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.
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.
DNA on its own, for example, blows intelligent design out of the water, as they are the ever-changing instructions to build an organism.
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.
But try telling that to a Creationist/IDer. They don't deal with facts, just beliefs. How very unscientific.
Originally posted by Deaf Alien
.....Intelligent Design theory is nothing new.....
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.
But leaving that aside, it’s quite strange for Chopra to accuse Christians of “hijacking” ID, since Christians invented ID.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The truth is origin can not be 'proven'.
Today however, its proponents are sophophobic in the extreme
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...
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.
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.