|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| AnswersInGenitals, caffeine, Coyote, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (6 members, 368 visitors)
| ||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Tom Larkin | |||||||
| anglagard | |||||||
|
| Announcements: | Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 3178 days)  Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
Edited by Organicmachination, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director  Posts: 12516 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taz Member (Idle past 760 days)  Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tanypteryx Member  Posts: 1514 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member  Posts: 15946 Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
"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?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sinequanon Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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. :)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 3178 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taz Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined  Inactive Suspended Member |
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member  Posts: 7410 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sinequanon Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
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?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member  Posts: 29139 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
There is evidence that the laws of nature exist.
There is no evidence of a designer. It really is that simple. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 3178 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taz Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sinequanon Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017
