Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


i do know why i have denounced other gods, i have researched all the prominent religions, they all have major flaws christianity does not, its obvious through many things you have said that you do not do research in to a whole area before you come to a conclusion

you find one thing that fits with what you believe and role with it and if it doesnt you look till you do find it, which is what happens a lot in the scientific community today and it just shows another lack of research if you do not know that

you should really try to find out the truth instead of just trying to find what you think reiterated somewhere else just to make yourself feel better




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   


you should really try to find out the truth instead of just trying to find what you think reiterated somewhere else just to make yourself feel better


Oh come on, thats one of the most blatant contradictions I think I have ever come across.
Arghhh!!!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 


First of all there's no evidence for intelligent design.

In fact the evidence shows inherent flaws throughout all forms of life that contradict any intelligent design theory. Why design creatures to be so flawed?

These intelligent design theories reek of desperation to try and fit what they observe around one theory - and that isn't science or scientific!

[edit on 4-11-2009 by john124]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by resonance
 


First of all there's no evidence for intelligent design.

In fact the evidence shows inherent flaws throughout all forms of life that contradict any intelligent design theory. Why design creatures to be so flawed?

These intelligent design theories reek of desperation to try and fit what they observe around one theory - and that isn't science or scientific!

[edit on 4-11-2009 by john124]



Oh come on, thats all youve got, the old classic psychological attack, listen Im not saying your wrong, but to be so definitive is the mistake that leads to such insane science and MM global warming!!

I mean one unusual discovery could literally throw the evolution theory into utter chaos, what if we discovered that dinosaurs only died out thousands of years ago instead of millions, as evidenced by ancient cave drawings and detailed aboriginal artwork, what if we discovered evidence for an ancient race of humans that were equally if not more advanced than us, as evidenced by such stunning monuments as Baalbeck and the Pyramids, along with unumberable OOPARTS, and just the fact they are called OUT OF PLACE ARTIFACTS gives an impression of jsut how backwards our history may be, calling them out of place when in reality they are of course perfectly in place.


Im just saying nothing is settled my friend, surely one of the greatest mysteries evolution cant claim to explain, are humans, their unusual evolutionary traits and their anbelievable complex brain and conciousness, how does evolution explain the need for our current state, as evidenced by many other creatures we really didint need to evolve this far at all to get by, hmm.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
ID simply puts forth the idea that there is some ID involved in the way things are without namming a designer.
We all know what the theory of evolution is so i will not go into it, but Evolution and ID do not disprove eachother any more than they proove themselves.
ID needs proof of a creator or creators to be proven and Evolution needs proof of missing links to be prooven. One side saying the other is unscientific is just trolling the other side. If science was based on how many suporters it has then evolution would have never come as far as it has.
But scientists can have valid theories having only secondary evidence when they want to. Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang theory but there is no evidence of dark matter at all. The only evidence there is of dark matter is hypothesized by secondary evidence, just like god no proof just secondary evidence.


I personally think that the filter model of consciousness (see the book "Irreducible Mind" written by UVA's perceptual studies lab) can account for both Evolution and Intelligent Design. Basically what I believe is that people reincarnate through multiple lives and a person's soul is integrated into their subconscious which is in continual communication with the unconscious mind (God).

Our subconscious effects us emotionally and symbolically but we control what we do with that when we act. The best way I've found to think about it is like playing the game Spore but your subconscious is the player and the creature in the game has more free will (a function of Ego). As the player (subconscious) you don't move all the individual limbs you are generating feelings and memories based on past actions to effect behavior. I would think most of us realize that especially the mating practices of most people and animals are acting on a subconscious level. No doubt environment effects the success of this union and helps to determine which offspring live and die to be those who have either better adapted naturally or those who are better able to adapt culturally.

Evolution's flaw in my opinion is that it doesn't account for individual or community adaptability beyond genetics through culture. There is a great deal of evidence that at the very least evolution can account for most of the archaeological record. In my opinion Extraterrestrial manipulation is not out of the question, though highly speculative.

Intelligent design's flaw is that it is often too simplistically interpreted from a very narrow viewpoint, and generally little scientific knowledge - or scientific knowledge that has been deliberately manipulated. Without a true reckoning of how consciousness works intelligent design as espoused by most will continue to fall short. I highly recommend the book "Original Christianity" by Peter Novak which discusses much of what has been lost from Jesus' original teachings in the last 2000 years which fit into this model.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by wanderingwaldo]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wanderingwaldo

Originally posted by zaiger
ID simply puts forth the idea that there is some ID involved in the way things are without namming a designer.
We all know what the theory of evolution is so i will not go into it, but Evolution and ID do not disprove eachother any more than they proove themselves.
ID needs proof of a creator or creators to be proven and Evolution needs proof of missing links to be prooven. One side saying the other is unscientific is just trolling the other side. If science was based on how many suporters it has then evolution would have never come as far as it has.
But scientists can have valid theories having only secondary evidence when they want to. Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang theory but there is no evidence of dark matter at all. The only evidence there is of dark matter is hypothesized by secondary evidence, just like god no proof just secondary evidence.


I personally think that the filter model of consciousness (see the book Irreducible Mind written by UVA's perceptual studies lab) can account for both Evolution and Intelligent Design. Basically what I believe is that people reincarnate through multiple lives and a person's soul is integrated into their subconscious which is in continual communication with the unconscious mind (God).

Our subconscious effects us emotionally and symbolically but we control what we do with that when we act. The best way I've found to think about it is like playing the game Spore but your subconscious is the player and the creature in the game has more free will (a function of Ego). As the player (subconscious) you don't move all the individual limbs you are generating feelings and memories based on past actions to effect behavior. I would think most of us realize that especially the mating practices of most people and animals are acting on a subconscious level. No doubt environment effects the success of this union and helps to determine which offspring live and die to be those who have either better adapted naturally or those who are better able to adapt culturally.

Evolution's flaw in my opinion is that it doesn't account for individual or community adaptability beyond genetics through culture. There is a great deal of evidence that at the very least evolution can account for most of the archaeological record. In my opinion Extraterrestrial manipulation is not out of the question, though highly speculative.

Intelligent design's flaw is that it is often too simplistically interpreted from a very narrow viewpoint, and generally little scientific knowledge - or scientific knowledge that has been deliberately manipulated. Without a true reckoning of how consciousness works intelligent design as espoused by most will continue to fall short. I highly recommend the book "Original Christianity" by Peter Novak which discusses much of what has been lost from Jesus' original teachings in the last 2000 years which fit into this model.



Very interésting viewpoints, I never really say it but I truly believe consiousness, ar more specifically, the subconscious plays an integral role in the evolution of a species, we are more and more discovering the role of belief, thought and consciousness in actually creating reality, to discount teh quantum element to evolution could be a big mistake!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?


Because science does not "jump to conclusions" when they come across something that they don't know.

There is intelligence in our cells, in our organs, in our minds. But just because we don't know where that intelligence comes from, or if it indeed "comes from" anywhere, that doesn't mean that it MUST be from God.

Science does not make assumptions and then hold them as truth, without proving them.

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific? Simple answer: Because there is no evidence whatsoever of the religious idea of Intelligent Design.

Now, if you want to stretch your mind, take a look at what Deepak Chopra has to say about Intelligent Design Without the Bible



No credible scientific theory has answered these dilemmas, and progress is being discouraged, I imagine, thanks to fundamentalist Christians. By hijacking the whole notion of intelligent design, they have tarred genuine scientific issues with the stain of religious prejudice.


...which is, no doubt, their intent.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 



i do know why i have denounced other gods, i have researched all the prominent religions, they all have major flaws christianity does not, its obvious through many things you have said that you do not do research in to a whole area before you come to a conclusion


You make this claim that flaws exist in these other Gods. Name one flaw that exists with them that does not exist with your own. Nor is it obvious in how I draw my conclusions as I have not made much mention as to the extent of the information I have learned over time. You obviously need to learn what obvious means.


you find one thing that fits with what you believe and role with it and if it doesnt you look till you do find it, which is what happens a lot in the scientific community today and it just shows another lack of research if you do not know that


This statement is devoid of logic. Where have you drawn any of these conclusions and can you back them up?


you should really try to find out the truth instead of just trying to find what you think reiterated somewhere else just to make yourself feel better


Yes, and the only truth is the truth of the bible, right? I am willing to bet you don't know about the birth of monotheistic religion itself. Do you know the very first recorded conception of monotheism?

[edit on 4-11-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Intelligent design is NOT scientific because it says we come from a creator. This leaves an open question, as to who is this creator and how he came to be. It still leaves a question mark and claims the existence of a all knowing intelligent creator without providing one we can see touch feel or measure. This can't be theory, because it is basing your findings on something that isn't known. Evolution is a behavior that is observed over time and relies on testable evidence such as fossils of these 'missing links' which do get discovered. Google it.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Jvillezbank]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by resonance
Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?


Because science does not "jump to conclusions" when they come across something that they don't know.

There is intelligence in our cells, in our organs, in our minds. But just because we don't know where that intelligence comes from, or if it indeed "comes from" anywhere, that doesn't mean that it MUST be from God.

Science does not make assumptions and then hold them as truth, without proving them.

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific? Simple answer: Because there is no evidence whatsoever of the religious idea of Intelligent Design.

Now, if you want to stretch your mind, take a look at what Deepak Chopra has to say about Intelligent Design Without the Bible



No credible scientific theory has answered these dilemmas, and progress is being discouraged, I imagine, thanks to fundamentalist Christians. By hijacking the whole notion of intelligent design, they have tarred genuine scientific issues with the stain of religious prejudice.


...which is, no doubt, their intent.


Brilliantly summed up by chopra, truly can anyone look at these dillemas and not imply some form of non-religious intelligence, a guiding design, I mean we re alive, we are intelligent, why wouldint whatever ultimate process made us also be?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jvillezbank
Intelligent design is NOT scientific because it says we come from a creator. This leaves an open question, as to who is this creator and how he came to be. It still leaves a question mark and claims the existence of a all knowing intelligent creator without providing one we can see touch feel or measure. This can't be theory, because it is basing your findings on something that isn't known. Evolution is a behavior that is observed over time and relies on testable evidence such as fossils of these 'missing links' which do get discovered. Google it.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Jvillezbank]



Sorry thought you were talking about black holes there.
Intelligent Design implies an intelligent design, driven by an underlying pattern.
The myriad implications of such a possibibility are admittedly staggering and even could be disconcerting to some, however science is NOTHING if not prediction and to pass of ID as unscientific based on observation is extremely short sighted imho!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I am still left wondering what the intended purpose of the thread was. The OP makes claim that this was not to be a discussion over the validity of evolution versus the validity of his religious leanings and yet he has consistently attempted to set out and prove that his personal deity is the only possible source for intelligent design.

I have inquired as to what evidence he has for his personal deity of choice as being this creative force and what evidence he has against fifty-nine deity like entities or aliens from Tau Ceti, in which he has consistently failed to produce and instead appeals to biblical and religious references as a proof of deity.

I would propose that it is more reasonable to assume that *if* we were designed, it would most likely have been to the benefit of some extraterrestrial species from another world whom over time became mythologized through history of retelling the events that transpired.

Yet even this interpretation is left open with huge gaping holes. Such as; Where is the evidence for ET being the creative force behind our evolution; Why would ET bother to travel many light years just to create us for some unknown higher purpose and then either leave or go into hiding for the remainder of the last seven thousand years of human history; Amongst other questions.

We have the same problem with appealing to God as the source of all creation. If complexity requires a creator, God would be of ultimate complexity, would then he not also require creation? If something as infinitely more complex than ourselves such as God would not need a creator, then why does infinitely less complex things require a creator?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I can not believe you people will sit and ague with proponents of Intelligent Design for so long.

It’s been know since the leaking of the wedge document that the Discovery Institute made up the phrase “Intelligent design” in an attempt to cover the fact they were referring to “God” as the intelligence behind the purported “designer” of reality.

Anyone who says that the concept of ID does not implicitly imply religion obviously knows nothing about the history of the Concept of ID..

ID’ers say there IS scientific proof “all around us” of intelligent design. Yet they can not show even one single hypothesis that purports to show how intelligent design could explain any natural phenomenon.

There certainly are no predictions that said lack of hypothesis make that would lead one to believe that said hypothesis is reasonable.

And, even further, there has never been even one scientific experiment crafted to attempt to validate any hypothesis related to ID. Much less any data from any experiment that one could hope to use to validate any non-existent hypothesis relating to intelligent design.

Seriously…

ID’ers are too brainwashed to realize that there really is NO scientific evidence to support the idea of Intelligent design.

You should realize by now that you would have a more engaging conversation with a brick wall.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
I can not believe you people will sit and ague with proponents of Intelligent Design for so long.

It’s been know since the leaking of the wedge document that the Discovery Institute made up the phrase “Intelligent design” in an attempt to cover the fact they were referring to “God” as the intelligence behind the purported “designer” of reality.

Anyone who says that the concept of ID does not implicitly imply religion obviously knows nothing about the history of the Concept of ID..

ID’ers say there IS scientific proof “all around us” of intelligent design. Yet they can not show even one single hypothesis that purports to show how intelligent design could explain any natural phenomenon.

There certainly are no predictions that said lack of hypothesis make that would lead one to believe that said hypothesis is reasonable.

And, even further, there has never been even one scientific experiment crafted to attempt to validate any hypothesis related to ID. Much less any data from any experiment that one could hope to use to validate any non-existent hypothesis relating to intelligent design.

Seriously…

ID’ers are too brainwashed to realize that there really is NO scientific evidence to support the idea of Intelligent design.

You should realize by now that you would have a more engaging conversation with a brick wall.




Thanks for summing up the EXACT freaking attitude Ive been trying to ask is left aside in conversations such as this.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
I can not believe you people will sit and ague with proponents of Intelligent Design for so long.

It’s been know since the leaking of the wedge document that the Discovery Institute made up the phrase “Intelligent design” in an attempt to cover the fact they were referring to “God” as the intelligence behind the purported “designer” of reality.

Anyone who says that the concept of ID does not implicitly imply religion obviously knows nothing about the history of the Concept of ID..

ID’ers say there IS scientific proof “all around us” of intelligent design. Yet they can not show even one single hypothesis that purports to show how intelligent design could explain any natural phenomenon.

There certainly are no predictions that said lack of hypothesis make that would lead one to believe that said hypothesis is reasonable.

And, even further, there has never been even one scientific experiment crafted to attempt to validate any hypothesis related to ID. Much less any data from any experiment that one could hope to use to validate any non-existent hypothesis relating to intelligent design.

Seriously…

ID’ers are too brainwashed to realize that there really is NO scientific evidence to support the idea of Intelligent design.

You should realize by now that you would have a more engaging conversation with a brick wall.



Personally I find the alien intervention quite compelling, and while there may not be direct evidence, at least that is willing to be admitted, the theory makes a lot of sense in explaining our explosion to our current form and our evolution far beyond what is neccesary.

On another note, I personally wouldint even kid myself that I could understand the motives of an alien race with capabilities such as this, dont use non-comprehension as a driver for disregardment!^__^



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The reason is that the people who believe in intelligent design, believe because of some experience in their lives or they have met with God. Therefore all scientific pursuit is too late. The people who are looking at the science are trying to disprove intelligent design. The people who espouse it arn't putting up scientific explanations, so that looks like a void to the people on the other side of the argument. Since the scientific explanations are the only thing they are looking for, and the ID side doesn't seem to have them, so they dismiss ID as having no scientific proof.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The concept…

1…I believe reality is too complex to have resulted through natural processes…
2…Therefore reality HAD to be created by an Intelligent Designer…
3…Therefore the God of modern Christianity MUST exist.”

…Is NOT a scientific hypothesis.

…Makes NO predictions that could lead one to believe that Intelligent Design is a reasonable concept.

…Has never had a scientific experiment crafted to attempt to corroborate the belief in Intelligent Design.

Everyone has the right to believe what they will.

However, believe IS NOT scientific evidence.

It is not reasonable to think otherwise.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



Personally I find the alien intervention quite compelling, and while there may not be direct evidence, at least that is willing to be admitted, the theory makes a lot of sense in explaining our explosion to our current form and our evolution far beyond what is neccesary.


Actually, it leaves more questions than it supposedly answers. Assuming aliens from Tau Ceti was the force of evolution behind our species, for whatever reasons they may have had in creating us, we are then left to wonder what that initial purpose was. If we look towards the oldest records of history and interpret them with modern knowledge, such as the Sumerian mythology of creation then where are all the mines? Why would an advanced species require a particular resource to a point of creating a sub species to mine this resource through primitive means? Why not use mining equipment just like we do instead of using slave labor?


On another note, I personally wouldint even kid myself that I could understand the motives of an alien race with capabilities such as this, dont use non-comprehension as a driver for disregardment!^__^


There is no logical motive behind hundreds, if not thousands of years of technological development just to venture to another star to create a new intelligent species for whatever purpose that most probably could be completed quicker with technological means and then go into hiding or leave altogether.

The whole point of me saying that it is more reasonable to assume aliens from Tau Ceti instead of God as the source behind ID is because this is a testable source. We can make predictions and test for it, but the logical conclusion of it, in itself makes it also unlikely to be true.

The only explosiveness we have had in discovery and technological advancement has been in the last two hundred years. Even if we look through our genetics and evolutionary tree, we don't see any major explosive growth in our species, we don't see one form coming out of seemingly nothing.

it is equally probable that instead of these mythologies depicting alien life as Gods, it could also very well be a remembrance of a time when we had already obtained a high degree of knowledge and technological achievements comparable to today.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hlesterjerome
 


Nor can we readily rule out the possibility of a deity like entity. Such an entity could very well be a software developer working on a quantum super computer in which we are the result of his work. This could either be known to him or unknown to him as he could be attempting to learn more about black holes, in which such a universe would also have the byproduct of life.

I don't personally subscribe to that theory either, but it's one we can't rule out unless we can figure a way to predict against it.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   


Actually, it leaves more questions than it supposedly answers. Assuming aliens from Tau Ceti was the force of evolution behind our species, for whatever reasons they may have had in creating us, we are then left to wonder what that initial purpose was. If we look towards the oldest records of history and interpret them with modern knowledge, such as the Sumerian mythology of creation then where are all the mines? Why would an advanced species require a particular resource to a point of creating a sub species to mine this resource through primitive means? Why not use mining equipment just like we do instead of using slave labor?


Your right it does leave more questions than answers, but is that any reason to rule it out, what scientific theory doesint?

Lets not lay all our eggs in terms of alien intervention into teh sumerian mythology basket.

Like I said, your presumtion does seem logical, however dont let it be definitive as of yet






There is no logical motive behind hundreds, if not thousands of years of technological development just to venture to another star to create a new intelligent species for whatever purpose that most probably could be completed quicker with technological means and then go into hiding or leave altogether.


Again careful with the presumptions, according to the sumerians Nibiru was in our own solar system, for all we know they werent as advanced(assuming they existed of course) as most sci-fi alien landings would have you believe.





The only explosiveness we have had in discovery and technological advancement has been in the last two hundred years. Even if we look through our genetics and evolutionary tree, we don't see any major explosive growth in our species, we don't see one form coming out of seemingly nothing.


Oh now a short study of history will show you multiple advancements in technology that were almost as if not equivelentely progressive as anything in the last two hundred years.
Printing press springs to mind, the use of Arabic numerals in European countries ETC.





it is equally probable that instead of these mythologies depicting alien life as Gods, it could also very well be a remembrance of a time when we had already obtained a high degree of knowledge and technological achievements comparable to today.


Couldint agree more, to me this seems to be the more logical explanation, and until this seemingly obvious conclusion si fully reached by the mainstream, if only in the sense og ridding such notions of the stigma they have been purposely dogged with.

I mean the Olmecs for instance didint acquire their advanced mathematics from NOWHERE, whoever built the pyramids didint do so on a whim, shy did so many civilisations seem to pop out fo the woodwork, with their culture fully formed and then begin to decline, its contrary to what the average joe would consider history to depict.

These are serious questions that have not been anywhere near adequately answered!^______^




[edit on 4-11-2009 by Outlawstar]





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join