Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

quote:

---

Re: No one believes intelligent design?

---

I do. But your post was an elementary attempt at attacking an Id theorist with physical evidence, and shows no opinion of the poster beyond ridicule. You know the answers already, you just want to step on someone. What the heck is your problem?Don't you get it? Intelligent Design isn't about the evidence, it's about faith, and about one's relationship with God, the search for truth. It has nothing to do with "physicalities of the temporal world."

---

well sure as planets come, i know that they end
and if i'm here when they happens, will you promise me this my friend?
please bury me with it
i just don't need none of that mad max bullshit

yo...join me in chat

Prophex, for someone who complains as much as you do about other posters, you may want to take a long look in the mirror.If you want to debate, debate. If you don't want to debate, go away. But repeatedly posting that you don't want to debate is silly.Re: "Here we go again". In case you missed it, this is a repost of my original thread which ran its course and slipped very much off topic - hence the "part 2". My "problem" is that Intelligent Design is being suggested as an alternative to science. What you are saying is that ID is a religion. That's fine. I don't have a problem with religion. You'll notice that this thread is not "Help me understand the Loaves and Fishes" nor is it "Help me understand how the rabbit comes out of the hat". The Catholics aren't trying to tell me that miracles are science. The Magicians are trying to tell me that magic is science.If all Intelligent Design is is a religion, then more power to you guys. Obviously it doesn't belong in schools, certainly not in science class.If you want to believe it, go do so. Just keep it out of the class room.If you still insist that it has some relationship to what has actually happened here in the real world, then step up and explain how it works.

quote:

---

If all Intelligent Design is is a religion, then more power to you guys. Obviously it doesn't belong in schools

---

When in reality, what matters is God, is truth. Not the observable and visible world. You are lost, this is more important than any other course of study. Theology means the study of God.

---

well sure as planets come, i know that they end
and if i'm here when they happens, will you promise me this my friend?
please bury me with it
i just don't need none of that mad max bullshit

Then it is a good thing that there are entire institutions dedicated to just that.My question is why you seem to be implying that all institutions be dedicated only to that?All hospitals running solely on prayer?
All librarys holding only religious texts?
All courts asking Allah if person X is guilty?If you want to convert schools, why not the rest?

Ok, that about answers my question.Prophex is correct in saying that ID is a religion. In my oppinion all science is religion and all religion is science. Both religion and science try to explain why a certain thing heppened, and both require some degree of faith. For example, a person dies. Religious people would say that it was his/her time on this Earth, and God took him/her up to heavan. Doctors would say that the person died because a virus killed him/her. "IDists" would say that it was the person's time on this Earth, and God took him/her up to heavan, using a virus to to destroy his/her material body. All of the above beliefs require faith. Obviously faith is an intergral part of religion, so it needs no explanation. Science also need faith since we don't know for sure if it was a particular virus that killed that person. It could have been poison that was undetected by autopsy, it could have been some wierd desease, or somehting really freaky that we don't even know about yet. But we chose to believe in that it was a virus. And since ID is a combination of the two, it requires faith for both aspect - religion and science. And that was just this one thing, imagine how much faith it takes to believe in ID when we are talking about something so important, complex, and apstract as the origins of human race.

The Bible disagrees with you:

quote:

---

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

---

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, but science deals only with things that are "seen" - i.e. observable. That isn't faith, it's probability. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. The autopsy will determine that the greatest probability is that a virus caused the death. It doesn't take any faith to accept a probable explanation. Well, no. There is nothing scientific about ID. It doesn't propose mechanisms for how things happen. It is just an argument from ignorance: "We haven't figured out how (fill in the blank) works, so a supernatural 'designer' must have done it."ID is pure religion. It just disguises itself by not referring to a specific God.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Not entirely true. For example, we can not observe an electron. We can only assume that it is somewhere aruond the nucleas of an atom. We call that area an electron field. Heisenburg's Uncertanty principle directly states that we can not observe an electron and measure its velocity and position at he same time.Most of our modern cosmology is based on abstract concepts like Dark Energy, quintessence etc. The size and shape of the universe can not be explained in any concrete terms, much less proven. The entire branch of quantum physics has been established on nothing more then theories and a series of theoretical experiments, EPR paradox being the most famous one.We do know why water feezes at 0 C, because we can observe the behavior of molecules that make up water. But we do not know what is happening within the protons and electrons that make up those molecules. Maybe there is some underlying reason why water changes state at that tempreture that we simply haven't discovered, yet.Aristotel believed that a moving object tends to stop because the natural state of an object is to be at rest. Oops, he didn't know about inertia and about friction. That misconception threw off all scientists for many centuries, because they put faith into Aristotel's theory. 1000 years ago we knew that Earth was at the center of the universe. Imagine what we will "know" in 10, 20 ,50 years. To me, science is just misplacing of our faith from one misconception to the next, as we learn how much more we still dont know. Just like alot of people accept that there probably is God, because it makes sense, or because it comforts them. Observations of the outside world coupled with our own experiences and our reflexions on both (autopsy of life) produce the greatest probability of existance of God. It still takes faith to actually accept God's existance. Just like it takes faith in the virus being the cause of death, for people to write "Virus" on the death certificate under "Cause of death", even though we are not completely sure. I agree on that ID is trying to sit on two chairs at the same time, by doing so almost ensuring that they will be atleast party correct. Bu it doesn't make them wrong.From my understanding of it ID doesn't deny any of the scietific theories including the Big Bang and Evolution. It is also not saying "Let's not try to find out more about the origins of life, because it was a work of a higher Intellegence, so there is not point in trying to understand it." Being religious doesn't automatically mean that you should deny all the science and only rely on God. By the same token, being a scientist doesn't necceserally make you an aethiest.

That's not an "assumption". It's a conclusion, based on the interaction of the electron with it's surroundings - which we observe. But we can measure the velocity or the position - and a measurement is an observation. So yes, we can observe an electron, even if only indirectly. Science is not about "proof". It's about finding the best possible explanation for the evidence. What does "nothing more than theories" even mean? A theory is the best available explanation of the evidence. "Nothing more than the best available explanation" doesn't make much sense. Again, science is not about absolutes. Of course the theories will be improved and fine tuned as more experiments are done and more evidence is collected. Science is about what we do know, not about what we haven't discovered yet. First, it was not a theory because it was never tested. If it had been tested, it would have been falsified.Second, anybody who put "faith" in that notion was not a scientist - because science does not work on faith. If they had been scientists, they would have tested the hypothesis and falsified it. No, we didn't "know" any such thing - once again, because the hypothesis had never been tested. When it was tested, by observing the planets, it was falsified. It is possible to put faith in geocentrism, etc. but that faith is not science. It was science that overthrew those misplaced faiths. Once again, probability is something that is observable and measureable. It is not possible to measure the probability of God existing, so it is not the same as science. As I said, science is never about being "completely sure". It is about choosing the explanation that has the highest probability of being correct (or the explanation which is the closest approximation of "correct"). And the only way to judge the highest probability is by comparing probabilities. You need to be able to measure the probabilities. That is not the same as a vague belief that there "probably" is a God. That's pretty much exactly what ID is saying: "Since we can't conceive of life arising by naturalistic means, it must have been "designed" by a higher intelligence." That automatically shuts down any possibility of us ever figuring out how it happened.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

and ID only works in the absence of any scientific knowledge of how {it\something} works, so it is based on ignorance.ID also includes the necessary assumption that there actually is an {unknown} designer (instead of some unknown scientific explanation) without having any evidence or proof of the existence of one.this is the definition of faith.Thus ID is based on ignorance and faith.Enjoy.
Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*26*2005 01:08 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Words "best" and "possible" are highly subjective. A person dies. For a doctor the most possible explanation is that a virus killed him, because that person was old, and his immune system was malfunctioning. For a Christian Practitoiner the best explanation is that God made a conscious decision to take that persons life, because of so and so reasons. Think about all the things that we "know" now, that are going to be flasified in the near future. Will they then also sieze to be science and become misplaced faiths? Were there no scientists before Copernicus? That must mean that the day we discover something new or disprove some theory that is being accepted today, all the modern scientist will become nothing more than people, who misplaced their faith.And a thing about something being observable. Quantum physics, which you already approved to being observable, theorizes that every quanta in the universe knows the exact position, velocity, and the lifetime of every other quanta in the universe. Ergo, self conscious universe. That theory dovetails nicely with Spinozoan view of the world. He postulated that God is universe and that we are merely "ripple's on God's body." Alot of religions in this world believe in God being omnipresent and omniscient. Again those believes are supported by the latest studies of quanta.Alot of religions observe God's presence when they look at nature. Take transendentalists for example, they wanted men to connect and listen to nature, for they believed that nature was God's direct manifistation. Some would say that evidence of God's existance could be found by simply looking upon ones life etc. There are alot of ways in which God could be observable, it just depends on who you ask. I dont see how it shuts down the possobility of figuring it out. Big Bang does not try to explain who created the universe or who caused the Bang to occure. It simply tries to discribe the behiavior of the universe right after its creation. Same with evolution. Its not about "who", but about "how". Looking at it that way should keep everyone happy except for Creationists.

Hypothetical situationYou have a large tumour growing on your body. Do you*Make an appointment with a surgeon for surgery and radiotherapy*Make an appointment with a exorcist to drive the demon/s out of your body*Accept that God made a conscious decision to take your life*Using ID, accept that the Designer built you that way

No. The doctor has physical evidence that the virus exists in the body. He can also see tissue damage, etc. which shows what killed the person. Most Christians would probably accept the doctor's explanation, that the person was killed by a virus. Else, why would a Christian ever go to a doctor? Wouldn't that be going against God's will? The distinction is between what is science and what is not. Geocentriam never was science. Anything that we "know" today because of science can be changed in the future by science. Since it is not faith now, it can never be "misplaced faith" in the future. If you think there were some, name them. No. You're still equating faith with science. Scientists come up with the best explanation they can for the evidence that they have available. They do not have "faith" in that explanation, they have evidence. Remember: faith is the evidence of things not seen.Newton's laws of motion have been "improved" by Einstein's theory of relativity, but that doesn't mean that Newton was "wrong". It just means that Einstein improved our knowledge of motion. You're welcome to back up the "personification" of quanta in the physics forum. Until you do so, I'm pretty skeptical. Spinoza was a philosopher, not a scientist. (And I rather like that philosophy but it has nothing to do with the difference between faith and science.) No, it doesn't. That's the whole point. Evidence has to be objective, experiments have to be reproducible. Everybody has to get the same answer or it isn't the best available answer. If I "observe" God in a different way than you do, then it isn't science. ID shuts down the possibility of finding anything out because it starts with the assumption that we can't figure it out. It starts by saying that naturalistic processes could not have made the universe. But all that we can observe is naturalistic processes - so ID automatically eliminates any possible understanding. But if the "who" did it by "supernatural" means, there is no way that we can ever understand the "how". Science only has the natural to understand the "how" as best it can.Religion says "God wants you dead". Science produces new drugs to fight diseases. It doesn't care "who" made you sick - only "how" to cure you.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

So Christians shouldn't take medicine? Shouldn't go to doctors? Only a very very small minority actually follows those rules. They will stop to be actively a part of science theory and become a part of science history. This is in stark difference to religion which holds that the first possible answer is always the best possible answer.Sam: How'd this rock get here?
Bob: Um... a big flood?
Sam: Maybe it just fell off that cliff over there.
Bob: Sorry, too late, I already said flood.
Sam: Yeah, but, aren't there rocks just like this up on the cliff.
Bob: Man, sorry Sam, but I'm going to have to stone you to death for saying that. There were Intelligent Designers before Copernicus. That's how we KNEW that the sun went around the Earth. And what better observation of God than the fact that he has blessed scientists with the mental capacity to discover the world and shake the superstitions out of a central role in controlling people's lives. Let me lay it out for you.Question: How did we end up with Sea Otters?
Answer: God did it.
Question: How?
Answer: With God Power.
Question: Can you explain that better?
Answer: Nope, why would we even bother to.

O.K., Nug, let me make it a bit easier for you. Since the ID crowd keep pussy-footing around about the identity of the Incompetent Designer, I nominate the heroes of the Raelians.http://www.rael.org/rael_content/rael_summary.php Nominations close on the 31-12-05. Don`t be late.