|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Tom Larkin | |||||||
|
| Announcements: | Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taz Member (Idle past 765 days)  Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sinequanon Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
See my reply to Modulous Message 15. It's easy to avoid semantics. Take the term "intelligent design" at its face value.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tanypteryx Member  Posts: 1516 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sinequanon Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member  Posts: 29147 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member  Posts: 7415 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 115 days)  Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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".
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 115 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. --Gertrude Stein
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 3184 days)  Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nwr Member  Posts: 5530 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
Edited by nwr, : spelling
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taz Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 115 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 3184 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sinequanon Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member  Posts: 18815 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
At best it's half vast Deism. :D At it's worst (and most common) it is a political scam\con\deception.
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.
It could be compared to other philosophies in a philosophy class or other religions in a comparative religion class. Enjoy. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017
