Defence of Intelligent Design

Well were to begin, for starters you said nothing relating to the theory, you merely created a straw man and classified me as a religious fundamentalist rather than focusing on the arguments. In truth you have no concept of real science if you would like to give me food for thought than present real arguments based on science, instead of a bunch of crap about "oh it is obviously wrong", that's bull and completely unscientific. And for another thing those people are my friends and if you would like to bad mouth them then perhaps you can stop hiding behind you computer and tell me a place were you can meet me and tell me to my face. I understand fine science and the various theory's and would enjoy your scientific advise, if such a thing exists, and i will run my life and believe whatever i please and i don't need advise from someone who claims to be related to an ape.BRAN

Bran,While Flies might have come on a little strong for your tastes, I dont' understand your obvious anger. You come on an admittedly evolution / science sided website, one that your friends obviously told you about, and you ask for help. Yet here you say: Why would someone who doesn't want advise from an ape's relation, come on a site filled with evolutionists and ask for help? And why would a bible believing creationist's first response to adversity be to offer to fight someone over it?

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle if I can't answer that either. But I'd sure as hell rather be related to lower apes than to say ... dirt from the ground.

What many people on here have tried to convey is that Intelligent Design is not science, it is an opinion with very little evidence to back it up. You do know the difference between an opinion and science, correct? For example, ID comes down to a few points of opinion:1. Claim: Organisms are too complex to have evolved, they must have been designed.This is an opinion, being that there is no evidence given other than incredulity. Also, design is said to be self evident. I could just as easily say that the speed of light is incorrect, nothing can travel THAT fast. I could then expound on how the methods used to measure light HAVE to be wrong because I can't conceive of anything going that fast. I could then say that the theories on which the speed of light are based are JUST theories and shouldn't be trusted since they haven't been proven 100%. Is my scenario scientific? Or is it opinion devoid of evidence?2. CLAIM: Some biological systems are Irreducibly Complex (IC), therefore evolution could not have created these systems.Again, opinion. What evidence is there that evolution can not produce IC systems? Behe certainly does not offer any. He instead relies on the predisposition of his audience to swallow his OPINION as truth. In fact, there are IC systems that do show step by step progression in the fossil record. One such system is the middle ear. If you want, I can run through the evolution of this IC system, or you can peruse through it here.3. CLAIM: The designer does not have to be a supernatural being.This is clearly faulty logic. The first designer had to occur naturally, otherwise there must be an appeal to supernatural intervention. If the first designer came about by natural means, why deny that life here on earth could have come about by natural means. Could complexity be a hallmark of all life, regardless of origins? They still haven't answered this statement, and they still have to rely upon supernatural intervention at somepoint in the process.I don't know if you support or do not support the ID premise, but these are the problems I see from a scientific point of view.

Well, I know it's not me you're talking to, but if you cared to come to Prior Lake, MN, I'll tell you right to your face that there's no scientific basis to intelligent design, that it can't construct hypotheses or make predictions, and that anybody who believes it does so to satisfy a deeply-held religious ideology that they couldn't abide being wrong.If you want to fight after that, we can do that, too. I'm trained in the use of several weapons so I'm happy to let you choose.On the other hand, you could just look around this board, get involved in some of the threads, and actually find out why rational people come to the conclusion that there's no science in ID.

Abshalom, The apes were created by the dust of the earth, however, what makes you special is that you were created in the image of God, it should be as plain as the nose on your face, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-22-2004]

How could anybody be created in the image of something that doesn't exist?

So then my little Chimpanzee cousins were created 2% short of the Image of God? Not bad my little furry brethren.

I'm am sincerely sry. Bad day at school may explain it and I'm truly interested in learning and am sry i blew up and displayed a truly unchristian response and would like to admit that my response was wrong. Flies I'm am sry for my misrepresentation of my faith and would like to continue on congenial terms and continued to benefit from the many knowledgeable men on this site. As for the ape comment, while accusing of a straw man i committed one and am truly sry. Flies perhaps if we could stick to science fact and keep my friends and my christianity out of our discussion and treat me as merely as an advocate of ID. I want to learn what the truth is and am coming from it with that I mind, not my presuppositions.With Sincere Apologies and In pursuit of truth.BRAN

You know?? I have Chimpanzee cousins....we could be related!!! Do you have an Uncle Bill?

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

crashfrog, Your image is not the image of a chimp, its all about design, however, to skip to the creationists theory, the bible says your created in the image of God, etc...

Not a useful comment, Crash. Don't bother venting that.I'm not trying to be nasty, just noting that the debate doesn't move anywhere with that. Ok?

---

Common sense isn't

Thank You for you insight, i really appreciate itBRAN

I disagree. I think that my comment points out that you can hardly claim that it's self-evident that we're created in the image of god by god unless it's also self-evident that god exists in the first place, which it is not.I think a lot of times these debates stagnate because people are all too willing to accept that a belief in god is reasonable. I'm not. If you're going to talk about God, I need to hear why you believe he exists, first. It has to start with that.Oh, well. Nobody has to respond if they don't want to. But if you're going to talk about god with me, we have to start with whether or not he exists. I'm not willing to just assume he does.

But we already know that some do believe and some don't. We also know that most of those who do don't have any evidence for that belief. They just believe. That's been discussed a lot. Why bother?Once someone picks the existance of God as an axiom there is still plenty to discuss.

---

Common sense isn't