It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design Is A Created Theory Intended To Placate

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
While I am aware that I may offend some people here and that this thread will incur many stuanch defenders, I ask that you please maintain an open mind to the theory I present here.

First, however, I would like to present some rhetorical background.

Regardless of the actual existence of God, it cannot be disputed that organized religion is a creation of man. The biography of Heron, who was commissioned by churches to create 'miracles' in order to encourage greater attendence (churches were in competition back in the day) is an implicit proof of the motivation to fool the public into believing magic and miracles in the name of God.

But why was organized religion conceived of in the first place?

Religion and various other mythologies arose as a means to attribute reason to that which could not be readily understood as mankind developed the ability to reason and think logically. Death was/is one of the greatest mysteries of our existence and while I am sure that there are many here that may be able to provide specific examples of the many cultural personifications of an afterlife, suffice to say that organized religion always assumes that there is a higher power (and a corrolating anthropomorphic representation) that governs the unknown realm of pre/post literal existence.

While these mythologies were an attempt to explain the unknown, they were also largely inadequate as they tend to discourage any critical thinking and application of such to our external environments.

Along comes 'science'. The rise of science, has been an arduous one, though the last two centuries have established once and for all that science is here to stay and as well the realization that the placations of religion/mythologies are inadequate as a means to base allrational decisions on. Disclaimer: I am not saying that religion and its' mores are useless...just not end all be all of human 'knowledge'. Indeed, religion is better siuted for the intangibles such as morality and ethical behaviours, though the social sciences have yet to see their peak.

The relatively sudden change in the social foundation for belief and subsequent basis for behaviour has been dramatic to say the least. As a social control, religion began losing ground in the Industrial Revolution when it bacame apparent that workers were needed to produce new technologies and the new products were needed to be accepted by the superstitous and uneducated public.



At the same time, new levels of education seemed useful to create more adept adult workers. Hence education, rather than work, defined childhood in industrial societies. Source


Science forever changed the world and necessarily created a requirement for a more intelligent public.

And as we all know, intelligence and the appetite for knowledge is not a static variable. Some people, motivated by capitalism others by curiosity, were more inclined to learn and question that which was taken as holy writ in generations past. Some people demonstrated aptitude for the new social standard while others held onto their ancestral beliefs.

Today, we live in a world where science is indisputably a recognized 'philosophy'. Organized religion and much of its' dogma is recognized as an archaic philosophy by many. But there are still very ardent believers of the old dogmas and the desire to find a middle ground where religion and science can co-exist is a relevant and worthwhile cause, if only in the name of social stability.

Which finally brings me to the point of this thread. Social stability is one of the major motivations for many of the conspiracies discussed on ATS. We assume that the mainstream media is controlled and that wars are intended to further dichotmize and already divided and suspicious population. But within these pecieved divisions still exists a stability of sorts.

I propose that Intelligent Design was created as a response to the growing abandonment of orgaized religion and as a necessary 'social/pyschological patch' for those who cannot make the transition away from religious dogma. As a theory itself, ID is intellectually lazy and encourages people to not even try to understand the wonders of their environment. And it is an attempt to find a middle ground between science and religion.

The main point of this thread is thus: Intelligent Design is a theory meant to placate those who are lost in the new digital world...to give them 'something' in an effort to preserve the psychology and world views of those who have yet to become proficient in an increasingly technical and scientific world. Please direct responses to this summation point. Thank you.

Edit for tags.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by MemoryShock]




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Here's what I think of intelligent design as a general idea, disregarding specifics that pertain to personal beliefs, but rather just a general theory. I think it's necessary to state my point of view on the idea itself in order to better explain my position on the theory as not being a crutch for the logically or technologically challenged.

In order to do that, I'd like to simplify the idea to a very basic point.

Humans are attempting to 'intelligently' design the world we live in through disease control, environmental control and genetic modification of plants and animals. And it stands to reason that humans will continue on this course of designing our world until we reach the limits of our capabilities and knowledge. Therefore, to me, the only idea that needs to be accepted in order to accept a general theory of intelligent design in the universe is to accept that human beings may not be the highest order of intelligence in the universe.

This, to my mind, is not an idea which placates psychological needs but rather fulfills them for some who choose to view the world and the universe as a place of vast mystery and unknown possibilities. Not to stifle, but rather encourage exploration by keeping open to such possibilities.

In short, the idea, despite the tone it often takes, is one that is only as ridiculous as the boundaries of our imagination. An imagination which has inspired the greatest heights of human achievement.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
An interesting and valid point.

It should be pointed out though that as we continue to move forward with figuring out truly what makes our world work, we continue to find more and more holes in our scientific theories that we have just blindly accepted as fact all of these years (kind of reminds me of the religions that you are disproving in your post).

I look at science exactly how I look at religion. They've got some of the truth figured out, but a lot of the important parts of the theories are just made up to make sense as we see fit, and if we find something that fits better we MIGHT change it later. Do I have any of the answers? No, but I also don't pretend to have them all like BOTH science and religion wrongly (and equally) claim.

Although I am not a religious person, it bothers me to see you state your case against religion, when the exact same case can be made against what you are speaking out in support of. It seems a little hypocritical. But we also see this type of opinion (both pro-science and pro-religion) be made all of the time both here on ATS and in the real world...so it's nothing I shouldn't be used to by now.



I propose that Intelligent Design was created as a response to the growing abandonment of orgaized (sic) religion and as a necessary 'social/pyschological (sic) patch' for those who cannot make the transition away from religious dogma. As a theory itself, ID is intellectually lazy and encourages people to not even try to understand the wonders of their environment. And it is an attempt to find a middle ground between science and religion.


So Intelligent Design was created thousands of years ago so that ancient people in Iraq/Israel could understand farming and pottery better? And it was imposed by people with the same education level as the simple-folk they're supposed to be educating? I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but I want to show you just how intellectually lazy your theory is; and again, the exact same thing can be said about science.

Once people like yourself in the scientific community actually become open-minded to the possibility of "God-like" intelligent happenings outside of our own world; and once the people in the religious community realize that there can be a logical yet true explanation for everything (even though we might not even know what it is yet) then maybe the scientific and religious communities can come together to figure this stuff out!

But that will never happen if we have the scientific people like yourself looking down at the religious people in that snotty "smarter than you" attitude, and it will also never happen if we keep having the thousands of blind religious people insulting and judging all non-believers. We'd also need the scientific and religious sides to drop their massive egos pertaining to their respective sides, something that we definitely have not seen here today.

Anyways, just my thoughts. Peace.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
This universe(or reality) and its possiblitys are far to vast for me to say that life in this universe(or reality) didnt occur naturaly or was manifested here by an extra dementional being. There are far fewer whys than whats.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by matth
So Intelligent Design was created thousands of years ago so that ancient people in Iraq/Israel could understand farming and pottery better?


I'm not sure I follow you on this one...perhaps you could explain?

I'm suggesting that ID is merely a religious concept dressed as science so as to make it more palatable to those who are conflicted between scientific and dogmatic belief systems...kind of as a compromise.



And it was imposed by people with the same education level as the simple-folk they're supposed to be educating?


I never stated the educational/intelligence level of the 'creators' of this theory. Indeed, most theories are formulated by people on the upper spectrum of such distinctions (if one can necessarily define an objective spectrum) and then these theories are made for public consumption...put in layman's terms, so to speak.



I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but I want to show you just how intellectually lazy your theory is; and again, the exact same thing can be said about science.


It is a point of ponderance and offered for discussion. Where is the laziness there?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Religion and various other mythologies arose as a means to attribute reason to that which could not be readily understood as mankind developed the ability to reason and think logically.


Absolutely. Religion and mythologies definitely had a purpose in antiquity to explain what we did not know or what science was unable to explain at that point.

However, I'd like to make a twist when it comes to ID.

What we also didn't know about back then was the rational intelligibility of the universe, it's extreme mathematical precision, the 'intelligent coding' of DNA, etc. Science has reveled so many intricate patterns, sequences, and designs that are relatively modern. It's not too much of a leap to see that science and to subsequently ponder the possibility of a designer in these modern times.

The way I see it at least.

It's as if mythologies were used to explain the unexplainable while modern scientific discoveries debunked those beliefs yet opened a door to something completely different.

[edit on 2/23/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
It's as if mythologies were used to explain the unexplainable while modern scientific discoveries debunked those beliefs yet opened a door to something completely different.


I see your point and it is a relevant point to consider regarding existence at large.

But I am actually more concerned about, at lest in this thread, with the motivations and percieved necessity for the propagation of ID as a theory.

In a society where endless debate occurs within the realms of social dogma, morality, ethics and values we see that science has taken the forefront as a worldview in many situations. Where the 'fear of God' as vehemently instilled by religion of old used to be the meter by which to define social behaviour is now the 'curiosity of investigation and application' encouraged by science and capitalisitc tendencies.

But as these were not primary views even a hundred years ago we still have large portions of our society who believe in God - even if it is not exclusive of scientific reasoning.

I am suggesting that ID, as it is yet another creation of man, is a theory meant to bridge the chasm of difference in these two worldviews.

I personally am inclined to think that as the generations continue to integrate scientific perception that organized religion will be relegated to a more understated role...spirituality that is encouraged but not necessary as a driving force of society.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   


Proposed by MemoryShock:
Intelligent Design is a theory meant to placate those who are lost in the new digital world...to give them 'something' in an effort to preserve the psychology and world views of those who have yet to become proficient in an increasingly technical and scientific world. Please direct responses to this summation point. Thank you.



Its correct that laziness to deal with scientific intricacies can lure people to relax into the idea of God taking care of it all.

My reason for buying into ID is a different one though...and not religiously motivated. Its based on the fundamental understanding that things dont just happen coincidentally but are caused. Anything other than ID is based on the idea of coincidental design.

Non-Christians for Creationism

Do we live in a simulated reality?




[edit on 23-2-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Regardless of the veracity of ID, I am merely pondering (out loud) the social motivations for its' propagation.

I think we are in a 'paradigm' shift regarding worldview (where social dictates were determined by the Church for hundreds of years as opposed to a more democratic/logical process we see prominent today).

Not every lineage has shuffed off the inclination of years past and indeed, the emergence of worldwide instant communication has only recently connected the majority of the world to ideas that contradict/conflict/oppose their familiar ideologies...



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
As membership in organized religion is steadily on the decrease we are indeed creating knew compasses of orientation.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Ahh, I see we're talking as if Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things...but to me they are the same.

If Intelligent Design's evidence comes from pre-Christian belief systems, stories, glyphs and writings; and there is some pretty strong evidence out there supporting the fact that most Old Testament Christian stories actually come from these same writings and stories; and if the story of Creationism is simply another interpretation of the ancient pre-Christian story; then isn't Creationism simply one man or group's interpretation of Intelligent Design?

I think that if you look at Intelligent Design in the sense of many different groups of people all over the world from around the same timeframe telling the same story (just with their own variations or interpretations), talking about flying machines, giant Gods and understanding the solar system better than we did just 200 years ago; then you have to at least acknowledge that there is something more to that story and shouldn't be brushed off as human nature.

As far as religion and spirituality goes, all science has even remotely done to open my eyes is that it points out holes in religious stories (like evolution's timeline, the dinosaurs, etc), and all that does is proves that man's interpretation of Intelligent Design is flawed, either on purpose or via honest mistake (I think on purpose)...but it doesn't change the ancient stories of what happened, that all seem to talk about the same general thing.

So is science proving the theory wrong, or just proving one man or group's interpretation of the story wrong?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Just want to throw my usual two cents in here to reiterate that Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God, whatever that means, and can actually work perfectly well without it. Just about all consciousness intelligently designs the universe on the fly, just by observing it and thinking and imagining.

As it is, we still have no clue as to how a bunch of chemicals can magically arrange themselves to form a living, conscious thing. No clue.

So, personally, I'm not counting intelligent design out until we get some more research done on it. I don't go with the "God" thing, because I don't know what that word means, but fortunately that's not a required part of the theory.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Regardless of the veracity of ID, I am merely pondering (out loud) the social motivations for its' propagation.


I believe it's as you stated earlier that there is an attempt to bridge the chasm between ideologies. As to the motivations, that is up to the individual propagating the idea. To my mind though it is purely a matter of logical process as there must be a recognition of opposition, since it will always naturally exist. Checks and balances. The two sides of the coin.

Logic and reason must be an inclusive rather than exclusive process in order for it to be logical.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Coincidental Design? My mind explodes at the thought of it. How many coincidences of design are there on this planet?
Science spends a lot of time trying to figure out exactly why something is NOT a coincidence.
From DNA and genetics to geology. Plants and weather. There are laws in the universe. Who or what made those laws, I cannot say, but they seem to say that the world as we know it was designed that way.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The main point of this thread is thus: Intelligent Design is a theory meant to placate those who are lost in the new digital world...to give them 'something' in an effort to preserve the psychology and world views of those who have yet to become proficient in an increasingly technical and scientific world. Please direct responses to this summation point. Thank you.


I would agree that it can placate those 'lost in the digital world', but I'm not sure it was meant to do so.

Its aims were much simpler than that and just an extension of the christian apologetics movements attacks on evolutionary science and science itself. Although, it had/has much more ambitious aims. The first signs of the modern ID movement came into being straight after the 1987 defeat of the effort to move creationism into science classrooms. At that point, the apologetics movement knew that pushing overt creationism was no longer an option. And so a rebranding was required.



We also haz the transitional 'cdesignproponentsists' in the major creationist school textbook 'Of Pandas and People.


Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

Link as above

That was the start. The movement was really consolidated by the Disco Institute through the likes of Phillip Johnson and others (Behe, Dembski, Meyer etc) and their real substantive aims were made explicit in the Wedge strategy. The 'Centre for the Renewal of Science and Culture' of the DI wanted more than ID in science classrooms, they wanted to renew culture by defeating 'scientific materialism', replacing it with some form of theistic science and culture.


The Centre seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies...

www.antievolution.org...

The DI was/is bankrolled by the likes of Howard Ahmanson and the Stewardship Foundation.

Of course, others have jumped on the shark, but the modern ID movement had/has clear aims and motivation.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I fear that I wasn't necessarily clear on my intent with this thread. I am discussing the motivations behind the origin of ID and the possible reason it was propagated for widespread social consumption.

I am referring to a sort of 'social engineering' in the vein of the corrolations between the social issue that was Terry Schiavo and the movie Million Dollar Baby and what I see as similar reasons for the propagation and Oscar victories of Milk in light of the current homosexual marriage controversy.

Social change takes many generations and while something like gay marriage will likely occur in our lifetimes, something as unanswerable as God and the reasons for existence are not so easily defined. But there are many schools of thought, some based on dogmas from centuries past and some based on newer ideas.

So I am trying to communicate the possibility that the organized religions taking a backseat in recent history necessarily required a religious theory based in 'science' so as to not completely assault the psychologies of the religiously inclined.

Kind of a pre-emptive strategy to head off a culture shock in some circles.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Since there are laws, we figure we must decide whether or not ONE thing created the laws, or many. And since we tend to think that the world is created via an intelligent being that it is and must be like us, somehow. Because it is an amazing "creature" it must be all powerful, and in control. Some of us don't like that idea. Some of us need to believe it.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
So I am trying to communicate the possibility that the organized religions taking a backseat in recent history necessarily required a religious theory based in 'science' so as to not completely assault the psychologies of the religiously inclined.


It is/was certainly a nefarious and disingenuous approach in that they rebranded it to give the illusion of not being about Jesus, painting it as a secular argument. From that angle, it was aimed to speak to a larger audience than typical creationism. Dembski outlined this point of view:


ID is part of God's general revelation. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the Bible. That's why, for instance, the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies invited me to lecture on intelligent design and warmly embraced my message (this happened in October 2003). Just about anyone who is not wedded to a pure materialism agrees that some sort of design or purpose underlies nature. Intelligent design not only gives a voice to these people, but also gives them the tools to dismantle materialism.

Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.

linky

[edit on 23-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It is/was certainly a nefarious and disingenuous approach in that they rebranded it to give the illusion of not being about Jesus, painting it as a secular argument.


So, some people who believe in Jesus also believe in Intelligent Design. Therefore all people who believe in Intelligent Design also believe in Jesus?

This isn't even remotely a rational assumption.

I suppose I don't see the point in questioning the origin of the idea for this reason alone. As I see it the idea, any idea, will either stand on its merits, or be enacted as a law.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
So, some people who believe in Jesus also believe in Intelligent Design. Therefore all people who believe in Intelligent Design also believe in Jesus?

This isn't even remotely a rational assumption.


That wasn't my point. The point was that the people who formed the modern ID movement were pushing Jesus. I outlined all this above with evidence pretty transparently.


I suppose I don't see the point in questioning the origin of the idea for this reason alone. As I see it the idea, any idea, will either stand on its merits, or be enacted as a law.


The idea has a long history, but the modern movement has a very clear source and motivation.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join