Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 8-2-2006 @ 05:10 PM by Paul_Richard
Evolutionary theory is just that...a theory. It is not a proven fact, as there are flaws in the basic, unproven premise -- like the never found missing link between apes and man -- but it has its theoretical strengths.

The same applies to Intelligent Design (ID). It is nothing less and nothing more than a theory.

The probability of a Universe and life coming into being from pure chance alone is fantastically small and makes no sense.

The physical laws which govern the Universe illustrate an orderly process to ALL THAT IS, not a chaotic mess of matter and energy.

If the Universe were a chaotic mess of matter and energy, there could never be life on this planet.

Order to the Universe and the physical laws thereof implies a premeditated organizational strategy. A premeditated organizational strategy implies that there was a consciousness which initiated that order in the first place

The stance of those within the Judeo-Christian clergy who believe that Intelligent Design is an insult to God need to remember that it is only an insult to their conception of God. Not everyone believes in the Judeo-Christian god. Furthermore, one does not have to embrace an established monotheistic religion in order to agree with the basic premise of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is very similar to the ideas found within
Deism; basically defined as the belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
An ironic twist about Deism, quoted from the above site...

<< Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. >>

An argument against Intelligent Design is that it is really just a clever form of Creationism. Yet many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions were able to separate Creationism from Deism, while also being instrumental in furthering the principle of separation of church and state. So the argument that ID is simply Creationism in disguise and that it threatens the separation of church and state, simply doesn't wash.

In light of all of the above, Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory in schools just as Evolutionism is taught as a theory. In doing so, it should be emphasized that ID does not prove or espouse the existence or validity of the Judeo-Christian god or any other god representative of any traditional faith.

The main strength of Intelligent Design is that it logically points to a higher power having been responsible for the creation of an orderly Universe that enabled life to emerge. How one interprets that higher power should be up to the individual, not solely to the scientific community and not solely to the religious community.





[edit on 8-2-2006 by Paul_Richard]


reply posted on 9-2-2006 @ 02:42 AM by Produkt
There hasn't been any evidence supporting ID as a theory at all here.

The theory of evolution has evidence supporting it that does not in any way shape nor form require an intelligent designer.

www.geocities.com...

There are even theories on the creation of the universe pre-big bang using our knowledge of what we've learned so far, that yet again do not require an intelligent designer.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Whay evidence for these two does IDT have that would lead one to conclude that there was an intelligent designer? I've yet to see any research data, experimental evidence, anything beyond just the theory.

I mean christ, even the originator of ID says it isn't science!


en.wikipedia.org...

Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the ID movement has stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

The Discovery Institute's leaked Wedge document [4] sets out the movement's governing goals, including:

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.



Same site

Richard Dawkins has argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the intelligent designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation,"[5] since such an answer would be unscientific. With religious creationism, the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, but in intelligent design, the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely in an infinite regression, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. As a result, intelligent design does not explain how the complexity happened in the first place; it just moves it.[6]

If intelligent design proponents invoke an uncaused causer or deity to resolve this problem,[7] they contradict a fundamental assumption of intelligent design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object[8][9] and reduce intelligent design to religious creationism. Another possible counter-argument might be an infinite regression of designers. However, admitting infinite numbers of objects also allows any arbitrarily improbable event to occur [10], such as an object with "specific" complexity assembling itself by chance. Again, this contradicts a fundamental assumption of intelligent design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object, producing a logical contradiction.




[EDIT] And let's not forget that there are as many differing beliefs of ID as there are beliefs of the supposed one god. It seem's like you guy's can't agree on your supposed creator at all. None of you, even in this thread your showing it! And this is supposed to be ONE GOD/CREATOR.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Produkt]


reply posted on 9-2-2006 @ 03:29 AM by supercheetah
Firstly, speciation has been demonstrated in the laboratory, particularly with plants. It's been replicated in the lab with animals (particularly insects), but with much more difficulty.

Part of the problem with speciation is the question of when does one decide it has occured? Does it occur when two populations behaviorally refuse to cross-breed (but are still physically capable of doing so) or when they physically cannot cross-breed? What about geographical isolation? Should that be taken into account in speciation?

Anyway, I'm not really the best person to explain all of this, so I'll direct you to the
Talk Origins FAQ on speciation that lists the various experiments that have resulted in speciation.

However, I could even cite very real, every day examples of evolution. Supergerms are very real and very much a danger to all of us. Take antibiotics, for example. A person is supposed to take them on a regular basis (typically everyday), and take all of them. If that person does not follow through on that, he/she risks isolating a population of bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic. This happens all the time, and people try to get back on the antibiotic only to find that it's completely ineffective because their infection has evolved to be quite resistant to the medication. In fact, HIV carriers must take a cocktail of drugs to control their infection, and they must do so on a very strict regimen. When they slip up, the virus tends to produce resistant populations to the drug.

en.wikipedia.org...


reply posted on 9-2-2006 @ 04:13 AM by Romeo
its simple. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Regarding CREATIONISM, .......I find the relabelling a crudely disturbing attempt at making it more attractive........ It is just as relevant to assert that we exist in an extremely sophisticated simulation, that this is SimPrison and we are the naughty ones here for educational purposes. I have no evidence for this of course but I BELIEVE its a reasonably likely scenario. Looking around me, my family and friends, the mountains and trees and birds and bees ........ its all so unexplainably magical to my simple mind.......surely someone has created this Eden for me. If so, for what purpose.

.......regarding simple minds.....we ALL have one.

Do you have an appreciation of how utterly impossible it is to think like someone even a little tiny bit smarter than you are.
We are all missing the obvious. There are no difficult problems, only problems difficult to solve relative to a level of intelligence.
Move a litttle higher on the smartness scale and hard problems reveal obvious answers. Move a little higher and the phenomenally difficult becomes bleeding simple....and so on and so on.

Evolution may not be the answer but CREATIONISM is failing to use ones gift to seek ANY answers.

You want to go on one of those New Age alien rainbow trippy rides. Cool. Have fun....its all part of the Sim.....if you want I can sell you the cheat codes.....



[edit on 9-2-2006 by Romeo]


reply posted on 9-2-2006 @ 04:57 AM by bigdanprice
Here we go again with the old creationism debate:

Science = observation and the drawing conclusions from these observations

NOT

Identifying a gap in evidence and applying your beliefs

I am afraid there is no evidence for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory. I have heard postulated that certain bacteria are complex enough, with too many complex parts to have made just one evolutionary step but this has been disproved. Please see this source
BBC Horizon Documentary

To say that the possibility of the universe 'evolving' is far to remote, a fundamental component of ID, is to look at the odds from the wrong way. To reach todays evolutionary standpoint, and look back at how it began and then work out the odds will of course leave a huge immprobability of evolution ever occuring. But you must look back to the begining and realise that the probability of one animal making an evolutionaty step is very probable.

Evolution is a reaction to environment, creatures that are best suited to that environment survive. There is evidence of this everywhere, look at the galapogus islands, the recently discovered creatures in the indonesian jungle, that have evolved seperate to other influences. This is strong compelling evidence for evolution.
Galapagus Islands InfoScientists find Lost World

People say that they find it hard to believe that the world could be so complex and so beautiful without some kind of creator, but this is the nature of evolution, creatures developing to adapt to their environment, makes them come into harmony with their environment. And this over a long time creates the complex systems that we know and love.

Futher evidence of evolution, even if we chose to disregared all the archielogical evidence can be found every where. A good example are the efforts to eradicate malaria. We have consistantly had to update our method of attack to deal with this because of evolution, we began by spreading chemicals over vast tracks of land. This worked brilliantly at first, the mosquitoes that carry malaria began to die in there thousands. Then one day a genetic 'freak' mosquito was born, as they have a short life span, evolution was sped up. This freak was resistant to the chemicals. It survived and began to procreate. Soon all the areas that had been sprayed, were re populated with mosquitos once again. plus malaria itself as an organism, evolves rapidly and becomes resistent to drugs, as with all viruses Malaria

Evolution is not an all encompasing scientific theory, it is not a closed minded belief. It is the result of careful observation of our surroundings. It is a process, no one claims to have all the answers but it fits what we know to be true. It develops all the time. There is a world of evidence to support it.

The question is for intelligent design where is the proof of the creator? I know you cant answer this and really it comes down to Faith. Faith is a belief held with no evidence. And sadly with no evidence you cannot call it a science.
It is a philosphy and has no place being taught in science lessons. As a philosophy certainly, but not as science.



reply posted on 9-2-2006 @ 05:52 AM by Produkt
Just for the sake of argument for IDTer's/creationist's in regard's to miracles, this was posted by Byrd here : www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'll bite on this one: How would YOU propose such a study be done?

Remember that the study must be able to:
* tell a miracle from a coincidence
* produce repeatable miracles for which there is no other possible answer
* produce this same evidence for someone who is Buddhist, or athiest, or agnostic
* distinguish the actions if it was performed by the divinity of your choice as opposed to it being performed by, say, Isis or Bast or Ra or Odin or Thor or Allah.

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Greetings from a Dying Man
  Introductions, Posted 10 hours ago, 95 replies
Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 12 hours ago, 70 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 17 hours ago, 58 replies
Iran sent pink drone to Obama
  World War Three, Posted 17 hours ago, 41 replies