Christians Did Not Invent Intelligent Design Theory, page 4

reply to post by troubleshooter

---

And that is all fine and dandy in the philosophical sense. The point is it's still not science, merely personal belief.

reply to post by troubleshooter

---

What you say is indeed correct to a certain point

BUT.....

...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.

This is again a generalisation...

Not all of us, see it that way at all....

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by troubleshooter

---

And that is all fine and dandy in the philosophical sense.

Philosphy is all either side has.

The point is it's still not science, merely personal belief.

When it come to origins I am agnostic.

Science has nothing to say about origins...
...because true science is only concerned with the observable and verifiable...
...and origins can not be either observed or verified...
...so until then either view is personal belief.

reply to post by troubleshooter

---

Bingo a Star for you...

Its all about us rediscovering ourselves again I believe, and you can see this taking place in the affairs of the human species...

I strongly suspect we will achieve this in time...

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

---

And yet you say they are afraid to learn?

Absolutely. Sticking with Mr. Chopra for a moment, the facts are clear that vaccinations for example, actually work. They may not be perfect of course, but they do work. Many diseases once rampant through the population nor exist only in remote enclaves, or even in laboratories thanks to vaccination. Mr. Chopra chooses instead to stick his thumbs in his eyes and pretend that they don't. He ignores the evidence, because the evidence runs counter to his preconceived notions.

At least the unicorn biologist and rest easy with the knowledge that we can't prove the nonexistence of unicorns, only present the fact that to date, nobody has ever seen one, collected a specimin, or in any other way provided evidence of the unicorn's existence.

When you refuse knowledge because it scares you, or because it runs counter to what you already believe, then that's sophophobia. it is strongest in the religious, who tend to be absolutely terrified of learning anything that their holy book doesn't teach - in fact the Abrahamic faiths are based off the idea of sophophobia - mankind taking part of the fruit of the tree of knowledge is regarded as the original and most powerful sin. The message? Ignorant adhereance to god is better than learning.

Do not make a generalization. I understand what you are saying, but you can't say that ALL IDers are afraid to learn.

Those that aren't afraid to learn rarely retain their Intelligent Design outlooks for very long. The genesis of ID thought is a lack of knowledge - such as what I explained regarding Socrates. They dimply didn't have the knowledge otherwise those days.

Those that refuse to realize what's going on - the continuing, persistent proponents of the ID hypothesis - are those who refuse to look at the evidence, or who try to turn it into something it's not. In essence, they have too much invested in being wrong to allow themselves to become right.

And though I know you may try, the argument can't be reversed. Knowledge is gained from data and evidence. So far,all the gathered data and evidence regarding hte diversity of life points towards evolution of organisms through natural selection powered by mutation. There has been no evidence of a designing mind, and the only argument that presents the option amounts to "things exist, ergo there MUST be a creator" - which is, as i hope you know, a logical fallacy.

Those guys have Ph.D.s for god's sake.

Good choice of words. How many of them have PhD's in a relevant field from an accredited university? In a debate about the development of life, a PhD in biblical archaeology from Bob Jones University doesn't lend the same weight as a PhD in evolutionary biology from Oxford.

See, you're engaging in another logical fallacy, "they have a PhD!" is an appeal to authority. Unfortunately this is exactly what a lot of science-denying "scientists" are banking on, when they take their doctorates in art theory and start talking about medicine, they present themselves as "Dr. Whatever, PhD" and expect people who blindly follow authorative titles to fall in behind them.

reply to post by Deaf Alien

---

Would you savages just give it up? "intelligent design" is just creationism dressed up in what you think are respectable clothes, but you don't notice that the hobo underneath those clothes is in dire need of a bath. It doesn't matter if someone a thousand years ago, or more than a thousand years ago thought that some sky wizard created everything. It's still creationism, creationism isn't the sole arena of the christians, there are ignorant savages in all religions that cling to their own version of creationism because their ego simply refuses to allow them to accept the truth that they are of natural instead of supernatural origin. So, yeah, give it up. It gets tiresome, it's boorish, and it just allows you and every other creationist to unknowingly parade around brandishing your ignorance to the world.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

---

Science has plenty to say about origns. it is continually gathering evidence and clues, examining them, and working them into a framework. It has no definitive answer for everything, but it has some really good ideas as to what the answer might be.

Now that's a FACT....

reply to post by troubleshooter

---

their theory does not presuppose the identity of the intelligent agency.

Wonderful!!!

I couldn't have said it better!

reply to post by Deaf Alien

---

Ah, but you do a great disservice when you deny the fact that intelligent design relies on an unidentified supreme being of sorts as the the intelligent designer.

So, yes an unidentified supreme being most definitely tips its hat towards the religious realm. If anything, it's a thinly veiled reference to a deity.

reply to post by maria_stardust

---

Why does intelligence have to be some sort of a supreme being? After all, aren't we all intelligent?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

---

Religions are silly things.

About the only thing I vehemently agree.

ID is not about belief in any god. It is about seeing the structures in nature. I am not talking about natural selection. It is way deeper than quantum mechanics. Even physicists and mathematicians remarked at how structured things are in quantum mechanics. Studying quantum mechanics, group theory, tensors, even general relativity, will leave you awed.

Without order or structure, how is life or the universe possible?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by maria_stardust

---

Why does intelligence have to be some sort of a supreme being? After all, aren't we all intelligent?

Are you suggesting intelligent design is anchored in the premise that there is no designer?

Wow, that's the first time I've read anyone trying to push this particular line of thought regarding intelligent design.

reply to post by maria_stardust

---

Are you suggesting intelligent design is anchored in the premise that there is no designer?

Exactly. There is intelligence but the designer does not exist.

See? It's not religious.

Keep your jaw off the floor.

Religions pollute the idea.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by maria_stardust

---

Are you suggesting intelligent design is anchored in the premise that there is no designer?

Exactly. There is intelligence but the designer does not exist.

This premise makes absolutely no sense.

By default, the word design implies a designer. Otherwise, it's not intelligent design.

reply to post by maria_stardust

---

Well it appears the evolutionist says there is No designer !!!

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 11 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 17 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 16 days ago with 2 member flags

The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags

Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: