Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 31 of 108 (293095)
03-07-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by sidelined
03-06-2006 9:32 AM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
We do not know who the designer is. All the evidence is poointing towards this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by sidelined, posted 03-06-2006 9:32 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ramoss, posted 03-07-2006 6:40 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 03-07-2006 8:59 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 03-08-2006 2:46 AM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 12:26 PM inkorrekt has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 32 of 108 (293099)
03-07-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by inkorrekt
03-07-2006 6:32 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
Let's see.
The I.D. Camp says that. But each and every one of them will admit they 'think the intelligent designer is god'
You might claim all the evidence is pointing to "an intelligent designer". But, like all the I.D. proponents, you don't have a way to show what that evidence is, or how to test for the presence of an 'intellinent designer". The concept of "irreducible complex" is void of all meaning, since has not been shown that 1) there is any irreducible complex biological system out there, and 2) that an irreducible complex system can not evolved naturally without a designer if any are actually found.
All of the arguements for 'I.D.' are not ideas that promote an intelligent designer, but rather attack evolution (with misunderstandings, psuedoscience,and lies, I might add)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:32 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2006 9:49 PM ramoss has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 33 of 108 (293117)
03-07-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by inkorrekt
03-07-2006 6:32 PM


Occam's razor
We do not know who the designer is. All the evidence is poointing towards this.
If the evidence points toward not being able to determine who is the designer, then the simplest explanation is that there was no designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:32 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:54 PM nwr has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 108 (293119)
03-07-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ramoss
03-07-2006 6:40 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
"IC" systems have been observed evolving. This concept is falsified as an indicator of ID.
A kaleidoscope shows a pretty and complex pattern when viewed one way, but is just a random jumble in reality. People looking for patterns cannot tell if they are looking through a kaleidoscope or not.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ramoss, posted 03-07-2006 6:40 PM ramoss has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 35 of 108 (293137)
03-08-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by inkorrekt
03-07-2006 6:32 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
inkorrekt
We do not know who the designer is.
We do not need to know what the designer is. What my question concerned was what designed this designer? This is a valid question since the substance of the Intelligent design hypothesis is that the complexity of the world is what indicates that there is a designer.
Now this designer that is postulated is necessarily more complex than the world that intelligent design invokes to explain.
Therefore we need apply the same criteria to the designer in order to explain its existence to be consistent with the hypothesis.
Here now is where the difficulty lies. The arguement suffers from the inabilty to self limit and proceeds ad infinitum. No sooner are we able to postulate the designer than we need invoke a yet more complex designer, etc, etc, etc to maintain the validity of the arguement.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2006-03-08 07:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:32 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:44 PM sidelined has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 36 of 108 (293283)
03-08-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by inkorrekt
03-07-2006 6:32 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
inkorrect writes:
We do not know who the designer is. All the evidence is poointing towards this.
I'm not following your logic. How can "all the evidence" point toward not knowing something?
If we had less evidence, would we know more?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:32 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:41 PM ringo has replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 37 of 108 (293469)
03-08-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
03-08-2006 12:26 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
It is very very plain and simple. Do you know who Steve Jobs is? If you know, then you will not ask this question. Steve Jobs is not the universal designer. What he did with the first apple computer will explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 12:26 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 9:08 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2006 9:55 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 38 of 108 (293470)
03-08-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by sidelined
03-08-2006 2:46 AM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
We do not know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 03-08-2006 2:46 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 03-09-2006 1:46 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 39 of 108 (293475)
03-08-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
03-07-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Occam's razor
There are many processes that can never occur without a designer. I will have to repeat what I said before. We would have never had the apple computer, if Steve Jobs did not exist or if he did not design or for this reason, no one designed it. This is self explnatory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 03-07-2006 8:59 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by nwr, posted 03-08-2006 9:39 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 43 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 10:04 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 45 by AdminModulous, posted 03-09-2006 3:39 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 40 of 108 (293481)
03-08-2006 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by inkorrekt
03-08-2006 8:41 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
inkorrect writes:
Steve Jobs is not the universal designer. What he did with the first apple computer will explain.
That's not how it works. You explain yourself, or everybody will think you don't know what you're talking about.
The question is: if there must be a designer (because there is no natural explanation), then how can that designer not be supernatural?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:41 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by inkorrekt, posted 04-05-2006 10:20 PM ringo has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 41 of 108 (293491)
03-08-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by inkorrekt
03-08-2006 8:54 PM


Re: Occam's razor
We would have never had the apple computer, if Steve Jobs did not exist or if he did not design or for this reason, no one designed it.
That the apple computer was designed is not any form of evidence that species were individually designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:54 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 108 (293502)
03-08-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by inkorrekt
03-08-2006 8:41 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
Do you know who Steve Jobs is?
Yeah. He's that guy that screwed his buddy Steve Wozniak, the designer of the first Apple Computer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:41 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 43 of 108 (293505)
03-08-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by inkorrekt
03-08-2006 8:54 PM


Re: Occam's razor
There are many processes that can never occur without a designer. I will have to repeat what I said before. We would have never had the apple computer, if Steve Jobs did not exist or if he did not design or for this reason, no one designed it. This is self explnatory.
its not explanatory, you are making the same fault filled arguement that everyone on the ID side makes, computers do not reproduce, humans do not design things that reproduce.
You are equating human design to living things, it is of course because its the only thing we can analyze because there is no way to detect if something living is designed, unless we know it is, we know human things are designed because we can go look in a factory or see it marked on the object
where is the mark to know life it designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:54 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-15-2006 10:30 PM ReverendDG has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 44 of 108 (293518)
03-09-2006 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by inkorrekt
03-08-2006 8:44 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
inkorrekt
We do know that it cannot be logically held that the Intelligent design hypothesis is valid since if the intelligent designer exists he negates the intelligent design by way of ad infinitum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:44 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 45 of 108 (293522)
03-09-2006 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by inkorrekt
03-08-2006 8:54 PM


Off topic
This isn't a message directed solely at you inkorrekt, but this current divergence seems to be turning this highly specified thread into a generic ID thread.
The OP is quite clear what is On Topic:
Jacob writes:
I'd like to see a sample curriculum of ID so I can be better informed and thus better able to make a decision.
The ID forum has lots of open threads where this might be on topic. This thread touches on a theme that has risen in here, with regards to who designed the designer and the 'recursive paradox' of ID.
If anyone wants to continue this discussion please take it to that thread, or a thread that seems appropriate to your point. Thank you for your time.
Please direct any suggestions/complaints etc to the moderator discussion thread, the link of which is in my sig.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:54 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024