Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 159 (8167 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-27-2014 7:10 PM
57 online now:
dwise1, GDR, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle (5 members, 52 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 742,186 Year: 28,027/28,606 Month: 3,084/2,244 Week: 488/710 Day: 64/134 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
Taz
Member
Posts: 5064
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 204 (445222)
01-01-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Theological arguments
sine writes:

Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.


So, are you telling us that the so-called theory of intelligent design is valid simply because evolution is inadequate to explain certain questions? This is a fallacy. You're trying to prove one thing by trying to disprove another and declaring this the default position. It's nonsense.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 17 of 204 (445226)
01-01-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 2:09 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
I meant the intelligent designer need be no more divine than the laws of nature.

See my reply to Modulous Message 15. It's easy to avoid semantics. Take the term "intelligent design" at its face value.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 2:09 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 5:23 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 494
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 18 of 204 (445228)
01-01-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Theological arguments
sinequanon writes:

Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.

Studying the processes of evolution and the Theory of Evolution is the way understand challenging questions about evolution. Scientist want to answer the challenging questions about evolution. That is what makes it fun! ID does not provide answers to challenging questions about evolution. ID says the answer to all questions is God did it! That's a big help!


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 19 of 204 (445231)
01-01-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
01-01-2008 2:06 PM


There is no evidence of a designer?
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:06 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:59 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24987
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 20 of 204 (445232)
01-01-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:58 PM


Re: There is no evidence of a designer?
Looked.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:58 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6514
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 21 of 204 (445252)
01-01-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:30 PM


Teleological arguments
Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.

Nobody is throwing out teleology. We are just calling a spade a spade when it comes to a certain movement which has proven religious motivations. If someone wants to put forward a teleological argument, it will be dealt with on its merits or lack thereof.

As I said, teleology and ID are different creatures. Nobody is dismissing teleology as just a religious argument. Teleology has its own special criticisms, some of which (such as the problem of infinite regress) are addressed in arguments with regards to the teleological claims of ID. ID has other things going on, one of which is the religious agenda, and those things are criticised for what they are.

Do not mistake ID for being a purely teleological movement though. There is more there and it would be foolish to ignore it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 6:55 PM Modulous has responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 22 of 204 (445272)
01-01-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:42 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
I meant the intelligent designer need be no more divine than the laws of nature.

Wrong.

No matter what sort of intelligent designer is proposed, you end of with an infinite regression in trying to explain the origins of the designer.

Unless, of course, the intelligent designer is divine. Which is of course, what the IDiots think.

Hence "cdesign proponentsists".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:42 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 23 of 204 (445273)
01-01-2008 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Theological arguments
Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.

As others have already pointed out, no one (and I mean no one) in the field of evolutionary biology is avoiding the challenging questions.

ID is not worth discussing for a whole host of scientific reasons; however, the most compelling reason to toss it on the trash heap of history without a backward glance is this:

Cdesign proponentsists.

In case you are unfamiliar with the term:

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html

Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. --Gertrude Stein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 2211 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 24 of 204 (445274)
01-01-2008 5:40 PM


Branching Off
But what about "teaching the controversy"? Shouldn't we?
Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 5:49 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 6:03 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded
 Message 27 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 6:14 PM Organicmachination has responded
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 7:18 PM Organicmachination has responded
 Message 91 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:38 AM Organicmachination has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5184
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 25 of 204 (445276)
01-01-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Branching Off
There is no scientific controversy. The only controversy is religious and/or philosophical. So if we want to teach the philosophycontroversy, that should be done in religious or philosophy classes, not in science classes.

Edited by nwr, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 5:40 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member
Posts: 5064
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 26 of 204 (445278)
01-01-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Branching Off
What controversy? Oh, that's right, the controversy between scientists and the general public on what science ought to be. Gee, I wonder which side I'll go with on this one...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 5:40 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 27 of 204 (445279)
01-01-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Branching Off
But what about "teaching the controversy"? Shouldn't we?

I'm a smidge confused, Org.

In your OP, you admit that ID is creationism in disguise.

Now you contend there is a controversy.

What gives?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 5:40 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 6:42 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 2211 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 28 of 204 (445297)
01-01-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by molbiogirl
01-01-2008 6:14 PM


Re: Branching Off
Oh ha. Sorry about the confusion. I'm just trying to get conversations started, as this is a topic that tends to wash off relatively quickly. My views are as they were expressed in my first post, but I might be offering arguments on the other side as a means of getting debate started. Heh. Sorry about that!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 6:14 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 29 of 204 (445301)
01-01-2008 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
01-01-2008 4:24 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Do not mistake ID for being a purely teleological movement though. There is more there and it would be foolish to ignore it.

I am aware of the political games being played with regards intelligent design. I think the games are being played on both sides of the argument. Some scientist seem to prefer arguing against YEC (so much easier and much more fun), and promote the misuse of the term "intelligent design" to shoehorn into creationism, other theories involving design.

The literal meaning of the term "intelligent design" is not teleology. All that is required for intelligent design is intelligence and design. I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 4:24 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 7:29 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 34 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 7:33 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 01-02-2008 3:25 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16135
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 30 of 204 (445309)
01-01-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Is Intelligent Design religion ... ?

At best it's half vast Deism. :D At it's worst (and most common) it is a political scam\con\deception.

... or science? Is it a scientific theory ... ?

It doesn't come up to the standard of science, as it is not a theory that is (1) based on evidence (2) testable with predictions or (3) falsifiable.

Does it have a place in our classrooms?

It could be compared to other philosophies in a philosophy class or other religions in a comparative religion class.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Organicmachination, posted 12-31-2007 4:46 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014