Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

Whatever “science” you folk think you have a grip on I dont know but Ill tell you this, no matter how logical YOU think your arguments are, the faithful will smack you in the back of the head with a “god made it so” /“god set this in motion”/“it was gods intention” assault of thier own. Its a cyclical battle. Scientists are just as stubborn in supporting thier science as the other side is in supporting thier fairy tales. NO ONE is going to convince the other simply because both sides have thier ideas rooted in thier ability to help overcome a fear of a universe no one really seems to understand.

I think the “thinking” is necessary but denouncing is futile, not wrong, just futile.
Lets not focus on how the other side is wrong according to our system of reality interpretation ,but rather how we may be accurate to conclude what we do within the bounds and regulations of that particular system of perception analysis.

Just my two…cents.

Amir

22

Let’s get someone to present a complete scientific argument from I.D. theory. Use statistic, show the evidence and convince me. I already said I believe in God. This is no joke, I am fully willing to accept a valid and backed up argument.

23

[quote]AMIRisSQUAT wrote:
Scientists are just as stubborn in supporting thier science as the other side is in supporting thier fairy tales.

Amir[/quote]

However scientific theories leave the option open for disproof, so they can be modified with new information. So how is using examples of empirical evidence being stubborn? I think everyone here lifts weights. Would we be stubborn if we say lifting weights has healthy consequences on the body?

Here’s a great blog on evolution. http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/

24

One side has as its supporters, every respected scientist and thinker on the planet.

The other side has a story which contains a naked lady and a talking snake.

Which side are you on?

Rick

Also, in the TIME magazine cover story from last week (or two weeks ago)), there was an excellent rejoinder to the “teach the controversy” idiocy, put forth by Oxford professor Richard Dawkins (the man who formulated the first theses about memes).

He said that creationism has its place in the history classroom, or even in the philosophy texts, but the teach it alongside evolution is like teaching Flat-Earth in geography class.

25

Im a “cold-blooded” scientist at heart. And I am NOT one to deny observable evidence but its the nature of faith that will not buy that most logical of logical arguments.
I just will tell you this. You CANNOT deter someones absolute faith no matter WHAT empirical/practical/logical/provable/negotiable/tangible/meaningful argument you present to them. Thats just the nature of true faith.

Our science is a mode of perception analysis with a set of rules and regulations based around the ability of our sense organs to detect change, either directly or indirectly through sophisticated machinery.
Eventually this set of laws will probably morph into something much more sophisticated and more intricate probably combining todays elements of pseuodoism and fringe thinking resulting in an even more holistic and deeper understanding of the world around us. Till then though, Im with the evolution team, Team-E.
The nature of modern science is to inevitabley become archaic balderdash.

Its just the nature of things thats all.

Amir

26

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Let’s get someone to present a complete scientific argument from I.D. theory. Use statistic, show the evidence and convince me. I already said I believe in God. This is no joke, I am fully willing to accept a valid and backed up argument.

[/quote]

I think that’s a fair comment. After all the theory of evolution is weak if you look at it with a critical eye. Yet, it is still taught in our classrooms.

27

[quote]ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Let’s get someone to present a complete scientific argument from I.D. theory. Use statistic, show the evidence and convince me. I already said I believe in God. This is no joke, I am fully willing to accept a valid and backed up argument.

I think that’s a fair comment. After all the theory of evolution is weak if you look at it with a critical eye. Yet, it is still taught in our classrooms. [/quote]

Just to clarify, I’m not saying to bring in someone to highschool, I’m saying, somebody needs to present a complete scientific argument for I.D. on this thread and convince me, not that that it is appropriate science. If they can do that, then we can talk about teaching it in schools, but every ID argument I have heard to date has misused statistics or logical arguments.

28

[quote]ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Let’s get someone to present a complete scientific argument from I.D. theory. Use statistic, show the evidence and convince me. I already said I believe in God. This is no joke, I am fully willing to accept a valid and backed up argument.

I think that’s a fair comment. After all the theory of evolution is weak if you look at it with a critical eye. Yet, it is still taught in our classrooms. [/quote]

How is it weak?

29

[quote]AMIRisSQUAT wrote:
Our science is a mode of perception analysis with a set of rules and regulations based around the ability of our sense organs to detect change, either directly or indirectly through sophisticated machinery.
Eventually this set of laws will probably morph into something much more sophisticated and more intricate probably combining todays elements of pseuodoism and fringe thinking resulting in an even more holistic and deeper understanding of the world around us. Till then though, Im with the evolution team, Team-E.
The nature of modern science is to inevitabley become archaic balderdash.
Amir[/quote]

This is pretty much my point of view. The problem with the basic I.D. line is that it will look like balderdash long before modern science does because its just such a superficial bandage.

30

[quote]AMIRisSQUAT wrote:
Ive always thought that if thier was one true creator, and the three major religions do worship the same dude, why would is he so imperfect as to create three diverging modes of worship and then make it so (through the gift of human nature) that they all hate each other?

And then why are thier little babies and innocent children raped, killed and abused and molested EVERY FUCKING DAY (FUCK THAT SHIT PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF AND I SWEAR IF I EVER COME ACROSS A FUCKING PEDOPHILE IN MY LIFETIME I WILL WITHOUT FUCKING HESISTATION SNAP HIS FUCKING NECK AND RAPE HIS CARCASS)!

[/quote]

Two things I’d throw out there. First, if you decided that there is a Creator (which one day you will know for certain) and you were smart enough to understand all of the things he understands then wouldn’t that make you God?

Two, if you had never seen an automobile before and one day you stumbled on a H2 Hummer in a field would you think that it just happened? Maybe a storm created it, or it manifested itself from iron?

I will agree with you on the pedophile thing, I think we should save the country billions of dollars by killing all of the convicted pedophiles/murderers/rapists and so on.

FatSensei

31

[quote]fatsensei wrote:
Two, if you had never seen an automobile before and one day you stumbled on a H2 Hummer in a field would you think that it just happened? Maybe a storm created it, or it manifested itself from iron?

FatSensei[/quote]

That’s the old watchmaker argument. Google on that to see the problems with it. Also, any day you stumble into a hummer is a good day.

32

[quote]fatsensei wrote:
…which one day you will know for certain…[/quote]

Only if there is survival of a “soul” or of your consciousness in some form or other after death.

If there is nothing after death, you’ll never “know” it since, by definition, you won’t be conscious to know it.

A Hummer? Why don’t you use a watch like everyone else? That argument has been refuted countless times; and if you’ve never read the counter argument, just plug “watchmaker refuted” in Google and read.

33

A weak scientific theory is always a better answer than “God did it.”

34

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
A weak scientific theory is always a better answer than “God did it.”[/quote]

Sir, took the words right out of my mouth. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

35

[quote]BluePfaltz wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:
A weak scientific theory is always a better answer than “God did it.”

Sir, took the words right out of my mouth. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
[/quote]

OK, but evolution is not a weak theory. Straight Darwinism had gaps which he himself admitted, and solved several of (such as sexual selection). ASIDE FROM THE STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY argument, what are the gaps?

I mean, I’ve heard people call the evolution of the eye a GAP, what gap? It just means we haven’t figured out why certain stages were actually advantageous, or at least not deleterious. It tells evolutionary scientist what to look at to expand out understanding.

36

[quote]BluePfaltz wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:
A weak scientific theory is always a better answer than “God did it.”

Sir, took the words right out of my mouth. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
[/quote]

Amen!

Yes, Evolution is full of holes. There’s a lot we do not understand yet. But every theory out there is or was like that at one point. Gravity is another blatant example: after centuries of study, we have such a fundamental lack of understanding of how gravity works it’s mind-boggling.

Still, much like the current theory around Gravity, Evolution does the best job at explaining the physical evidence we have collected in centuries of investigation. It’s not perfect, but it’ll get there. Slowly, but surely.

ID is clearly the weakER theory here – basically because it has many, many more problems and unanswered questions than Evolution. As ToShinDo eloquently stated, filling the gaps with a “'cause God did it” is the emobodiment of non-science – if that’s a justification to fill a hole, well, it can be used for just about anything – there’s nothing to discover or figure out there.

Now, in regards to ID being taught at schools, I have no problem with it – as long as it is NOT taught under the umbrella of any science, e.g. Biology. My Portuguese second cousin was just telling me the other day ID has been taught there (in Portugal, an overwhelmingly Catholic country) as long as he can remember it – but under the umbrella of theology, which is where it belongs. Having ID being taught by biologists would be like having physicists teaching astrology.

Now, here’s a classic question I’ve been meaning to ask: let’s imagine that tomorrow we somehow get contacted by three different alien species, from three different, distant, star systems, and we get images of them and they look dramatically different from us and from each other. Different from anything that you’ve ever seen, but also clearly self-conscious and intelligent.

Would that change YOUR beliefs somehow?

37

What i fail to understand is how does evolution existing automatically dismiss the possibility of a God? In truth is does not in any way shape or form.

But evolutionists and creationists seem to feel the need to do battle and point out flaws in each other’s arguments in order for one to invalidate the other. I’m by no means a God but if i were to apply everything i have learned so far (which is literally nothing) i would want an organism of my creation to have extreme adaptablity and flexibility in it’s code. This organism would be capable of evolution as a means of adaptation to a changing enviroment, and the reason the enviroment would be changing is because of this organisms influence on it with it’s mere existence. Said organism would only require basic guidance in the early stages, much like a child and the rest is upto itself.

So there’s one possibility to morph ID and the current understanding of Science. Afterall if God desinged us in the image of him/her self, this means that our critical thinking and ability to analyze are imparted on us as well, so why ignore where it can take us? And for all the faithfull in God, why fear the science? If you believe, then look to it with confidence to eventually prove your point, isn’t that what faith is about?

38

[quote]yorik wrote:
My problem with “Intelligent Design” is that there seems to be nothing intelligent about it, IMO. All you have to do is look at basic endocrinology to see that everything in the human body affects everything else to some degree or another, which is the antithesis of good design.

The systems in the human body really do resemble the models you get from evolutionary computer systems. You might get a robust solution, but it is a real mess to untangle what’s happening inside it.[/quote]

Not to mention that no intelligent being with even an ounce of compassion would design a human male with external testicles. If you’ve ever been socked in the nuts, I think you’ll agree.

39

[quote]fatsensei wrote:
Two, if you had never seen an automobile before and one day you stumbled on a H2 Hummer in a field would you think that it just happened? Maybe a storm created it, or it manifested itself from iron?
FatSensei[/quote]

If its so “self evident” then why would we need to teach it?

40

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
fatsensei wrote:
Two, if you had never seen an automobile before and one day you stumbled on a H2 Hummer in a field would you think that it just happened? Maybe a storm created it, or it manifested itself from iron?

FatSensei

That’s the old watchmaker argument. Google on that to see the problems with it. Also, any day you stumble into a hummer is a good day.[/quote]

The watchmaker argument is a poorly constructed argument, but that does not mean that complexity can not in principle stand as evidence for a creator. I don’t think it will though, just that in principle it could. For example, we could predict the positions of the stars for 2 billions years and find that they spelled out a message. This type of “improbable resonance” would not violate any laws of physics, and might appear as easily dismissed as the watchmaker argument, but we would all agree it would be different.