Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

Right, it's not like some day in the future, some pregnant lady is gunna pop out something that isn't even human. The human species will change over time, eventually becomming something that isn't considered homo sapiens, but would be another homo - whatever ... just pray it's not the icky homo

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
mattison

BTW... if you'd take the time to read anything I've ever posted... you'd realized that I could potentially be the best ally you've got in this debate.

He just doesn't appreciate you like I do.

Long time no see, BTW, how ya' been?

Hey man... doing pretty well... it has been a while. Sorry for runnin' out on our U2U's... I was kind of burnout on ATS for about 8 months... been back for a couple now... knew I'd run into you eventually...

Will catch you via u2u soon... I just don't have the desire to participate in these ID threads currently... just can't seem to make any 'progress'

Matt,

Perhaps you'd like to try a hand at the very founding bleiefs of religion itself? The thread in my sig raises some pretty valid points in regards to religous beliefs. Having abit of trouble finding anyone religous who'd be willing to counter those points.

Originally posted by Produkt
Matt,

Perhaps you'd like to try a hand at the very founding bleiefs of religion itself? The thread in my sig raises some pretty valid points in regards to religous beliefs. Having abit of trouble finding anyone religous who'd be willing to counter those points.

Produkt, thanks for the invite... but I am distinctly not qualified to do this...

I know that this is tough for people to accept given my perspective on IDT, but I am not religious...

IMO, fundamentalist interpretation of any religious doctrine not only ignores the history of any given religion, but pretty much misses the boat with respect to the purpose of religious myth....

So... sorry... if you want to talk about science, then I'm here, but religion.... you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.

Well, technically, from what I've written, the evolution of religion could be taken from a scientific viewpoint dealing with how society has developed over time, belief structures changing along with each succesive change in society, archeological evidence, or lack thereof concerning the claims of each religion, the psychology behind religion and devout believer's. I mean, what I've written isn't so much as a bash religion garbage post. I've tried my best to put alot of thought behind what I posted.

From my other thread discussing the evolution of religion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[EDIT] What IDT need's to be focusing on, rather then the gaps of knowledge in existing scientific discoveries, IDT should be proving that life CANNOT occur naturally and that life NEEDS a creator. If they can do that, then the next and final step for them would be proving that an intelliget designer did in fact create the universe and direct the flow of life on this planet.

Even when research funds are offered, there seems to be no substance to ID...

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

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

See though-- here's the problem with that argument:

The "laws" that we perceive in the universe appear to us, axiomatically, to be ordered and to be an expression of intelligence. They could not appear to us to be anything else, since the human concept of order and intelligence is measured by how well it reflects the reality of the universe in which we have found ourselves.

We live in a universe that can be ordered and described and defined. One's ability to do so is seen as an expression of one's intelligence, and the greater one's facility for analyzing and ordering the myriad aspects of reality, the greater one's intelligence is perceived to be. The most intelligent among humans are held to be those with the greatest facility for perceiving, analyzing and understanding the processes of the universe, so those processes are the very benchmark of the trait that we refer to as intelligence.

If the universe was composed in some entirely different manner, and we had arisen in that entirely different universe (either by evolution or creation), our definition of order would still be that which most closely corresponds with observable reality. We axiomatically perceive the structure of the universe to be ordered because our definition of order is based upon the structure of the universe.

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

Wrong. If the universe were what we, in this universe, perceive to be a "chaotic mess of matter and energy," then life as we understand it would no doubt never arise there. However, that doesn't preclude the possibility of some form of life, and if there was some form of life in that universe, they would perceive it to be ordered, as their notion of order would axiomatically correspond with their reality.

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.

No-- probably not, and specifically because it is a fundamentally flawed theory, as I've already pointed out. It's based on the erroneous assumption that our concepts of "order" and "intelligence" are somehow entirely objective and have no basis in the reality in which we live, so that when we look around and see reflections of that which we perceive to be order and intelligence in our universe, it demonstrates something about the universe. The reality is that our concepts of order and intelligence are rooted directly in the nature of the universe in which we live, so the universe MUST exhibit traits that we perceive as order.

The shell of the Chambered Nautilus and the petals of many flowers turn in a ratio that correspond with Fibonacci numbers-- the so called Golden Proportion. That's certainly not necessarily because some creator thought that was a pleasing proportion-- rather we perceive it to be a pleasing proportion because it's wholly in keeping with the innate "order" of our universe.

No, it's not.

Here's the thing. ID and evolution both discuss life on Earth and pose ideas on how it has arrived at its current state. Same level, so far. But, here is where ID starts lagging behind.

Darwinian evolution states a mechanism through which it works, natural selection. Whether you agree with this or not is irrevelant here; the point is that the theory has a process that might work for it. With ID, no such thing. In fact, there's not even an impetus to identify a way in which the designer might have designed life. Sure, technically ID doesn't have to, but this certainly drops it a notch below evolution theory-wise.

Related to this point, evolution describes the process, natural selection, through which it works. Of course, ID doesn't mention a process through which the designer designs, much less describe it. That's another notch.

Evolution has a value to it, conceptually and practically. Darwinian medicine, vaccines, and constructing the tree of life come to mind. With ID, it appears to me that there's not much after that. Life was designed; ok...so what? Do we talk about the designer? NO. Do we talk about how the designer did it? NO. How do we apply ID in a constructive way? I dunno, you think of something.

I'm starting to wonder why ID won't even try making guess's for how the designer did it or the nature of the designer ...

Science explain's the universe through big bang, but it goes one step furthur and tries to describe the event's that lead to the big bang knowing full well it'll never physically experiment with those condition's. So why does ID say it doesn't have to do the same? They claim to have all the clue's pointing to a designer.... well then show how the designer did it. Prove that thing's are undeniably of design and not just lack of knowledge of the so call IC system.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

The "laws" that we perceive in the universe appear to us, axiomatically, to be ordered and to be an expression of intelligence. They could not appear to us to be anything else, since the human concept of order and intelligence is measured by how well it reflects the reality of the universe in which we have found ourselves.

That's true.

However, the possibility that the Universe came into being through pure chance and that also the correct order of chemical processes and life-sustaining conditions emerged for life to exist, is all astronomically small when compared to the much more logical argument and possibility that a higher power or intelligence started the program

Pure mathematical probability is the core understanding behind the theory of Intelligent Design.



[edit on 3-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

Complexity in nature through chance is not an uncommon thing. Unless we're going to start assuming an intelligent agent behind snow flake's, lightening, face on mars, man on the moon, shape's in clouds and many numerous other complex pattern's found in nature. Life require's very specific condition's, atleast our kind of life does. the chance of a human species evolving on Jupiter is nearly zero, the condition's for our form of life there do not exist. This planet has had the right condition's occur that allowed for our form of life to develop. No, we don't have all the answer's yet, nor are we claiming an absolute truth, which is very unscientific. ID's absolute truth is the existance of a designer and it's evidence is through lack of knowledge for all the underlying principle's of the universe. Thing's no person on this planet know's, let alone fully understand's. We don't know the condition's of the universe pre-big bang, thus we cannot say that whatever those condition's were couldn't allow for a universe to come about through natural means.

Say it was ET who did the design. There's no reason for IDer's to not theorize on how ET could do such a thing. Just as scientist's are theorizing on the condition's that lead to the observations made in this universe. If ET created a physical universe, then what would be needed to do such? Or, if they created a simulate universe and we're not even real physical being's, then what computer requirement's are needed for such a powerfull simulation? Why do IDer's stay away from these thing's? Science doesn't. IDer's stay well within the realm of if it can't be explained yet, we'll call it design.



[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
However, the possibility that the Universe came into being through pure chance and that also the correct order of chemical processes and life-sustaining conditions emerged for life to exist, is all astronomically small when compared to the much more logical argument and possibility that a higher power or intelligence started the program

This assumes life in the universe is rare and somehow more special than any other chemical reaction.. why do you think the 'chances' of this happening are 'astronomically small' when the size of the universe is so far immessurable?

Pure mathematical probability is the core understanding behind the theory of Intelligent Design.

I didn't know the discovery universe had.. 'discovered' the size of the universe, exactly how many planets are in it and how many of those are capable of supporting life? I guess they must know these numbers as otherwise the whole mathematical probability for the existence of god is out the window.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by riley]

Text Text

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse[/I] [H]ere's the problem with that argument: The "laws" that we perceive in the universe appear to us, axiomatically, to be ordered and to be an expression of intelligence. They could not appear to us to be anything else, since the human concept of order and intelligence is measured by how well it reflects the reality of the universe in which we have found ourselves. We axiomatically perceive the structure of the universe to be ordered because our definition of order is based upon the structure of the universe.

Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory in schools just as Evolution is taught as a theory.

No-- probably not, and specifically because [ID] is a fundamentally flawed theory . . The reality is that our concepts of order and intelligence are rooted directly in the nature of the universe in which we [observe], so the universe MUST exhibit traits that we perceive AS order. The shell of the Chambered Nautilus and the petals of many flowers turn in a ratio that correspond with Fibonacci numbers-- the so called Golden Proportion. That's certainly not necessarily because some creator thought that was a pleasing proportion-- rather we perceive it to be a pleasing proportion because it's wholly in keeping with the innate "order" of our universe.

Scientific Creationism petered out, and now the same group of NON scientific people have come up with Round 2, so-called INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Which is, more correctly described, as follows: IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN IT TO ME SO I CAN UNDERSTAND IT, IT MUST BE INTELLIGENT DESIGN!