

those who claim to be ID yet against Evolution are actually Creationists.

Which I fear describes about 99% of them. Your version, of an evolution guiding God who started it all, is much better in my opinion - but not the version supported by the discovery institute and the most prominent spokesmen.
The Vatican however agrees with you.

so if as a Theology they support Evolution. and you want nothing that supports theology taught in school... then you don't want evolution taught in school.

Not if it would solely follow from religious dogma, no. At least not in a science class.

An omipotent God would already know. It would be like painting over a famous painting using the exact same shades of color. A nice trick but why do it? to test us? to see what we will do? I don't know how God thinks, and I won't dictate what he thinks either.

God is Omnipotent, but that doesn't mean he can, in the case of individual human choices, ignore his omnipotence and see what choices we would make on our own. (free will)

And people tend to make religion out of anything they believe in.

however, the OP asked what's wrong with ID and the arguments here seem to be more aimed to the CREATIONIST people. I'm just trying to distinguish the difference between ID and Creationists. after all, why alienate those who actally are on your side.
Then what exactly does ID add to the argument if it is for evolution? It seems like if Science can't prove how something evolved in it's entirity that ID advocates like to say, "God did it." It's just giving something that hasn't been explained or discovered yet a different name that is not based on any type of science. The argument for the eye comes to mind (which, by the way, has been explained properly through evolutionary theory).

Which I fear describes about 99% of them. Your version, of an evolution guiding God who started it all, is much better in my opinion - but not the version supported by the discovery institute and the most prominent spokesmen.
The Vatican however agrees with you.there are more of us out there then you think, it's just that the Creationists are louder and thus more prominant in the Media's eyes.

Not if it would solely follow from religious dogma, no. At least not in a science class.good. blanket hatred is bad and is present on both sides of the fence. (Tho mine was a rehtorical question, only an idiot would say yes...)

God is Omnipotent, but that doesn't mean he can, in the case of individual human choices, ignore his omnipotence and see what choices we would make on our own. (free will)
0_o

So... God practices and advocates deliberate ignorance?

to test us? to see what we will do? I don't know how God thinks, and I won't dictate what he thinks either.

God is Omnipotent, but that doesn't mean he can, in the case of individual human choices, ignore his omnipotence and see what choices we would make on our own. (free will)
These are philosophical questions and belong in a philosophical class, not a science class.

dunno, should we? Latin is also a language deeply invovled with Religion.

so was Greek.

That's the point... they are drawn into the religious process, but they are tools to the machine, not part of it.

Evolution is not 'necessary' to Intelligent Design... the 'necessary' part is the Designer. You can't just jump around claiming parts of other ideas as 'part of' ID.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy. Say you have the very begginings of life. The most simplist cell still has DNA which has enough information to fill entire volumes of books, apparently all the amino acids and proteins or whatever just floated around and just happened to float perfectly into this combination that causes life. Thats a bit like millions of dust particles floating together to form the Monalisa.


Sure. The chances of a dust cloud forming the mona lisa is extremely small. But say that there are an infinite number of dust clouds. This makes the forming of the mona lisa an almost cerainty.



This line of argument has been bothering me a lot of late, ever since I saw that video by the two religious cranks. Y'know 'the banana is an athiest's nightmare' idiots.

One idiot turns around and 'proves' that there is a creator with reference to a coke can. He asks the viewer to imagine millions of particles coming together over time to form a sweet brown syrup, and more particles forming randomly to make a tin and yet more making a perfect design for a can of coke. He points out that this happening randomly is ludicrous. And I agree with him - it is ludicrous.

We read/hear this argument time and time again like e.g. the Mona Lisa being formed out of dust clouds over a long period of time etc etc. I take the point about infinite clouds of dust and infinite time ... but it's just not going to happen :0)

Now, where I think the 'banana-wielding god-squadder' is committing his logical fallacy (probably deliberately, IMHO) is this ...

He says that 'science' claims that things .... planets etc .... are formed randomly.

Science does not claim this. In planet formation, for example, there are very specific and real forces at work ... primarily gravity and heat in a very specific manner. This is not random, this is why our theories of planetary formation have hypothesis, evidenced, inferences, explanatory and predictive power. This is why our theories of planetary formation are a branch of science and not faith.

Same too goes for biology. We did not evolve randomly. We came from an ancestor that had a given set of genes. Its offspring had similar, but not identical genes owing to random mutation. The offspring that survived to reproduced survived because the genes conferred a benefit in a hostile environment. This is adapation and natural selection at work. In other words, it is not a random process - it is a process subject to certain forces and laws that give scientists the ability to make models with falsifiable explanatory and predictive power. If it didn't have falsifiable explanatory and predictive power then it wouldn't be science. It would be faith.

So key points ... creation of matter in the universe was not subject to random processes and neither is the evolution of the many species. Both are subject to certain physical laws and systems which are not random but are rather consistent and predictable.

And people tend to make religion out of anything they believe in.

however, the OP asked what's wrong with ID and the arguments here seem to be more aimed to the CREATIONIST people. I'm just trying to distinguish the difference between ID and Creationists. after all, why alienate those who actally are on your side.

Who do you think is on which side?

ID is on the same 'side' as Creationism - because it places the 'theory' before the 'observation'... thus, it is unscientific.

As I said - individual belief that God could have steered evolution is one thing... teaching it as scientific theory is a different kettle of fish-ancestors.

Then what exactly does ID add to the argument if it is for evolution? It seems like if Science can't prove how something evolved in it's entirity that ID advocates like to say, "God did it." It's just giving something that hasn't been explained or discovered yet a different name that is not based on any type of science. The argument for the eye comes to mind (which, by the way, has been explained properly through evolutionary theory).
exactly. ID is the Religious people embracing and excepting the scientific findings of Evolution. Creationists are those that don't. Think those that are pure evolution, no god on one end. the pure God no evolution on the other. the ID people are in the middle. if anything the evolution ground is now covered.

however, instead of each concentrating on their own feild of study (and yes, Theology is a feild of study) they are soo busy pointing fingers at each other.

I would rather the finger pointing stop and each gets on with their studies.

And i don't want to see CREATIONISM taught also.

but where does ID come in? as I said, Most ID believers follow Evolutionists as well. so if you don't want any flavor of ID taught, that means no theories of Evolution as well.

No. Evolution has a hundren years of evidence supporting it from diverse areas of science. Even the "newer" sciences like genetics, geology and embryology continue to produce data that supports evolution.

ID is THEOLOGY. Teach it in religious education, philosophy or another humanity where it is applicable. Quite frankly a course that discusses all known creation MYTHS (my editorial) would be very interesting.

ID/Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE. And science, unlike myth, has profound, far reacing and PRACTICAL applicability to the technology that we are so dependent on. Such as medicine, engineering, agriculture etc.

exactly. ID is the Religious people embracing and excepting the scientific findings of Evolution. Creationists are those that don't. Think those that are pure evolution, no god on one end. the pure God no evolution on the other. the ID people are in the middle. if anything the evolution ground is now covered.

however, instead of each concentrating on their own feild of study (and yes, Theology is a feild of study) they are soo busy pointing fingers at each other.

I would rather the finger pointing stop and each gets on with their studies.
So... what are you arguing? That ID should just be believed by the people who believe it and adds nothing to science? Because... I'm cool with that.

exactly. ID is the Religious people embracing and excepting the scientific findings of Evolution. Creationists are those that don't. Think those that are pure evolution, no god on one end. the pure God no evolution on the other. the ID people are in the middle. if anything the evolution ground is now covered.

however, instead of each concentrating on their own feild of study (and yes, Theology is a feild of study) they are soo busy pointing fingers at each other.

I would rather the finger pointing stop and each gets on with their studies.

But you construct a false dichotomy.... the 'evolution' end of the spectrum doesn't SAY 'no god'. It just doesnt ADDRESS 'god', at all.

If you have serious interest in science - back the 'evolution in the classroom' platform, and allow 'god' to be the individual choice of the pupil.

Who do you think is on which side?

ID is on the same 'side' as Creationism - because it places the 'theory' before the 'observation'... thus, it is unscientific.

As I said - individual belief that God could have steered evolution is one thing... teaching it as scientific theory is a different kettle of fish-ancestors.
ID doesn't place the theory before the Observation.

and when did I say it should be taught as science. a part of ID is taught as science. Evolution. the Theological side is taught in theology.

I never aruged against that.

ID is the Religious people embracing and excepting the scientific findings of Evolution

...when they have to. back at the church functions they seem happy to revert to their earlier 'wild-type' creationism.

(and even in public when they ought to be hiding it, they sometimes get confused and let the veneer slip a bit)

ID doesn't place the theory before the Observation.

and when did I say it should be taught as science. a part of ID is taught as science. Evolution. the Theological side is taught in theology.

I never aruged against that.
But when is an Intelligent Designer not discussed in a theology class? I'm so confused.

But you construct a false dichotomy.... the 'evolution' end of the spectrum doesn't SAY 'no god'. It just doesnt ADDRESS 'god', at all.and science didn't prove or disprove any intelligent "Hand" either yet you are willing to dismiss theories because it doesn't fit your views.


If you have serious interest in science - back the 'evolution in the classroom' platform, and allow 'god' to be the individual choice of the pupil.and I do, never did I say Creationism should be taught in schools, and never did I say Theology cannot be passed off as science.

I'm just clarifying the difference between ID and Creationism.

But when is an Intelligent Designer not discussed in a theology class? I'm so confused.
Just saying what I am supporting. I am not supporting teaching Theology in science. but I am for teaching Theology in school. big difference. ;)

0_o

So... God practices and advocates deliberate ignorance?
when it comes to free will and the choices we make... I believe so.

but I am for teaching Theology in school.

what theology?

blanket hatred is bad and is present on both sides of the fence. (Tho mine was a rehtorical question, only an idiot would say yes...)

You feel "hated" because someone else rejects religious dogma?

...when they have to. back at the church functions they seem happy to revert to their earlier 'wild-type' creationism.

(and even in public when they ought to be hiding it, they sometimes get confused and let the veneer slip a bit)
no one holds a gun to my head to accept anything, and my pastor does not go and tell us to "ignore the science heathens"

and again, you are listening to the Loud group. and ignoring those who are sitting beside you quietly talking.

however, as I type this, I believe I see the problem.

ID is anyone that does believe in an intelligence being behind the creation of life. (and in that phrase, I include the process of Evolution.) Creationists take it a step further, and say that God DID IT EXACTLY HOW IT WAS WRITTEN. thus you might say that Creationists are the extremests of ID. but not all supporters of ID are Creationists.

ID doesn't place the theory before the Observation.

and when did I say it should be taught as science. a part of ID is taught as science. Evolution. the Theological side is taught in theology.

I never aruged against that.

Yes - it DOES place the theory before the observation.

Think about the basic premise of a 'theory' called "Intelligent Design"...


The problem with Intelligent Design is that it IS presented as 'science'. If you, personally, do not wish to see ID in the science classroom, that makes you rare among ID proponents.

And - you are wrong... when you say "a part of ID is taught as science"... evolution is NOT 'part of ID'. Intelligent Design does NOT 'require' evolution to be accepted - the ONLY requisite is that 'designer'.

You feel "hated" because someone else rejects religious dogma?
no. but I certainly don't feel love of those who constantly put down religion. Especially those religions that don't put down but infact support science.

what theology?
Theology in General. by increasing understanding of religions, it would help in preventing misunderstanding.

such as those who say Islam is the religion of peace while at the same time, you read about Islamic militants blowing up another club.

I understand the Latter is not the whole of Islam, but for others, they are.

and science didn't prove or disprove any intelligent "Hand" either yet you are willing to dismiss theories because it doesn't fit your views.


Not at all. I welcome any scientific theory in the science classroom. But, the fact that ID [b]requires[/i] an unfalsifiable quantity, means it is NOT science - and thus has no place on a science syllabus.


I'm just clarifying the difference between ID and Creationism.

You say 'clarifying', I say 'obfuscating'.

no. but I certainly don't feel love of those who constantly put down religion. Especially those religions that don't put down but infact support science.
Religions such as - ?

Just saying what I am supporting. I am not supporting teaching Theology in science. but I am for teaching Theology in school. big difference. ;)

But whose Theology? There are at least hundreds of theologies. There isn't time enough to teach them all. How do you choose which are valid and which to dissmiss? And what, then does that say about the biases of those doing the choosing?

Anyone that wants to, can go on to a university and study theology.

Yes - it DOES place the theory before the observation.

Think about the basic premise of a 'theory' called "Intelligent Design"...


The problem with Intelligent Design is that it IS presented as 'science'. If you, personally, do not wish to see ID in the science classroom, that makes you rare among ID proponents.

And - you are wrong... when you say "a part of ID is taught as science"... evolution is NOT 'part of ID'. Intelligent Design does NOT 'require' evolution to be accepted - the ONLY requisite is that 'designer'.
and science has neither proven nor disproven the idea of a Designer. you are discarding a theory or an idea because it's rediculous to you.

and again, you are listening to the Loud group. and ignoring those who are sitting beside you quietly talking.

so i shouldn't base my ideas on ID on the words and actions of it's major thinkers and the discovery institute they are all part of?

Religions such as - ?
post 100. Theolgy in general. such as in college.

But whose Theology? There are at least hundreds of theologies. There isn't time enough to teach them all. How do you choose which are valid and which to dissmiss? And what, then does that say about the biases of those doing the choosing?

Anyone that wants to, can go on to a university and study theology.
I'd assume Junii was referring to comparitive theology. And sure there's enough time to teach that. I took a comparitive theology course that lasted ten months. Very informative.

so i shouldn't base my ideas on ID on the words and actions of it's major thinkers and the discovery institute they are all part of?
you can baise your idea on whatever you feel comfortable with.

if you are comfortable in thinging that Fred Phelps and co are for the entire christian community, then there is nothing I can do to dictate otherwise.

but if you are willing to be open and listen to everyone and judge for yourself. then again, there is nothing anyone can do to dictate otherwise.

post 100. Theolgy in general. such as in college.
That would depend entirely on the college, though wouldn't it?

What the heck is post 100?

And really, that didn't answer my question, anyway.

and science has neither proven nor disproven the idea of a Designer. you are discarding a theory or an idea because it's rediculous to you.

No - again you misrepresent me.

I reject ID as scientific because it fails to qualify.

Personally - if there IS a god (whatever flavour), I'd be most likely to suspect that evolution IS a tool in the hands of the creator(s). But, THAT should not be taught in science class - and THAT is why ID is so 'unpopular'.

Theology in General. by increasing understanding of religions, it would help in preventing misunderstanding.

religious studies then, surely? tis a bit different.

But whose Theology? There are at least hundreds of theologies. There isn't time enough to teach them all. How do you choose which are valid and which to dissmiss? And what, then does that say about the biases of those doing the choosing?

Anyone that wants to, can go on to a university and study theology.
that's right. and college/university is also a school. thus you don't hear me saying "teach Creationism." anywhere.

Mainly because I don't believe in Creationism.

you can baise your idea on whatever you feel comfortable with.

if you are comfortable in thinging that Fred Phelps and co are for the entire christian community, then there is nothing I can do to dictate otherwise.

but if you are willing to be open and listen to everyone and judge for yourself. then again, there is nothing anyone can do to dictate otherwise.

I'm finding your choice of words very interesting. "Dictate"? "Judge"? What the heck is up with you today, Junii? You seem to be thinking in absolute terms...

Not at all. I welcome any scientific theory in the science classroom. But, the fact that ID [b]requires[/i] an unfalsifiable quantity, means it is NOT science - and thus has no place on a science syllabus.never said it should be on the curriculum



You say 'clarifying', I say 'obfuscating'.nope, showing a difference between the two.

ID is anyone that does believe in an intelligence being behind the creation of life. (and in that phrase, I include the process of Evolution.) Creationists take it a step further, and say that God DID IT EXACTLY HOW IT WAS WRITTEN. thus you might say that Creationists are the extremests of ID. but not all supporters of ID are Creationists.

I am confused on your position here. Are you proposing that Evolution is directed and designed by a creator/God?

Evolution is independent of a Creator. That is established. No where in evolution is there any evidence or suspicion of a creator.

And lest we wander off too far, Evolution DOES NOT describe the Origin of Life. It describes only the mechanism of Natural Selection leading to speciation.

Humans, being living things, are inherently unfit to make objective judgements regarding the complexity of life. The idea that life is too complex to have occurred without a designer is purely subjective. I might just as easily propose a "theory of intelligent randomization", wherein the "intelligence" determined the nature of life with a billion-sided die and a copy of the Universes & Unicorns: Creator's Manual.

He rolled a 1 on the unicorn, that's how we got platypi.

never said it should be on the curriculum


But, THAT is the reason for this antpathy to ID.

No one CARES if ID is personal faith... it is where it enters the 'science' arena that sparks fly.

I'm finding your choice of words very interesting. "Dictate"? "Judge"? What the heck is up with you today, Junii? You seem to be thinking in absolute terms...
I use dictate and Juge because they are absolute terms, I cannot force anyone to accept my views, I will not judge anyone for doing/saying what they believe in (why I kinda dread jury duty.)

yet there are those who do try to dictate and will judge you. (again on both sides of the field.)

you can baise your idea on whatever you feel comfortable with.

if you are comfortable in thinging that Fred Phelps and co are for the entire christian community, then there is nothing I can do to dictate otherwise.

but if you are willing to be open and listen to everyone and judge for yourself. then again, there is nothing anyone can do to dictate otherwise.

what the hell does phelps have to do with anything? do you deny that behe, dembski, meyer, wells, etc are the leading thinkers of the ID movement, but actually hold a position more like that of phelps?

there are more of us out there then you think, it's just that the Creationists are louder and thus more prominant in the Media's eyes.

And, unfortunately, the ones writing the ID textbooks which are used in classes.

I am confused on your position here. Are you proposing that Evolution is directed and designed by a creator/God?nope, nust being all inclusive on all theories of life.

Evolution is independent of a Creator. That is established. No where in evolution is there any evidence or suspicion of a creator.lack of evidence is not proof on non-exsistance. Evolution neither Proves nor does it Disprove a Creator.

And lest we wander off too far, Evolution DOES NOT describe the Origin of Life. It describes only the mechanism of Natural Selection leading to speciation.I stand corrected.

And, unfortunately, the ones writing the ID textbooks which are used in classes.
That's news to me, I never saw any text book claiming any form of ID.


then again, if those books were written after several schools started teaching Creationism. them yeah, of course I didn't see them. :rolleyes:

no. but I certainly don't feel love of those who constantly put down religion. Especially those religions that don't put down but infact support science.
Catholicism, as stated by the Pope (John Paul II) et al, supports science.
And yet, the dogma of the Catholic Church requires that Catholics accept that there were only two original humans created by God.

Unfortunately taking this argument any further will go way off topic.

There are sound, rational reasons for at least doubting, if not rejecting religious dogmas. Scientific fact, actual observed and tested evidence can not be reconciled with certain assertions of religious dogma.

But, THAT is the reason for this antpathy to ID.

No one CARES if ID is personal faith... it is where it enters the 'science' arena that sparks fly.
and normally, you don't see me on those thread either.

but for those threads they do say Creationism or teaching Creation.

this op has stated ID. and most arguments are against the Creationsits.

it's like saying the christian fundies are against abortion, thus all christians are against abortion.

I'm just saying that there is a difference between ID and Creationism. don't accuse one of being the other.

That's news to me, I never saw any text book claiming any form of ID.

You missed the whole Kansas trial, in which a school was actually teaching it in science class ?
This is the standard textbook:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

then again, if those books were written after several schools started teaching Creationism. them yeah, of course I didn't see them. :rolleyes:

That would place your schoolyears between the 1950s (teaching evolution was a crime back then) and 90s then ?

Theology in General. by increasing understanding of religions, it would help in preventing misunderstanding.

such as those who say Islam is the religion of peace while at the same time, you read about Islamic militants blowing up another club.

I understand the Latter is not the whole of Islam, but for others, they are.

On this we agree.
I would like to see such a class. But it would necessarily have to be separate from biology.

And, unfortunately, the ones writing the ID textbooks which are used in classes.

so it turns out that you can turn a creationist textbook into an IDiot one with a couple trivial find/replace commands (as they did); surely this should not in anyway influence our opinion of the IDiot movement.

it isn't as if all of the leading IDiots lined up behind said book. oh, wait...

but it isn't like they have only recently come up with the ID idea in the wake of a particular supreme court ruling on creationism. in fact, they had always been IDiots, and not been run of the mill creationists up until the late 80s. no, wait, that's wrong too...

You missed the whole Kansas trial, in which a school was actually teaching it in science class ?
This is the standard textbook:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People



That would place your schoolyears between the 1950s (teaching evolution was a crime back then) and 90s then ?
graduated in 88.

so yes, I never saw any textbook that supported any religion outside of Theology.

Knew and heard about Kansas just never seen any textbooks on it.

thanks for the link.

and normally, you don't see me on those thread either.

but for those threads they do say Creationism or teaching Creation.

this op has stated ID. and most arguments are against the Creationsits.

it's like saying the christian fundies are against abortion, thus all christians are against abortion.

I'm just saying that there is a difference between ID and Creationism. don't accuse one of being the other.

The goal of the topic, I believe, is to try to discover what is held against ID. Quite simply, we have covered that - the BIG thorn in it's side is the attempt by ID proponents to sell it as a 'Chritianised' version of science.

There is CLEARLY a difference between 'literal' Creationism and ID, that is not disputed.

You missed the whole Kansas trial, in which a school was actually teaching it in science class ?
This is the standard textbook:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People



That would place your schoolyears between the 1950s (teaching evolution was a crime back then) and 90s then ?
Read the link. and if what they say is true (not saying it isn't) I would be against that book as well. too many factual errors.

lack of evidence is not proof on non-exsistance. Evolution neither Proves nor does it Disprove a Creator.

Evolution doesn't even address a Creator. It is a non sequitur.

That's news to me, I never saw any text book claiming any form of ID.

Of Pandas and People.

On this we agree.
I would like to see such a class. But it would necessarily have to be separate from biology.
I agree.

ewww... just had an image of a class "bisecting a fundie." :D

I'm just saying that there is a difference between ID and Creationism. don't accuse one of being the other.

Your intelligent designer would have to create his designs one way or another, so he then becomes a creator. You can't have a creator without creationism, so ID is creationism; creationism with a teaspoon of psuedo-rationality, creationism light, but still creationism.

Evolution doesn't even address a Creator. It is a non sequitur. thus it doesn't prove or disprove a creator. yet some here states that evolution disproves the idea of a surpreme being.

it doesn't, and as you say, it's not even touched upon.

now for those who believe that the world is only 6000 years old... they're on their own.

No, I referred to the idea that life on earth was designed. I really do not think that is a crazy idea - I just do not think it is true. Somewhat like how the idea of lemons being blue can look very good on paper, but a simple observation will teach they are not.

Unfortunately, the ID crowd refuses to go out and take an actual look. And I do not wish that attitude to be taught to my children.

Exactly. Scientists' raison d'etre is constant inquiry, stemming from a fervent belief that we know only that we don't know everything. A lot of people are uncomfortable with and possibly afraid of uncertainty, so when they hear about ID as espoused by the non-scientific community, they sigh with relief and use the doctrine as an excuse not to think about things anymore, because lo! we have THE answer now. Actually, that's more or less what religion does: stifle nuanced, independent thinking, because why think when the answers are all right there? Thinking makes their brains hurt.

As to blue lemons, perhaps there are some folks with a particular kind of colour-blindness that renders blue and yellow indistinguishable, so their simple observation, perfectly justifiable to them, tells them that lemons are blue. Maybe religiosity is analagous to colour-blindness.

But simple observation that is based on flawed or incomplete technique, knowledge, equipment, and senses, is bound to be inaccurate. Hence people (and most particularly the church) used to think and teach, amongst other theories, that the sun revolved around the earth -- that is, before we knew better. And even then, it took the church a while to admit its backwardness, much longer than any reputable scientist would take.

I'll bet that, say, even after a genetic basis for homosexuality is definitively proven, the church will still take a couple of centuries before it comes to its senses.

Your intelligent designer would have to create his designs one way or another, so he then becomes a creator. You can't have a creator without creationism, so ID is creationism; creationism with a teaspoon of psuedo-rationality, creationism light, but still creationism.
the difference is this.

ID. God created the world and all life on it. yes, while the bible doesnt' state Dinosaurs, Evolution is the "how" thus dinosuars did exsist at one time.

Creationism: the world was created in 6 days, Dinosaurs didn't exsist because the bible made no mention on if. therefore, Dinosaurs were planted by satan to lead the people away from God.

Just in case anyone wants a good education on this issue, reading the transcripts form the Kitzmiller vrs. Board of Education can provide it.

It is a real looooong read. But you will come out of it informed.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

thus it doesn't prove or disprove a creator. yet some here states that evolution disproves the idea of a surpreme being.

it doesn't, and as you say, it's not even touched upon.

now for those who believe that the world is only 6000 years old... they're on their own.

I don't think I've ever seen it claimed that evolution proves there is no god...

Usually - the claim is made that evolution offers a mechanism by which life could have come to it's current state '(with or) without God'... but it is taking god 'out of the equation' - not 'disproving god'.

the difference is this.

ID. God created the world and all life on it. yes, while the bible doesnt' state Dinosaurs, Evolution is the "how" thus dinosuars did exsist at one time.

Creationism: the world was created in 6 days, Dinosaurs didn't exsist because the bible made no mention on if. therefore, Dinosaurs were planted by satan to lead the people away from God.
I wouldn't say that was entirely accurate. Creationists might not necessarily refute the existence of dinosaurs, or claim that 6 days refers to six actual revolutions of the earth.

In fact, it seems like you're deliberately trying to make creationism seem ridiculous in the hope of generating sympathy for ID as a slightly better way of expressing the same thing.

The truth is that Intelligent Design demands that there is a conscious (intelligent) act of design. If the way the world came to being at all follows this design process then it is a creation. Intelligent Design and Creationism are either the same thing or Intelligent Design is a redundant notion, since it implies that the design had no influence on the eventual outcome.

I don't think I've ever seen it claimed that evolution proves there is no god...

Usually - the claim is made that evolution offers a mechanism by which life could have come to it's current state '(with or) without God'... but it is taking god 'out of the equation' - not 'disproving god'.
agreed. but alot of folks out there do equate "taking God out of the equation" to equal "God does not exsist."

not saying you are one of em. If you thought that, I apologize.

I wouldn't say that was entirely accurate. Creationists might not necessarily refute the existence of dinosaurs, or claim that 6 days refers to six actual revolutions of the earth.

In fact, it seems like you're deliberately trying to make creationism seem ridiculous in the hope of generating sympathy for ID as a slightly better way of expressing the same thing.

The truth is that Intelligent Design demands that there is a conscious (intelligent) act of design. If the way the world came to being at all follows this design process then it is a creation. Intelligent Design and Creationism are either the same thing or Intelligent Design is a redundant notion, since it implies that the design had no influence on the eventual outcome.actually, I did remember hearing someone support the Bible is Literal when it comes to creation. can't remember where it was cus I turned the channel before I got sick.

they are out there... those that actually think that way.

Creationism: the world was created in 6 days, Dinosaurs didn't exsist because the bible made no mention on if. therefore, Dinosaurs were planted by satan to lead the people away from God.

The irony of Biblical Creation literalists is that they have to "make up" explanations to reconcile the conflicts between what the Bible says and what has been proven scientifically.

What does that say about their "faithfulness" to the LITERAL message of the Bible.

D-E-S-P-A-R-A-T-E?
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

The irony of Biblical Creation literalists is that they have to "make up" explanations to reconcile the conflicts between what the Bible says and what has been proven scientifically.

What does that say about their "faithfulness" to the LITERAL message of the Bible.

D-E-S-P-A-R-A-T-E?
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?I try not to think about how those people think.

same way I try not to think about how Fundies think.

and most lack the imagination to make up anything. so it's "the devils work" or "it's against God" usually comes to play.

actually, I did remember hearing someone support the Bible is Literal when it comes to creation. can't remember where it was cus I turned the channel before I got sick.

they are out there... those that actually think that way.
And the same people would express support for the ID movement without hesitation (or, for that matter, consideration).

But they are by no means the majority. Unless, that is, you consider Creationism to be that group of people rather than the set of ideas; in which case, we take on a whole new level of understanding where it cannot be compared to either Evolution or Intelligent Design.

agreed. but alot of folks out there do equate "taking God out of the equation" to equal "God does not exsist."

not saying you are one of em. If you thought that, I apologize.

No need for apology. I believe my 'Implicit Atheist' credentials have been bounced around the forums more than enough times. :)

There is ALWAYS a flaw in logic, when 'absence of proof' is considered synonymous with 'proof of absence'.

It is the unfortunate truth, but some people will cast any light they WANT to see, on what is seen - example - Democrats before the last elections debating whether the Ten Commandments SHOULD be on Court Houses... surfaces in the election campaign on leaflets claiming 'Democrats want to take your Bible away"...

And the same people would express support for the ID movement without hesitation (or, for that matter, consideration).

But they are by no means the majority. Unless, that is, you consider Creationism to be that group of people rather than the set of ideas; in which case, we take on a whole new level of understanding where it cannot be compared to either Evolution or Intelligent Design.Creationism is (as it was explained to me in other threads on this forum) the idea that God Created the world as described in the bible.

No need for apology. I believe my 'Implicit Atheist' credentials have been bounced around the forums more than enough times. :)

There is ALWAYS a flaw in logic, when 'absence of proof' is considered synonymous with 'proof of absence'.

It is the unfortunate truth, but some people will cast any light they WANT to see, on what is seen - example - Democrats before the last elections debating whether the Ten Commandments SHOULD be on Court Houses... surfaces in the election campaign on leaflets claiming 'Democrats want to take your Bible away"...
ahh... that case.. I have my own opinions on that and what should've been the solution. but that will detract this thread.

Creationism is (as it was explained to me in other threads on this forum) the idea that God Created the world as described in the bible.

'Literal' Creationism, only of the Christian form.

Even then - it breaks down further - not ALL Christian Creationists are "Young Earth Creationists" - some believe the story is true, but the numbers are representative rather than literal... some believe the story tells the 'spirit' of Creation, but not necessarilly the 'flesh'.

(Christian) 'Creationism' is any one of a spectrum of approaches that claims the Biblical account is true in SOME fashion.

'Literal' Creationism, only of the Christian form.

Even then - it breaks down further - not ALL Christian Creationists are "Young Earth Creationists" - some believe the story is true, but the numbers are representative rather than literal... some believe the story tells the 'spirit' of Creation, but not necessarilly the 'flesh'.

(Christian) 'Creationism' is any one of a spectrum of approaches that claims the Biblical account is true in SOME fashion.then I would probably fall closer in line with the latter definition. for I do believe that God did start the process, and Evolution was that process.

however, I would rather be called and IDalist, rather than a Creationist. but it seems that's personal preference now. :D

so for you, lack of evidence is proof that it doesn't exsist?

show me proof that a supreme being did not start the process.

oh and as ID gets it wong, so do people who believe in Evolution. we did not evolve from Gorillias. we are genetically closer to Chimpanzese. a different species... so it's not just the ID supporters that are passing off wrong info and not doing their studies.

hope you didn't tell your kids we evolved from Gorillas. :p

oh, and most ID supporters, (Not Creationists) believe in evolution also.

The onus is never, under any circumstances, on scientists to disprove religionists' claim of the existence of a supreme being, but on the religionists to defend and prove their own claim. This is elementary logic.

LINUS: The Great Pumpkin rises from the pumpkin patch and brings goodies to kids on Hallowe'en.
LUCY: Great Pumpkin? There's no such thing.
LINUS: Prove it.
LUCY: It's not up to me to prove anything. You're the one who brought up the existence Great Pumpkin in the first place, and you expect me to believe in it just because you do? You blockhead! The Great Pumpkin is a fanciful notion invented by Charles M Schulz!
LINUS: As are we all.
LUCY: Yes, well, we're just cartoon characters, aren't we? We don't really exist either.

Now, just for fun, substitute "God" for "Great Pumpkin", and "a tribe of semi-literate middle-eastern goatherds" for "Charles M Schulz".

then I would probably fall closer in line with the latter definition. for I do believe that God did start the process, and Evolution was that process.

however, I would rather be called and IDalist, rather than a Creationist. but it seems that's personal preference now. :D

I certainly don't consider you a strict 'literal Creationist', even if your platform IS capable of being defined as a 'creationist' platform.

When I was a Christian, I was of the same school of thought, it seems... it seemed logical that evolution was the tool, and it seemed spiritually reasonable that God was the instigator of the process - the wielder of that 'tool'.

Let me re-iterate - it is not your 'belief' that antagonises. ID suffers because the BIG proponents push it as science... and, while it has science IN IT, it is not 'science' as a whole.

It's like saying we are water, because we have water IN us.

On a 'personal note': I am glad to have you in the 'evolution' camp, regardless of where either of us thinks evolution 'comes from'. :)

to see us overcome those flaws and what paths his lifeforms would take to overcome such flaws.

And what would the point of that be? That seems to me about as capricious and asinine of god as his behaviour towards Job, in which instance he was being a real asshole.

And people tend to make religion out of anything they believe in.

however, the OP asked what's wrong with ID and the arguments here seem to be more aimed to the CREATIONIST people. I'm just trying to distinguish the difference between ID and Creationists. after all, why alienate those who actally are on your side.

I think the point some of the posters were trying to make is that there IS no difference between "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism", that they are one and the same.

however, I would rather be called and IDalist, rather than a Creationist. but it seems that's personal preference now. :D
And that, youngin', is the point of ID.

It's like saying we are water, because we have water IN us.
And what's wrong with that? With the amount of water that's in us, we practically are water. Just a rather neatly arranged solution.

the difference is this.

ID. God created the world and all life on it. yes, while the bible doesnt' state Dinosaurs, Evolution is the "how" thus dinosuars did exsist at one time.

Creationism: the world was created in 6 days, Dinosaurs didn't exsist because the bible made no mention on if. therefore, Dinosaurs were planted by satan to lead the people away from God.
i dont know what your point is in this thread.

intelligent design is a theology that says that god created life on earth and that his mechanism was evolution.

you SEEM to want us to congratulate you on having a correct theology because it includes this bit of science and creationism is obviously scientifically bereft.

your theology is no more correct than anyone elses. belief is personal and if it speaks to you, thats enough. the biblical literalists are not less in god's eyes because they believe that he created the universe in 6 actual days. you are not better because you toss a bit of science into your religion.

so what IS your point?

The onus is never, under any circumstances, on scientists to disprove religionists' claim of the existence of a supreme being, but on the religionists to defend and prove their own claim. This is elementary logic.
It is also horrendously bad argument material. It's like saying "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you why because I don't have to and you're too stupid to work it out for yourself". Regardless of whether or not it's true, it's just unpleasant and unhelpful to anyone watching. It's just good practice to state your case well even if you're not required to, since it'll be more beneficial for everyone involved, and you might even find those areas of your thoughts that might need a little rethink to fully seal them over.

It is also horrendously bad argument material. It's like saying "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you why because I don't have to and you're too stupid to work it out for yourself". Regardless of whether or not it's true, it's just unpleasant and unhelpful to anyone watching. It's just good practice to state your case well even if you're not required to, since it'll be more beneficial for everyone involved, and you might even find those areas of your thoughts that might need a little rethink to fully seal them over.

No comprende... what's horrendously bad argument material? Stating that people who make deistic claims out of left-field should have to back them up with evidence? We as a species got along quite successfully for over a million years before some people decided, for whatever reason, to invent Jehovah.

If I suddenly devised some supreme being out of my imagination and told everyone that my fancy existed, or even better, that this supreme being and I had had many indepth conversations, and that we should all bow down to this newfangled deity on the strength of this "truth" that I'd received, I probably wouldn't expect to be stuck into a rubber room (because I'd be of unsound mind, and crazy people never think they're crazy), but I'd certainly deserve it.

I'm not advocating that religious people have to be locked up in insane asylums. All I'm asking is that they provide proof of their supreme being before they use it to support any argument. And I certainly don't think any kind of rational science can be based on unprovable philosophical beliefs.

Trial and error my friend. OVer 4.5 billion years of trial and error.

What an exquisite insight!
Definitely a fresh take on the issue.

I appreciate your vote of confidence. With this issue, like many other theological issues, the concern is not someone proving God doesn't exist. That's logically impossible. The concern is proving that the existence of God is irrelevant.

Take prayer, for instance. Many Christians have wonderful stories about how they prayed and how their prayers were answered, but the same is true for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Obviously, the efficacy of prayer is not derived from the entity to which prayers are directed or otherwise you would have one religious group living high on the hog from the power of prayer while everyone else was poor and frustrated. The common bond in this case would be the sincerity with which prayers were offered.

Anyway, carry on...

No comprende... what's horrendously bad argument material? Stating that people who make deistic claims out of left-field should have to back them up with evidence?
No, the whole "Onus of Proof" thing. If you have a reason as to why such claims are invalid, you should state it from the get-go rather than just saying "You're wrong until you can say why you're right".

I'm not advocating that religious people have to be locked up in insane asylums. All I'm asking is that they provide proof of their supreme being before they use it to support any argument. And I certainly don't think any kind of rational science can be based on unprovable philosophical beliefs.
And I'm not saying you shouldn't ask them to do so. However, you presumably have other reasons to assume that such a thing does not exist, and it is simply good debate practice (at least, it is here; American debating is a bit screwy from what I can tell) to give reasons to support your side as well rather than refusing to do so out of what appears to be either an intellectual superiority complex or simple laziness.

Ohhhh... I get it now. "post 100"... hey Junii, next time, link the post you're talking about. Of course, it didn't help that I was still shaking off a Saturday night hangover, but y'know...

*goes to look at post 100*

...the Hell? Hey, that didn't answer anything...!

Hydesland,

Firstly, im not religious at all. Also i definately do not wan't intelligent design to be taught in schools. However, I just want to know exactly what angers people so much about Intelligent Design.
The idea of intelligent design, in and of itself, doesn't anger me. That's sorta like getting angry at Greek mythology. What annoys me is that people want this myth taught in science classes alongside with, or even instead of, evolution.

There are so much worst things out there.
Worse than an innocent, naive child being taught a myth as if it were a valid scientific theory?

I do agree that there are worse things, but I hope you do see how serious this in particular is.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy.
Maybe not. It was apparently the best we could come up with to explain the world around us thousands of years ago.

But now we know better.

Say you have the very begginings of life. The most simplist cell still has DNA which has enough information to fill entire volumes of books, apparently all the amino acids and proteins or whatever just floated around and just happened to float perfectly into this combination that causes life. Thats a bit like millions of dust particles floating together to form the Monalisa.
They didn't come together perfectly. If they did, it never would've evolved. Life is not perfect.

And, an argument to awe isn't logical. Yes it's amazing, but whether or not it's so amazing that life started is irrelevant. Life started. It happened. So obviously it's not as fantastical as you see it to be.

So the idea that some sort of intelligence is behind this, isn't that crazy. I do believe in evolution but sometimes that can sound a bit stupid. "Oh we look like gorillas so therefor we used to be gorillas".
I would like to take the opportunity to say the following to anyone in this thread who needs to know this: It reflects poorly on your understanding of evolution if you think we used to be gorillas. We did not evolve from the primates that exist today. We evolved from the primate-like organisms that existed some million years ago, as did the rest of today's primates.

Also there is also something called the missing link, technically we should have found millions of these all over the planet. But we only found at most a few, which some people just claim to be irregular mutations.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but when you say "missing link", I think about the humanoid species that should fill the gap in the known evolutionary history of Homo sapiens. That we haven't found the missing link yet means exactly that and nothing more: we haven't found it yet.

Also what about Charles Darwin saying that if a cell is anymore complex then a pile of mucas (or something like that) then the whole idea of evolution would fall apart.
It is my understanding that evolution as Darwin understood it isn't quite accurate - and if he indeed said that a cell couldn't be more complex than mucous, then I must be right. He certainly was going in the right track, but no cigar.

I would be helpful if someone could just clear up these questions for me.
I hope I did a sufficient job. :)

Just to say to those people who keep quoting the part where i say we came from Gorrilas. I was just using that as a hypothetical example and didn't mean it litterally to show how, if you say something one way it makes it sound stupid.

Also, lack of homosapians = lack of proof of human evolution. Im not trying to disproove evolution but show that using this argument against evolution does not count, apparently. However if you use this argument against ID that immediately means that ID is wrong.

Also, for the last time!, im not for teaching ID in a science class.

Also, for the last time!, im not for teaching ID in a science class.
Are you for teaching it anywhere at taxpayer expense?

As I see it, it's only appropriate to be taught in a Sunday-school curriculum.

Are you for teaching it anywhere at taxpayer expense?

As I see it, it's only appropriate to be taught in a Sunday-school curriculum.

I don't see anything wrong with teaching the key ideas in ID at r.e.

Just to say to those people who keep quoting the part where i say we came from Gorrilas. I was just using that as a hypothetical example and didn't mean it litterally to show how, if you say something one way it makes it sound stupid.
In that case, I shall go back and edit the part where I quoted it (eventually). But, I hope you do know that saying we came from gorillas isn't merely another way of explaining the evolutionary history of humans, but in fact claims something that is entirely different and contrary to fact.

Sorry if I sound really nit-picky. That's just how I am sometimes when I'm debating. :)

Are you for teaching it anywhere at taxpayer expense?

As I see it, it's only appropriate to be taught in a Sunday-school curriculum.
Knowledge is power.

I would rather be taught about it than indoctrinated in it.

Knowledge is power.

I would rather be taught about it than indoctrinated in it.
Well, if the taxpayer-funded course is a study about the origins of ID "theory" and of those individuals promulgating it, as opposed to teaching the "theory" itself, then it's best suited to being covered in a high-school level sociology course.

Other than that, it (the "theory") belongs in a privately-funded Religious Education program, held off school property.

Also, lack of homosapians = lack of proof of human evolution. Im not trying to disproove evolution but to show that using this argument against evolution does not count apparently. However if you usde the same sort of argument against ID the whole that immediately means that its wrong.I'm feeling particularly stupid today. What exactly does the above actually mean?

I'm feeling particularly stupid today. What exactly does the above actually mean?

Im sorry, i type to fast, ill try to edit it.

No, the whole "Onus of Proof" thing. If you have a reason as to why such claims are invalid, you should state it from the get-go rather than just saying "You're wrong until you can say why you're right".


And I'm not saying you shouldn't ask them to do so. However, you presumably have other reasons to assume that such a thing does not exist, and it is simply good debate practice (at least, it is here; American debating is a bit screwy from what I can tell) to give reasons to support your side as well rather than refusing to do so out of what appears to be either an intellectual superiority complex or simple laziness.

The thing of it is, I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic. I'm perfectly willing to accept the existence of god if I am presented with indisputable empirical evidence. For me, an argument takes the form of a geometric proof: Given X, then Y; given Y, then Z. The givens have to be either proven or axiomatic for us to draw any inferences from them and for the argument to have any validity.

If someone predicates his arguments with non-proven assertions (in other words Given X, where X denotes the existence of a supreme being based on conjecture), those entire arguments, and all arguments that follow from them, are baseless. Unless, and until, I accept my opponent's givens as either proven or axiomatic, the argument can go no further.

The argument has to be like a well-constructed house, and one shouldn't try to build one until a good, solid, unassailable foundation has been laid first, or it will fall down around one's ears.

I am, by the way, not American, but Canadian, in case you were assuming.

Just to say to those people who keep quoting the part where i say we came from Gorrilas. I was just using that as a hypothetical example and didn't mean it litterally to show how, if you say something one way it makes it sound stupid.

Also, lack of homosapians = lack of proof of human evolution. Im not trying to disproove evolution but to show that using this argument against evolution does not count apparently. However if you usde the same sort of argument against ID the whole that immediately means that its wrong.

Also, for the last time!, im not for teaching ID in a science class.

so many points, so little chance that my post will be read

last point first. Intelligent design ONLY exists in order to get religion snuck into school. its not a science. it has no possibility of useful research. all it does it to look for "proof" of what they have already decided is true while ignoring everything that doesnt fit their idea. if it were a real science it would take every single thing that doesnt fit the current notions of ID and tweak the theory until the THEORY fits the evidence (instead of the evidence fitting the theory)

the detractors of evolution often use old discarded ideas to prop up the notion that evolution is wrong. for example, it used to be that relationships were decided by morphology-- we resemble a gorilla therefore we are related to gorillas. today all such relationships are tested through genetics and it has been found that some creatures that were thought to be closely related arent close at all. (although the mophology approach was pretty accurate considering the lack of knowledge of the mechanism of mutation)

the detractors of evolution often use old quotes from and mistakes of darwin to show that evolution is wrong. darwin isnt god. he had a world changing idea but he is not the end-all and be-all of evolution. his notion of how complex a cell can be is irrelevant to any understanding of evolution whatsoever. because evolution IS a science, as new evidence and techniques come along, the theory is changed to accomodate them. yes that means that there are still today some details of evolution that will be shown to be wrong. that wont invalidate evolution, it will improve it.

i dont understand your lack of homosapiens=lack of human evolution point. how would it ever mean that? we have specimens of older human ancestors that no longer exist. we have a pretty long theoretical chain of development. AND as new understanding comes along, our understanding of human evolution changes--for example it used to be thought that perhaps cro-magnon man interbred with neanderthal man to form the humans of today, that idea has been challenged and we no longer think that. it didnt invalidate evolution, it improved it.

so many points, so little chance that my post will be read

last point first. Intelligent design ONLY exists in order to get religion snuck into school. its not a science. it has no possibility of useful research. all it does it to look for "proof" of what they have already decided is true while ignoring everything that doesnt fit their idea. if it were a real science it would take every single thing that doesnt fit the current notions of ID and tweak the theory until the THEORY fits the evidence (instead of the evidence fitting the theory)

the detractors of evolution often use old discarded ideas to prop up the notion that evolution is wrong. for example, it used to be that relationships were decided by morphology-- we resemble a gorilla therefore we are related to gorillas. today all such relationships are tested through genetics and it has been found that some creatures that were thought to be closely related arent close at all. (although the mophology approach was pretty accurate considering the lack of knowledge of the mechanism of mutation)

the detractors of evolution often use old quotes from and mistakes of darwin to show that evolution is wrong. darwin isnt god. he had a world changing idea but he is not the end-all and be-all of evolution. his notion of how complex a cell can be is irrelevant to any understanding of evolution whatsoever. because evolution IS a science, as new evidence and techniques come along, the theory is changed to accomodate them. yes that means that there are still today some details of evolution that will be shown to be wrong. that wont invalidate evolution, it will improve it.

i dont understand your lack of homosapiens=lack of human evolution point. how would it ever mean that? we have specimens of older human ancestors that no longer exist. we have a pretty long theoretical chain of development. AND as new understanding comes along, our understanding of human evolution changes--for example it used to be thought that perhaps cro-magnon man interbred with neanderthal man to form the humans of today, that idea has been challenged and we no longer think that. it didnt invalidate evolution, it improved it.

For the last time, I don't think ID is really a science. So all that stuff you said is largely irrelivant. Also ID existed way before people wanted to shove it into the school system. It is useful as it helps people understand how their could be a god and, even if you don't believe in a higher power, it shows how amazing life is!

Also ID existed way before people wanted to shove it into the school system.

no it didn't. it is a movement based entirely on what a bunch of creationists stupidly thought to be a loophole big enough to get the science out of science class in the wake of edwards v. aguillard.

For the last time, I don't think ID is really a science. So all that stuff you said is largely irrelivant. Also ID existed way before people wanted to shove it into the school system. It is useful as it helps people understand how their could be a god and, even if you don't believe in a higher power, it shows how amazing life is!
show me ONE instance of something called "intelligent design" that existed before people wanted a new way to get creationism into the school system.

what point DID you want to make?

how is it useful to have people understand that there could be a god and that this could be his way of creating live on earth? how does it show how amazing life is? how does it do anything but pretend to be a science and to pretend that it is unbiased toward any religious tradition?

Take prayer, for instance. Many Christians have wonderful stories about how they prayed and how their prayers were answered, but the same is true for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Obviously, the efficacy of prayer is not derived from the entity to which prayers are directed or otherwise you would have one religious group living high on the hog from the power of prayer while everyone else was poor and frustrated. The common bond in this case would be the sincerity with which prayers were offered.

Anyway, carry on...

Or...maybe it is one deity, who just doesn't care how it is addressed. It is just inclined to give some people what they ask for once in awhile just to keep things interesting.

show me ONE instance of something called "intelligent design" that existed before people wanted a new way to get creationism into the school system.

what point DID you want to make?

how is it useful to have people understand that there could be a god and that this could be his way of creating live on earth? how does it show how amazing life is? how does it do anything but pretend to be a science and to pretend that it is unbiased toward any religious tradition?

Ok, i feel very embaressed to say this but, my dad was a keen supporter of ID back in the 90's before anyone even heard of it. It was mainly used to give encouragement to religous or agnostic people.

The point i wanted to make is that it shouldn't be dismissed as the stupidest thing in the world, it is actually quite fair.

The thought that there is a God gives hope to some people. It shows how amazing life is by showing how complex and intresting it is.

The thought that there is a God gives hope to some people. It shows how amazing life is by showing how complex and intresting it is.
How does it show how complex and interesting life is? It just tries to explain why it's here. Please explain your reasoning. :confused:

Ok, i feel very embaressed to say this but, my dad was a keen supporter of ID back in the 90's before anyone even heard of it.

"of pandas and people" was first published in 1989. the id movement got started in 1987, and they already had the discovery institute up and running by 1990.

Im sorry, i type to fast, ill try to edit it.Nope, still confused.

You've corrected some of the spelling/grammar, but that isn't the problem. (I'm not an error-free typist, myself, however much I try.)

I just don't understand what you said. As I said, I've a feeling I'm being stupid, so I'll spell out what I make out of what you're saying. Please tell me where I'm wrong or enlighten my confuzzled brain. (I didn't want to do that, it looks like nitpicking, when.)

Also, lack of homosapians = lack of proof of human evolution.You're either equating two things (and I know that one is false, i.e. 'there is no lack', so the other must also be) or making an assignation of some kind (and i'm not sure in which direction).

Im not trying to disproove evolution but show that using this argument against evolution does not count apparently.What argument? (The above statement?) Does not count for/against what?

However if you use this argument against ID that immediately means that ID is wrong.Not sure if this is a statement of fact or a conclusion or an admonation of an opinion being taken.

Darn, it probably looks like I'm trolling. You did me the courtesy of trying to fix your original post, so I just wanted to explain what I actually having difficulty with.

(Also just realised that I'd cut'n'paste your original text. Sorry. Roughly the same, but edited your changes back in. Then I timed out when I tried to post, and initially went to the wrong thread to paste the reply back in after relogin... Was this reply worth it? I hope so, but I fear not.)

Ok, i feel very embaressed to say this but, my dad was a keen supporter of ID back in the 90's before anyone even heard of it. It was mainly used to give encouragement to religous or agnostic people.

The point i wanted to make is that it shouldn't be dismissed as the stupidest thing in the world, it is actually quite fair.

The thought that there is a God gives hope to some people. It shows how amazing life is by showing how complex and intresting it is.
i wonder if his efforts werent co-opted by US creationists in some way.

ID is a very good theological stance. there is no need to deny scientific realities in order to be a good christian. no one should have to choose between reality and belief.

How does it show how complex and interesting life is? It just tries to explain why it's here. Please explain your reasoning. :confused:

Sorry, the two sentences dont relate to each other, they both refer to intelligent design.

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy. Say you have the very begginings of life. The most simplist cell still has DNA which has enough information to fill entire volumes of books, apparently all the amino acids and proteins or whatever just floated around and just happened to float perfectly into this combination that causes life. Thats a bit like millions of dust particles floating together to form the Monalisa. So the idea that some sort of intelligence is behind this, isn't that crazy.


So I guess my question would be this - if ID is indeed a valid premise (and who knows? I wasn't there when it started on Earth) - who or what had the intelligence and capability to design life that is as complex as it is here on Earth? There has to have been some intelligence, who do you believe it was?

To me, the prime concept of ID isn't all that crazy.

Ok, here's the most obvious question about ID: if there really is a 'designer,' how does this entity influence the design? That question isn't a problem for traditional creationism because its God is a creator as well as a designer, but for ID there's this odd gap between designer and design and nobody can be bothered to fill it with any kind of mechanism.

So I guess my question would be this - if ID is indeed a valid premise (and who knows? I wasn't there when it started on Earth) - who or what had the intelligence and capability to design life that is as complex as it is here on Earth? There has to have been some intelligence, who do you believe it was?

NO.
It is not compulsory for there to be a designer or an intelligence behind the initiation, manifestation, or existence of life or the universe.
Doesn't matter how "impressive" it all seems. That is a subjective assessment of subjective experience. It may be very pleasant and thought provoking, but it is not evidence of a "truth".

the difference is this.

ID. God created the world and all life on it. yes, while the bible doesnt' state Dinosaurs, Evolution is the "how" thus dinosuars did exsist at one time.

Creationism: the world was created in 6 days, Dinosaurs didn't exsist because the bible made no mention on if. therefore, Dinosaurs were planted by satan to lead the people away from God.


When was the last time you actually talked to a creationist? I know many and have never met one that didn't believe that dinosaurs existed. There probably are some, but every religion has some "followers" that do not fully understand the theology. Of course, the Bible doesn't use the word dinosaur, that word wasn't invented until 1841. There are, however, references to dinosaurs, most notably in Job 40:15-24. For a few more see this site http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml.
I would like to add that since no one has ever seen one species become another species, that idea takes just as much faith as the idea of a creator. Also, I don't think that we should be teaching religion in public schools, be it Christianity or goo-to-you evolutionism. In fact, we could end the debate over proper public school curriculum, if we just got the government out of the school business altogether. Since the topic of this thread is ID apart from literal Creationism, I will refrain from sharing more of my views.

I would like to add that since no one has ever seen one species become another species,

*cough* (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm)

Job 40:15-24

Behemoth is a hippo.

I would like to add that since no one has ever seen one species become another species

Actually, we have seen speciation in several cases, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I would like to add that since no one has ever seen one species become another species, that idea takes just as much faith as the idea of a creator. Also, I don't think that we should be teaching religion in public schools, be it Christianity or goo-to-you evolutionism. In fact, we could end the debate over proper public school curriculum, if we just got the government out of the school business altogether. Since the topic of this thread is ID apart from literal Creationism, I will refrain from sharing more of my views.

What kind of evolutionism?

You know, if I use your logic, I have personally never "seen" any of my red blood cells take on oxygen and discharge CO2. And yet....indeed I BREATH!

I have never "seen" food converted to glucose in my body either. And yet....I have energy!

I have never "seen" bacteria or viruses invade my cells. And yet...I have been sick!

Ain't "faith" wonderful?

NO.
It is not compulsory for there to be a designer or an intelligence behind the initiation, manifestation, or existence of life or the universe.
Doesn't matter how "impressive" it all seems. That is a subjective assessment of subjective experience. It may be very pleasant and thought provoking, but it is not evidence of a "truth".

Well, right. Actually, I agree with this point of view. What I was asking though is this - if ID is reasonable, then who was it behind the design? I suspect the answer has to be a god of some sort - and if so, if it is a god, why then the whole "it's not about religion" thing is a lie. I suppose it could be space aliens or something like that too - but I betcha the ID people won't agree to that. The root of their argument is therefore religious.
So - ID people - who is behind the design?

Well, right. Actually, I agree with this point of view. What I was asking though is this - if ID is reasonable, then who was it behind the design? I suspect the answer has to be a god of some sort - and if so, if it is a god, why then the whole "it's not about religion" thing is a lie. I suppose it could be space aliens or something like that too - but I betcha the ID people won't agree to that. The root of their argument is therefore religious.
So - ID people - who is behind the design?

I'd like an honest answer to this question too.

ID proponents have defended themselves against accusations that ID is just repackaged religion/creation by claiming that no specific designer/creator is implied. I say that one--and a very specific one--IS implied.

So, ID proponents, if the Intelligent Designer is not the Judeo/Islamic/Christian God, then what or who?