Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 125 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2017 4:48 PM
374 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,406 Year: 19,012/21,208 Month: 1,771/3,111 Week: 566/707 Day: 30/112 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 1 of 204 (444977)
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
There have been many tumultuous arguments, especially in the south, about the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools alongside evolution in science classes. This would be all good and fine if ID was indeed a scientific theory, but many, including me, claim that it is simply religion in the guise of science, invented to replace "creationism" as the word used while talking about the creation of life by God. Herein lies the key to this argument: Is Intelligent Design religion or science? Is it a scientific theory or a religious one? Does it have a place in our classrooms?

Edited by Organicmachination, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 12-31-2007 8:36 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-01-2008 12:15 AM Organicmachination has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-01-2008 2:46 AM Organicmachination has not yet responded
 Message 6 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 9:13 AM Organicmachination has responded
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 7:04 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:37 PM Organicmachination has responded
 Message 201 by achristian1985, posted 02-17-2010 11:24 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2 of 204 (444992)
12-31-2007 6:20 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Taz
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 204 (445012)
12-31-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
I honestly don't know how people like N_J can continue to argue that ID is not religion in disguise.

Let me repeat this. The ID text book Of Pandas and People started out as a text book for creationism. The earlier versions of this book specifically refered to creationism and creationist. When they realized that they couldn't sell this book with the words creationism and creaitonist, they went back, highlighted all the words "creationism" and "creationist" and changed them to "intelligent design" and "design proponent". At one point, they only highlighted a portion of a word "creationist" and they ended up with the word "cdesign proponentist".

In other words, intelligent design is just creationism with a change of name. It's like me legally changing my name to George Bush and expect people to believe I'm now a republican.


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 1 by Organicmachination, posted 12-31-2007 4:46 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1514
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 4 of 204 (445043)
01-01-2008 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
ID is just Creationism with a new name and a botched face lift. It is not disguised as science because it does not even resemble science. It is a warped caricature of science. ID has no theory that can make predictions or be tested. The whole purpose behind ID is to attack a bogus definition of the Theory of Evolution. You cannot use ID to carry out scientific inquiry.

The only useful place it has in the classroom is as an example of pseudo-science.


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 1 by Organicmachination, posted 12-31-2007 4:46 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 5 of 204 (445074)
01-01-2008 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
"Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." --- Phillip Johnson

"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --- William Dembski

If they don't know, who does?


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

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 6 of 204 (445116)
01-01-2008 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Intelligent Design is not religion in the guise of science. The term is self-explanatory and does not imply God or religion.

Hijacking a self-explanatory term is different from inventing a new concept. "Do creationists use Intelligent Design to disguise their beliefs?", is a separate question.

The investigation of whether nature has developed through design seems a scientific enough one to me.

Whether it should be proposed in 'our' classrooms is a political question which I wouldn't comment on, not being from your country. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Organicmachination, posted 12-31-2007 4:46 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 11:16 AM sinequanon has responded
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 1:21 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 1:38 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 1:55 PM sinequanon has responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 7 of 204 (445149)
01-01-2008 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 9:13 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
But Intelligent Design invokes an "Intelligent Designer". If this "Intelligent Designer" is not God, what else could it be? Even if such an entity is not the God of the Bible or any other of our human Gods, is it not inherently religious because it invokes a God-like creator, one that not only created our Earth, but our entire universe?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 9:13 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:04 PM Organicmachination has responded
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-02-2008 5:07 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 204 (445186)
01-01-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 9:13 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Don't you find it odd that cdesign proponentists continue to outright deny that the designer could have been aliens or zeus or the unicorn? Instead, when they are cornered cdesign proponentists always say the designer is the god of abraham.

Again, I must point to the ID text book Of Pandas and People. The previous versions of the book were written for creationism. They simply highlighted the words "creationism" and "creationist" and changed them to "intelligent design" and "design proponent" after they realized they couldn't sell this book because of the law.


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 6 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 9:13 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sidelined 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 9 of 204 (445194)
01-01-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 9:13 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
sinequanon

Intelligent Design is not religion in the guise of science. The term is self-explanatory and does not imply God or religion.

What f'ing bullshit. All the term Intelligent Design does is hand wave away the problem of explanation for the universe. If the universe is intelligently designed we are then left with the question of where that intelligence arose from and now the answer is left wanting once again.

Intelligent Design is a non answer for people whose credulity allows for no questioning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 9:13 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7410
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 204 (445203)
01-01-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 9:13 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Intelligent Design is not religion in the guise of science. The term is self-explanatory and does not imply God or religion.

Teleology is not religion in the guise of science. Intelligent Design however is a movement that advances a theological argument that relies on obfuscating science.

Occasionally, ID people will run back to simple teleology - but examining things closely (looking at Pandas and People, the Wedge document etc) reveals that the cdesign proponentists are not just championing teleology.

Intelligent Design is a specific movement which uses distortion and lying about science to advance their agenda.
Teleology is an interesting philosophical argument, with possible implications in the study of nature (science).

If there was enough time to study the philosophy of science, perhaps teleology should come up. High School curriculum is already jam packed, but I learned about teleology at university without issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 9:13 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM Modulous has responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 11 of 204 (445205)
01-01-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 11:16 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
The intelligent designer/designers may be no different from the laws of nature. Both are intended to determine what shall be.

Not knowing where the laws of nature came from has not caused science to throw them out. Why should the concept of intelligent design be any different?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 11:16 AM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:06 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 13 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 2:09 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 2:16 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29139
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 12 of 204 (445206)
01-01-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:04 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Not knowing where the laws of nature came from has not caused science to throw them out.

There is evidence that the laws of nature exist.

Why should the concept of intelligent design be any different?

There is no evidence of a designer.

It really is that simple.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:04 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:58 PM jar has responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 13 of 204 (445208)
01-01-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:04 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
The intelligent designer/designers may be no different from the laws of nature

If the intelligent designer is simply the laws of nature, then evolution exists, doesn't it, and your ID theory is blown out of the water. Playing semantics isn't going to work here. You should know that we all know that ID is simply a method to get religion into schools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:04 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:42 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 204 (445210)
01-01-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:04 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
sinequanon writes:

The intelligent designer/designers may be no different from the laws of nature. Both are intended to determine what shall be.


You have one of the most common misconception about the so-called "laws of nature".

There are no laws of nature. What there are are a set of behaviors by the universe that we can observe. We then invent/create a set of "laws" or mathematical constructs to attempt to explain these behaviors. It's like trying to throw in a best fit curve in your data.

Any freshman college student could have told you this. Even the laws that we have created/invented to describe the natural phenomena are subject to modification and change as new data and new behaviors are observed.

Please try to stop treating science like a religious dogma. It's not. There's no such thing as "truth" in science. All, and I do mean ALL, things in science are subject to modification, change, and even completely thrown out the window. It's not like the religion of intelligent design where no matter what the evidence shows cdesign proponentists continue to believe in fairies.


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 11 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:04 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 15 of 204 (445219)
01-01-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
01-01-2008 1:55 PM


Theological arguments
Wouldn't a simple way to deal with this be to say, "if your theory is called intelligent design, then we will discuss intelligence and we will discuss design but we will not discuss theology"?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 1:55 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 2:35 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-01-2008 2:44 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 4:24 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 23 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 5:29 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 90 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:34 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017