Intelligent Design is Dead

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by unworldly
 

Your screen name suits your views very well.


I don't care about how life began... nor do I care how human beings developed...

Well, that’s all right, but clearly a lot of other people do care. You don’t mind that, do you?

No, wait, it seems you do mind...


A more worthwhile investment of researchers' energies is the unseen world that exists all around us today.

You’d like to see the human resources presently devoted to research in evolutionary biology, geology, palaeontology, astronomy, astrophysics, and so on turned to the investigation of paranormal phenomena instead. Or is it secret elite conspiracies you want to see investigated? It’s a bit hard to tell from the way your post is worded.

If it’s paranormal stuff, you could be on to something there in my opinion. Proof of intelligent design may well come from new discoveries connected with auras, ley lines, dowsing, telekinesis, remote viewing or tasseography. It could be the saving of the intelligent design movement. A brilliant public-relations coup: in one bold sidestep, shift the battleground to the Other Side! The only problem with the idea seems to be that some IDers might want to burn you as a witch for advancing it.


Anyone who isn't in denial of their senses knows that, regardless of your spiritual/religious beliefs, there is more to life than meets the eye. There are manipulative forces that are continuously at work--wrecking peoples' lives and even turning nations against one another, etc. and so forth.

Paranormal forces, or conspiratorial ones?

Or –
both?


Too much energy has been (and continues to be) wasted on the childish "God is real!" -- "No, ID is absurd!" argument. Humankind has nothing to gain by this silly debate.

Does that mean you’re pleased the ID movement is dead? End of debate, reason triumphs and so forth?

I mean, it makes no difference to you which side wins, so long as energy is saved. Right?




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
I mean, it makes no difference to you which side wins...


Neither side has or will win. You, and those who think as you do, have utterly failed to provide any definitive evidence of your views. You don't have the answers; you are a fallible human being with a very narrow capacity of perception who will forever be ignorant--just like all of the rest of us.

We don't have the answers--not you; not me; not creationists; and not evolutionists. Anyone who thinks they "know" is a fool. We, as a people and as a species, despite gargantuan leaps of knowledge and understanding, are still--in the grand picture of it all--lost.

We are well into the 21st century now, and we cannot even solve such petty problems as world hunger, poverty, or mental illness... and in your arrogance, you claim to possess knowledge on such a scale that you can fully discount the notion of ID. You can no more successfully provide a convincing argument of this than the other side can present convincing evidence of theirs.

The debate is a lost cause. There is no debate. There is only ignorance--and we each are immersed in it.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by unworldly
 


You, and those who think as you do, have utterly failed to provide any definitive evidence of your views.

That’s probably untrue, but since you haven’t stated exactly what you think my views are, it’s a little hard to call you on it. There is abundant and conclusive evidence to support the theory of evolution by natural selection, if that’s what you mean. The evidence is freely available and not really that hard to understand, provided one takes the trouble to engage with it. A person who has ignored, rejected or misunderstood the evidence may, of course, insist that there is none.


You don't have the answers; you are a fallible human being with a very narrow capacity of perception who will forever be ignorant--just like all of the rest of us.

Just like all the rest of us? Then you are just as likely to be wrong as I am. So what makes your views of any value? Why should I, or anyone else, give two hoots what you think? How do you justify the time and trouble of expressing yoursef at all, if you say you are just as clueless as everyone else? Would it not be less wasteful of energy – you seem so keen to conserve the stuff – simply to keep your mouth shut?


We, as a people and as a species, despite gargantuan leaps of knowledge and understanding, are still--in the grand picture of it all--lost.

You may be speaking for yourself alone. If you are lost, as you claim to be, you obviously cannot know where anyone or anything else stands in relation to you. Then, not having a clue yourself, you wrongly assume that nobody else has one either. For all you know, no-one is lost except for you.


We are well into the 21st century now, and we cannot even solve such petty problems as world hunger, poverty, or mental illness...

I would not call these petty problems, though I imagine an unworldly person might regard them as such.


In your arrogance, you claim to possess knowledge on such a scale that you can fully discount the notion of ID.

I think you misunderstand. The death of which I speak is that of the intelligent design movement. The death of a movement does not imply that its central idea is false. As even the most ardent evolutionist cannot deny, there is no glaring incompatibility between the concept of divine creation and that of evolution.


There is no debate.

Read the preceding four pages of this thread. No debate? Really?


There is only ignorance--and we each are immersed in it.

One immersed in ignorance cannot know accurately the condition of others. He may insist that others, too, are ignorant, but what is his claim based? Merely his own ignorance.

Beware of swimming out of your depth in strange waters.

edit on 10/12/11 by Astyanax because: of a matter of course.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I perused most of the posts in this thread and observed that there seems to be a general consensus that Creationism and ID are the same. Even the OP links them as though they are one and the same.


Here on Above Top Secret, where rigourous scientific standards are not applied, you might expect creationists and IDists to do better; yet despite the plethora of threads on the subject in this forum, the score remains Creationists 0, Evolutionists Every Single Game. Our creationist friends here may beg to differ, but the threads speak for themselves.
I think it is important to distinguish between the two if this debate is to be coherent. For instance, I would agree with the OP if the title of this thread was "Creationism is dead". In the sense that no serious scientist has or will propose any rational theory supporting it, one would have trouble reasonably countering this claim. Unfortunately for Creationists, they only have their faith and the Bible to support their view.

ID is a form of Creationism, however, it is not based on a religious text and does not name any one thing or deity as the designer. But, they are not the same

Both involve an intervening deity, but ID is more vague about what happened and when.

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.


As for Intelligent Design, I am not so sure it is dead unless your definition of dead is different than mine.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by taderhold
 

The distinction between intelligent design and creationism is best shown by this cartoon:


The proponents of intelligent design are simply religious creationists with a political agenda. They claim it is scientific and secular in hopes of gaining academic respectability, but their beliefs about the origins of life and humanity are clearly religious in origin. The ‘science’ of ID is a search for proof of supernatural origins (the ‘designer’) that the ‘researchers’ have already decided must exist.

However, I agree with you that a distinction can be made between creationism in general and the specifics of the intelligent design movement in particular. ‘Creationism’ is a very broad term that can apply to everything from Genesis to the ideas of David Icke. By ‘intelligent design’, I mean the political and cultural movement defined by (1) the effort to have religious ideas about the origins of life and humanity taught in schools as if they were, or might be, true, and (2) the quest for scientific confirmation of creationist beliefs, or at least scientific objections to modern evolutionary theory.

It is precisely this movement that I say is dead. You seem to believe it is still alive – meaning, I suppose, that you believe it still has some potency. Yet intelligent design has achieved nothing substantive in twenty years of existence as a movement, and its proponents appear to be flagging – losing interest, even. Such is my perception, and that of the people I mentioned in the OP. You seem to disagree. What are your reasons for believing the ID movement is still alive?

edit on 10/12/11 by Astyanax because: of that.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

If Creationists as a whole have adopted a new name and are masquerading as something less controversial, then I agree with you. Their chances of being accepted as serious by the scientific community are dead as you say. However, I have always believed that it is possible that a superior entity started this life we know eons ago. Likewise, I am certain that every organism on Earth has evolved. Surely no sane person can deny the theory of evolution discovered by Darwin and the subsequent research and discoveries since.

So, it appears we are in agreement, I guess. I am frustrated with people who will not accept the possibility that we may have been "created" and also evolved. Sorry about the lack of clarity in my first post.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by sinthia
 


And thus starts the same argument that has been held on here time and time again in numerous different threads. Here's your evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent



Great quote from there that I think really nails it:



Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
I find it extremely funny, how abiogenesis is seen as a separate hypothesis, and yet, there is this kind of great urge for evolutionists to bash and fiercely reject intelligent design and creationism, while those address the issue of how life started, and evolution does not according to your own views because it assumes life was already there.. Anyone care to explain & justify this hypocrisy?
edit on 23-12-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
I guess it’s not appropriate to say “Rest In Peace”.
The sad reality is we have half the world believing in fairy tales its been like this forever, we have the knowledge to rise above it now but I still think it will take a few more decades; I don’t believe something like religion can last forever in a evolving society like ours.
I’ve always wondered if that day when we have forgot about religion the human race would become an infinitely better place; there’s no doubt about it in my mind.

RIP IGNORANCE, YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED TO YOUR DEATH BED.


WakeUpRiseUp, I sure hope you are right. I too tend to think that with the current flow of information, and the rise in human intelligence, a time will come when religions will fall in disregard. Gods will be forgotten, everyone will work for the common good, there will be no war, no hunger, no wants or needs. Everyone will be healthy, thanks to medical science and stem cell technology, along with DNA splicing, we can all live quite healthy lives, and have perfected children. Plenty to eat, clean water to drink, green energy production. Total happiness in pure world. Wow. that was a good thought. I would give up my life if everyone else could have such a life, on my honor I would.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
One thing that has always bothered me is this:

Intelligent design does not mean evolution cannot exist.

Evolution does not mean intelligent design cannot exist.

Some people are wasting a lot of energy trying to prove one to disprove the other, when it's quite possible that both exist and work together.
edit on 24-12-2011 by _Phoenix_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Actually it seems quite the opposite is true, for example there are now over 50 published peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject. With the most appearing from around 2004.
Some scientific institutions and publications have also emerged to study the issue.
Several books have been released in that same time, signature of a cell made the best sellers list in 2009.

Alive and kicking and developing just fine would be a more accurate description, much to the horror and obvious denial of others.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
unfortuntely the concept of evolution, as correct and simple to grasp as it is - seems to be above a lot of peoples heads. They just do not get the whole premise of it. And lets not beat around the bush - it is correct - it still needs gaps filled in - but it is the correct mechanism that facilitated life and the advancement of species on this planet.

That is undeniable.
Anyone that does, well..... dear, dear me.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadraphobe
 

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the word 'evolution' suffers from equivocation.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Actually it seems quite the opposite is true, for example there are now over 50 published peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject. With the most appearing from around 2004.
Some scientific institutions and publications have also emerged to study the issue.
Several books have been released in that same time, signature of a cell made the best sellers list in 2009.

Alive and kicking and developing just fine would be a more accurate description, much to the horror and obvious denial of others.


Could you please post some of these "peer reviewed" scientific papers on intelligent design? I'm interested.
edit on 26-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Actually it seems quite the opposite is true, for example there are now over 50 published peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject. With the most appearing from around 2004.

Which was the big run-up to the Kitzmiller case. The Discovery Institute was trying to publish as much as possible as a means of appearing legitimate for their big test case in a federal district court. And failed. Miserably.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Oh, it wasn't Intelligent Design that took a hit in that shamefull court case, It was just a little thing called academic freedom.

How Bright is the Future of Intelligent Design?

Post-Dover Education Victories for Intelligent Design


Instead, Discovery Institute believes that public schools should teach both the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. That's a second reason the critics' narrative is wrong: the actual educational policy goals of the ID movement have seen many successes in recent years. In fact, since the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, at least four states have passed policies requiring or permitting the teaching of scientific criticisms of evolution.


•In 2006, South Carolina adopted a standard requiring students to "Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."


•In 2006, Mississippi passed a law holding that "No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life."


•In 2008, Louisiana required passed a policy requiring that Louisiana schools shall "create and foster an environment...that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."


•In 2009, Texas adopted science standards that require students to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking," and also "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims, such as "common ancestry," "natural selection," and "mutation."

If you haven't heard of these victories, there's a good reason why: the media love to cover debates over evolution-education, but only on rare occasions do they accurately report the ID movement's wins.



It doesn't matter what you think about ID, the real question is why can't the criticism against Darwinism be taught in schools? This was the real issue with the Dover case. The discovery institute never wanted it taught in schools only the criticism against Darwinism.

I mean WTF? most of the bashers haven't a clue what the difficulties darwinian evolution faces because it is not taught in schools and it is hand waved away by the hardcore darwinists. I think I'll get some threads going about these.

I also have to say that ID does not discount evolution, I'm sure that may be difficult for some to grasp. Darwinism does not have a monopoly on the word.

The criticism promotes good scientific debate and critical thought. This is what was really defeated in that rediculous court case. One lone judge ruled that ID was religion in disguise.
Anyone that has taken the tme to look at the actual position of the ID researchers knows that is complete rubbish.

But back to the original claim that it's dead, pfff.... yeah right. More evidence to the contrary. Darwinists don't seem to have a problem with that though, they just make up a story. In this case it's "Intelligent design is dead!"

Believe it if it makes you feel good.
edit on 26-12-2011 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Here's another on the same issue.
www.evolutionnews.org...

Dead? Or denial?



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I have watched this thread develop over the last month and have made the following observation: the OP should reconsider his position. Also, your member ID, Astyanax Mind Firmly Closed, is quite revealing.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Oh, it wasn't Intelligent Design that took a hit in that shamefull court case, It was just a little thing called academic freedom.

I always find the hypocrisy of creationists crying "academic freedom" so amusing. Especially when they try and co-opt the memory of John Scopes.

The Creationism 2.0 crowd is more than welcome to teach their brand of theological origins in a classroom. Just not in a science classroom.


How Bright is the Future of Intelligent Design?

Post-Dover Education Victories for Intelligent Design

Propaganda op-ed pieces from a pro-ID site are supposed to be indicative of reality?


If you haven't heard of these victories, there's a good reason why: the media love to cover debates over evolution-education, but only on rare occasions do they accurately report the ID movement's wins.

Because the media doesn't brand them as "wins", they recognize them for what they are -- inherently unconstitutional legislation trying to shoehorn theology into public schools under the guise of science.


It doesn't matter what you think about ID, the real question is why can't the criticism against Darwinism be taught in schools? This was the real issue with the Dover case. The discovery institute never wanted it taught in schools only the criticism against Darwinism.

Have you ever read the Wedge Document?


I mean WTF? most of the bashers haven't a clue what the difficulties darwinian evolution faces because it is not taught in schools and it is hand waved away by the hardcore darwinists. I think I'll get some threads going about these.

Maybe you should use the search function and see how many others have tried.

I also have to say that ID does not discount evolution, I'm sure that may be difficult for some to grasp. Darwinism does not have a monopoly on the word.


The criticism promotes good scientific debate and critical thought. This is what was really defeated in that rediculous court case. One lone judge ruled that ID was religion in disguise. Anyone that has taken the tme to look at the actual position of the ID researchers knows that is complete rubbish.

One lone judge... presiding over the test case that the Discovery Institute was begging for. You'd think when a school board in Ohio tried something similar to the Dover school board recently, the Discovery Institute would have been all over it, pushing for another try. But they were nowhere to be found.


But back to the original claim that it's dead, pfff.... yeah right. More evidence to the contrary. Darwinists don't seem to have a problem with that though, they just make up a story. In this case it's "Intelligent design is dead!"

I wouldn't agree with the OP saying it's dead, but it's effectively done nothing since being handed the beating it was given in the Kitzmiller case. And you can try to paint a religious, Republican, Bush-appointee judge as "activist" like the rest of the Discovery Institute frauds, but I'm sure you'll have about as much luck with that as they have. Because when a right-wing judge appointed by an anti-science administration recognizes that creationism 2.0 has zero scientific merit, you can bet most people do.


Believe it if it makes you feel good.

I don't need to "believe" in evolution. The evidence for it is there.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I knew people would ignore my post..



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


So critical analysys of Darwinism shouldn't be taught? Nice.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join