Christians Did Not Invent Intelligent Design Theory

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.

Originally posted by troubleshooter

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.

Not at all true.

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.

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.

Religion / ID on the other hand, has "god did it" and backs itself up with belief systems that are vastly younger than the species that created said belief systems. Any investigation outside that belief system is sacrelige - though most places don't kill those who try anymore.

ID theory is NOT about "god did it". It's the INTELLIGENCE behind everything. It's the structure and order in nature and the universe. I can discuss realism but yet again, ID IS NOT of religious nature.

To claim that ID theory is of religious nature is erroneous. Even worse is to claim that ID idea is from Christians.

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.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Religion / ID on the other hand, has "god did it" and backs itself up with belief systems that are vastly younger than the species that created said belief systems. Any investigation outside that belief system is sacrelige - though most places don't kill those who try anymore.

The discussion here is Intelligent Design.

Christians or Religion did not invent Intelligent Design...
...it simple aligns better with what they believe.

Intelligent Design proposes that some intelligent agent is responsible for the complex information present in biological systems...
...their theory does not presuppose the identity of the intelligent agency.

If 'aliens' arrived with credentials and could demonstrate that they 'seeded' life on this planet...
...Neo-Darwinian theory of 'origins' would collapse immediately...
...Intelligent Design would be vindicated...
...Francis Crick would be shown to be mostly correct...
...Lloyd Pyes' interventionist theory will be vindicated...
...and Religion already have a case to challenge the 'alien' assertion.

Neo-Darwinianism is fighting for its life right now...
...while smuggly clinging onto the high ground.

And like I said I am agnostic about origins...
...I am just in the stand watching the play off.

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?

Originally posted by troubleshooter
The discussion here is Intelligent Design.

Christians or Religion did not invent Intelligent Design...
...it simple aligns better with what they believe.

Intelligent Design proposes that some intelligent agent is responsible for the complex information present in biological systems...
...their theory does not presuppose the identity of the intelligent agency.

Wink wink nudge nudge, eh guvnuh wot wot, eh? eh?

If 'aliens' arrived with credentials and could demonstrate that they 'seeded' life on this planet...
...Neo-Darwinian theory of 'origins' would collapse immediately...

No it wouldn't. The aliens would have had so come from somewhere, the life they seeded would still have had to have come from somewhere, and life still would have been evolving on earth.

Intelligent design isn't an argument about origins (though it tries, with the aforementioned "all-powerful, all-creating, all-controlling entity that I'm not SAYING is the christian god, wink wink nudge nudge") but rather an attempt to explain the diversity of species, as a counter-argument to evolution.

It's a different hypothesis than Pye's panspermia. Don't conflate them.

...Intelligent Design would be vindicated...

No, because again, the aliens and life would have come from something, and ID would be left trying to explain the "creators" creator. Same as it currently does. ID is a paradoxical loop with no resolution.

...Francis Crick would be shown to be mostly correct...

About what, in particular? he covers a lot of ground.

...Lloyd Pyes' interventionist theory will be vindicated...

The only factual statement you've made so far... and even that is hinging on the gigantic IF series of "IF aliens showed up and IF they said they seeded the earth and IF they weren't just lying out of their blowholes..."

...and Religion already have a case to challenge the 'alien' assertion.

I imagine most religions would call for them to convert or get nuked. Religions are silly things.

Neo-Darwinianism is fighting for its life right now...
...while smuggly clinging onto the high ground.

What in the world are you talking about when yo usay "no-darwinism? Is that just one of those silly neologisms that you picked up off some creationist website and thought sounded neat?

Evolutionary theory is hardly struggling. Unless I suppose you think science works like American Idol.

And like I said I am agnostic about origins...
...I am just in the stand watching the play off.

Really? You certainly strike me as having a vested interest, since you're promulgating bat-barf hypotheses while attacking actual science. I think the only think you're agnostic about is reality.

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 !!!

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Well it appears the evolutionist says there is No designer !!!

Of course not, there is no evidence to that effect.

On the other hand, intelligent design has always fallen back on analogies such as the "watch maker" or the "programmer" to elude to presence of an unknown supreme being as the force behind intelligent design.

One can't argue the premise of intelligent design without acknowledging a designer.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by maria_stardust]