Christians Did Not Invent Intelligent Design Theory

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Of course they didn't are you stupid?
Christianity branched off of Judaism, which was around for God knows how long. Christianity is fairly new compared to everything else. I read the title of this article and just thought I had to say something because anyone who thinks christians invented anything is simply misinformed.




posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


You almost had me believe what you wrote....



Also it's impossible to study biology to any level of competence and agree with intelligent design, as it goes against every single observation one could make in biology.


OK.... But then you let yourself down by becoming emotional defending your own beliefs...



DNA on its own, for example, blows intelligent design out of the water, as they are the ever-changing instructions to build an organism.


This is only your human interpretation, based on what information you have acquired and does not include (naturally) what you don't know about..
(But this is only promoting your perception of your own free will)
So your argument is strictly one sided in my opinion.
Perhaps mine is also???
Unfortunately this is the case with All the Human Species.

Isn't bizarre how the human species, lays down rules and then demands that the Universe should be according to their Imaginations or human understanding???

Yet the human species can't cross their own Galaxy, let alone any others, nor can they even cure the common cold and try to BS themselves and others they are somehow advanced beings without any consideration for the truth...

The human species is still at a very, very, primitive level and somewhat lost…




If intelligent design was the truth, DNA would never, ever change from one generation to the next, rendering medicine, biology, animal husbandry, epidemiology, molecular biology, and every other facet of biology, incorrect and pointless, which clearly they are not.


Why not ???
Do you know anything about programming???


DNA is often referred to as a "Chemical Based Program", (an organised structure) that passes on information regarding cellular make up and behaviour this includes changes...

Isn't it strange how the human species claims to know much about DNA yet still don't fully understand it and still can't prevent disease or produce eternal LIFE ???

May I suggest that the Human Species is terrified, that Intelligence just may exist outside themselves, and that the human species may be at the very bottom of the heap.

Do you really believe that humanity, is somehow the most intelligent in the Cosmos???

I certainly Don't by the mere Fact I don't have all the answers…
And unlike many, I can Accept this of myself…




But try telling that to a Creationist/IDer. They don't deal with facts, just beliefs. How very unscientific.


Please prove this as being a fact ???

Religious fanaticism may be in this category but how can you generalise dumping all people involved in research, especially those in quantum mechanics, into a cesspool of religion???

But Science BELIEVES it is correct... But this is based on Human Understanding without knowing ALL !

Many of the peices are missing...
We know very, very, little about anything....

As I have said in the past, Religion pollutes and misrepresents ID....

When you can prove that humankind is the only intelligent species in this Little universe, and is the "highest" or most "Intelligent" form, then and only then I might believe you.

But hell, so called Science is Not aware, of the most intelligent species in this Little universe, let alone if there are others, in other universes they know nothing about.

ID does Not suggest a "person" somehow produced all that you experience, but merely implies that there is an underlying intelligent structure, you experience through.

Physics for one contains rules, that are of ID but physics is not a god!

I am Not suggesting that Intelligence is the first component in all...
Far from it...
Intelligence is made up of a number of sub components...

But there is Intelligence underlying what you experience.

To discover where Intelligence came from, or how the components (collectively) that result in the performance of intelligence is another story...

But one thing for sure, as others have said in this thread, recognised the existence of intelligence underlying this little Universe, well before religion was ever thought of...

Communication and writing came from this intelligence and religion followed.

But religion can be used in many ways often abusing and struggling against LIFE.

In fact human religion often corrupts the perception of ID and often attempts to destroy common sense, regarding the truth of our roots..

Perhaps the churches of humankind, are controlling your perception after all, and you are a victim of religion yourself, but are unable to see this or accept this yourself???

I don't mean this in the derogatory sense… but often the human species is lead unknowingly, by them that influence their own societies, for power (an illusion of self importance, involving a conspiracy against LIFE) or for whatever other reasons of human behaviour.


[edit on 8-2-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

.....Intelligent Design theory is nothing new.....


Hey DA!

Truth is truth...no matter Who...or WHEN it was said, right?


OT



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Emotional? Hardly. The rest of your diatribe is far more emotional than anything I coldly wrote.

And yes, I can say that IDers/Creationists don't deal with facts. They hold a belief that has no factual basis. There is no evidence for the ID/Creationist position. None. They are, by the very definition of the words involved, not concerned with facts.

Science doesn't BELIEVE itself to be correct, the methodology states that evidence be required to uphold a position. If contrary evidence should arise, then the scientific method will re-evaluate its current position, adapt, and become more useful. ID/Creationism does the exact opposite, becoming less and less useful to anyone.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   


Of course they didn't are you stupid? Christianity branched off of Judaism, which was around for God knows how long. Christianity is fairly new compared to everything else. I read the title of this article and just thought I had to say something because anyone who thinks christians invented anything is simply misinformed.



The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.

en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps that wiki page needs correcting?


One example of someone saying that Christians invented ID:

But leaving that aside, it’s quite strange for Chopra to accuse Christians of “hijacking” ID, since Christians invented ID.

www.heardworld.com...

Some interesting reading from that page:

New Age guru Deepak Chopra posts today in support of “intelligent design without the Bible.” That is, his column argues in favor of intelligent design, but against identifying that designer with the Judeo-Christian God. In so doing, Chopra exploits the rhetorical areligiosity of some ID advocates. Writers with more or less transparent evangelical Christian commitments have tried to offer up ID as a “nonreligious” alternative to Darwinism, but they seem to have a not-so-hidden agenda of trying to get the Judeo-Christian God assigned the role of designer. In today’s post, Chopra proclaims:



It is disturbing to see that the current debate over evolution has become us-versus-them. To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn’t make you a Christian fundamentalist. … It’s high time to rescue “intelligent design” from the politics of religion. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward.




posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 



No I don't considder myself emotional either, as you claim.
I just pointing out the Facts that can't be changed through human belief...

Sorry but you haven't provided the proof for your claims...



And yes, I can say that IDers/Creationists don't deal with facts. They hold a belief that has no factual basis. There is no evidence for the ID/Creationist position. None. They are, by the very definition of the words involved, not concerned with facts.



If you can provide evidence of your statement being a FACT, then you just might convince me, but so far No facts have been presented that back up your claims...

All that you have presented, is a generalisation of your human beliefs.

No proof to proove this being a Fact....

You are still generalising, about those in research involving Intelligent Design, by dumping all those who are involved in research, in with religious fanatics and extremists...

Not sure where you get the idea or belief from… that both are the same???

Religion presents only one creation theory, based on their human interpretations and their beliefs...
And they are quite entitled to do this...

On the other hand those involved in Quantum Mechanics, are Not necessarily religious in any way at all, but are looking for the answers to questions which the human species have asked, regarding their origin...

So far the answers have not been found or proven, because the human species may be, too primitive to understand at this point in time.
Maybe in another thousand years or so, humanity just might venture out of their caves, metaphorically speaking.

Yes I can see how useful Science has been....

But as in all things, the Opposites are always involved.

Science has given us the material toys.

But at the same time, gives the world massive problems, involving economical, human suffering (War Technologies.) the Climate change and huge threats to our environment...

This is a Fact that no one can deny...

Just check out the engineering disasters around the globe, both Atomic and Chemical, not to mention Climate change itself???

All based on that mighty US $

Strange how the human species make a god out of the US $ isn't it???

Not very Scientific... or is it ????

Some of what Science has brought into the world is excellent, but also Science has often introduced, serious problems that threaten our survival as a species...



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by maria_stardust
You guys can wax poetic on subject of intelligent design all you want, but it is still a matter of philosophical conjecture. Until someone can test its premise through the scientific method that's where it will remain.

Origins by evolutionary process is also 'philosphical conjecture' until someone can test the premise.

Fact is Neo-Darwinian Evolutionists can no more scientifically 'test' this premise than Intelligent Design' advocates...
...unless they have a time machine.

Micro-evolutionary change is observable, origin is not...
...so Neo-Darwinian Evolutionists must also rely on faith or philosophy.



Then how do you explain transitional fossils (yes, Kirk Cameron, they do exist) existing in the exact form, and place in the geologic record that Evolutionary Scientists said they should? Evolution may not have all of the answers, but it's far more complete of a theory than ID.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


But what is behind the evolution theory ???

I am referring of course to the Rules, that dictate the course and outcome o evolution...

There are laws that govern the processes in what is commonly referred to as nature...

What produced or produces the rules that govern the behaviour of evolution.

I have Not said that evolution does Not exist I question humankinds understanding of what produces the behaviour of evolution...

But it is a fact there is a process taking place in or governing Evolution.

So what are the rules that govern evolution and how were they established?

All have process and are governed by Rules or Laws...

One example is the laws of physics...

If rules or laws govern the behaviour then a process is involved and something has had to construct these rules and implement them...

If there is any change in anything then a process is involved and something has produced this but what and how???

Please keep religion out of your answer, if you do comment as I am NOT Relgious in any way....

I can only comment on what I witness.

But with regard to the thread I can only say... Fact:

ID existed before Humankind was even thought of otherwise No processes would be taking place today and You & I would Not exist..



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by maria_stardust
You guys can wax poetic on subject of intelligent design all you want, but it is still a matter of philosophical conjecture. Until someone can test its premise through the scientific method that's where it will remain.

Origins by evolutionary process is also 'philosphical conjecture' until someone can test the premise.

Fact is Neo-Darwinian Evolutionists can no more scientifically 'test' this premise than Intelligent Design' advocates...
...unless they have a time machine.

Micro-evolutionary change is observable, origin is not...
...so Neo-Darwinian Evolutionists must also rely on faith or philosophy.



Then how do you explain transitional fossils (yes, Kirk Cameron, they do exist) existing in the exact form, and place in the geologic record that Evolutionary Scientists said they should? Evolution may not have all of the answers, but it's far more complete of a theory than ID.

Some interpretations of the fossil record may demonstrate evolutionary process...
...but it still does not demonstrate origin.

Origin is not accessible to either ID or Neo-Darwinian science...
...because it can not be tested.

Richard Dawkins understands this...
...it is the mechanism he uses to be controversial and generate popularity...
...pick a faith based idea believed by millions...
...challenge it with an alternate philosophical idea...
...and argue the pros and cons for something that can never be proven.

If origins could be 'proven' either way there would be no arguement...
...no debates and no book and interview revenue.

You can see the same mechanism used here on ATS...
...if you want an active thread...
...you argue the opposite side of a big idea that can never be proven...
...people will knock themselves out putting a case for either side.

The truth is origin can not be 'proven'.

I think that the biggest challenge to Neo-Darwinianism is not Creationism or ID...
...it is Interventionism or Panspermia...
...if verifiable aliens arrived and said we seeded the 'world of men'...
...Neo-Darwinian origin theory would crumble away.




posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


There is no evidence that ID/Creationism is fact. None. There is all the evidence in the world that evolution is fact. Hence people who believe ID/Creationism, and eschew evolution, are not dealing with facts. If you need that spelled out for you any clearer, well, your school system has failed you.

The rest of your post is just a rambling, strange, semi-coherent rant about something or other I can't quite figure out.

Science hasn't brought anything into the world but understanding. What mankind chooses to do with that is nothing to do with science. It's like blaming your calculator when you realise you've not paid your taxes.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


ID is a concept, not a thing. Please get your terms correct before debating them in public, if you wish to retain credibility in the discussion.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Why do you keep putting ID and Creationism together? They are not the same.

That's one of the points in this thread. ID theory and Creationism are not the same thing and ID IS NOT religious.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Good answer.... BUUUUUUT.... There is always a "but" isn't there???



The truth is origin can not be 'proven'.


At present but in the future we simply do not know if this will be the case or Not...

But it is my guess You are going to know in the near future....

The Key to all this is in the "Paradox"

Understand the components that produce the "Paradox" and how it is formed and might just find the answer....

ALL is Created with opposites from the base up this is what produces interactions...



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Look this is child stuff....

There is a "process" involved in evolution....

Can't U understand this ?????



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


However, there are some striking differences.

Primarily, the Greeks did not have the knowledge of biology that we do now. Socrates lived in an era where bats were considered birds, where health was determined by "humors" and where the liver was considered the most influential and powerful organ in the body. That he would think the eyelid is the result of "design" is understandable. However, we know better now. Those promulgating this "theory" have access to better information than its originators did, and so have no excuse.

Secondly, the idea is being used by Christians (and Muslims, where applicable) and not Hellenic philosophers. I imagine that were Socrates or Plato presented with what we now know, they would adopt it readily, whereas the religious actively pretend such knowledge does not exist.

In other words, at the time of the idea's inception it was understandable due to lack of information. Today however, its proponents are sophophobic in the extreme



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




Today however, its proponents are sophophobic in the extreme


Huh? Perhaps some Christians are afraid to learn, but some who are ID proponents are very learned. For example: Fritjof Capra and Deepak Chopra. And they aren't even religious.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis. Two completely different things.

However, that doesn't change the not-so-small fact that evolution is a valid science subject and intelligent design is not. Even Baylor University, one of the nation's leading Christian universities is distancing itself from the controversial subject of intelligent design.


Baylor has received the national spotlight once again for another controversy involving intelligent design research. Dr. Robert Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, posted what university officials are calling "unapproved research" on his personal Web site hosted by Baylor's server. The research, which concerns informatic computing and the evolutionary process, was conducted as part of Marks' Evolutionary Informatics Lab. Baylor shut down the site in early August, shortly before a scheduled meeting to discuss the issue with Marks...


Source

In fact this was the second time that Baylor has distanced themselves from ID. It disbanded the Michael Polanyi Center after it became clear that it was being used as a front to falsely present ID as a legitimate science.


Baylor University's Michael Polanyi Center has been stripped of its name and subjected to intensive reorganization, after a lengthy debate over the existence of the "intelligent design" think tank on the Baptist school's campus.

The controversy began during the spring of 2000 when faculty members expressed their displeasure at the establishment of the Michael Polanyi Center (MPC) without faculty input (see RNCSE 20 [1-2]: 15-16). Particularly displeased were members of the science faculty, who considered the "intelligent design" (ID) focus of the center to be a thinly-veiled form of creation science. Because of faculty criticism, Baylor's President Robert B Sloan Jr agreed to appoint an outside investigating committee.

...It also called for dropping the name "Michael Polanyi", as the center named for him did not reflect the fact that Polanyi rejected the idea of an agent as creator.


Source

So until intelligent design can be studied under the strictly controlled environment of actual science, it must be left to the field of philosophical discourse. At this present time it is a matter of apples and oranges.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Deepak Chopra? Holy crap, am I on candid camera? Is Alan Funt lurking on this thread? You can't be serious.

He may be learned in his field, but giving him props for that is like giving props to a biologist who specializes in unicorns. he might be very learned about unicorns, he may know how they work, what the history of the creature is, and is very qualified to inform people on all things unicorn-related... but this doesn't overcome the fact that unicorns don't actually exist.

Same with Deepak Chopra and his "Think happy thoughts and your Diabetes will go away!" version of medicine.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 




So until intelligent design can be studied under the strictly controlled environment of actual science, it must be left to the field of philosophical discourse. At this present time it is a matter of apples and oranges.


Bingo....

This is because the human species does NOT know, how to approach the subject in the correct way, but I suspect this may change in your lifetime.

It requires development in the area of "interactive interfaces" with the Mind (or what I call LIFE)...

Maybe there will be changes in the meaning of the English word: LIFE in dictionaries in the future???

But you are correct.... we still don't have enough know how, to set up the systems required to test this area.

I suspect you are about to hear more on this, in the not too distant future which may have a marked affect on the human species, in the way we approach these difficult questions.


[edit on 8-2-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


And yet you say they are afraid to learn? Do not make a generalization. I understand what you are saying, but you can't say that ALL IDers are afraid to learn. Those guys have Ph.D.s for god's sake.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 

All you have responded with is politic...
...but the real issue is philosophical world-view.

The problem Neo-Darwinians have with Intelligent Design is origins.

The Intelligent Design guys do not have any problem with micro-evolution...
...that is, the present observable process of biological change...
...they are not suggesting that some intelligent agent plays with current automatic biological processes...
...they are only suggesting that the complex information suggests some intelligent agent got it started.

The only issue between the Neo-Darwinians and Intelligent Design guys is origins.

The philosophy of the Neo-Darwinians is that life arose spontaneously through a process of natural selection...
...while the Intelligent Design guys believe that some intelligent agent (God or ET) may be a better explanation for the complexity of the information present in biological systems.






new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join