Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 16 of 38 (280124)
01-19-2006 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
01-19-2006 4:58 PM


Re: what do scientists fear?
'Truth?'
Bloody hell Randman, you are really witty. For someone who has been banned from scientific forums, for being, well, unscientific, you still have an awful lot to say about scientists.
As part of my up-bringing (aka indoctrination), I remember reading my father's Phd. The title was 'Laser Spectroscopy, or how to pull the wool over the eyes of any theists, specifically in promoting an atheist agenda. (Subtitle - any scientific value is just dumb luck)'. At least that's what I think it said in draft.
Where do you get off thinking that scientists are afraid of the truth? The truth or at least the pursuit of it, is in better hands with scientists with little, or no agenda to push, rather than the hot little hands of snake-oil sellers and faith-based, small minded, media hogging charlatans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 01-19-2006 4:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-19-2006 10:48 PM bobbins has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 38 (280129)
01-19-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by bobbins
01-19-2006 10:44 PM


Re: what do scientists fear?
I wouldn't say all scientists are afraid of the truth, just the ones that reject ID a priori. Imo, the universe itself is clear evidence of intelligent cause and design. To claim that idea is dangerous, as some seem to claim according to this thread, strikes me as a sign some may indeed be afraid of the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bobbins, posted 01-19-2006 10:44 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 01-19-2006 11:09 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 18 of 38 (280139)
01-19-2006 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
01-19-2006 10:48 PM


Re: what do scientists fear?
I wouldn't say all scientists are afraid of the truth, just the ones that reject ID a priori.
As far as I can tell, there are no scientists who reject ID a priori. The scientists I know of reject ID because there is no empirical evidence supporting it, and it makes no useful predictions.
Imo, the universe itself is clear evidence of intelligent cause and design.
You only remind us that you have no understanding of "evidence".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-19-2006 10:48 PM randman has not replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 38 (302288)
04-08-2006 4:41 AM


I believe in intelligent design but unlike the Christian I hold that God's design is creation followed by evolution.
Could it be that the Bible is at the heart of your version of ID?
God is at the heart of mine but I try to see God from a position free of religious bias.
He does exist, and did long before there were any religions. Didn't He?
ps.... Truthfully, I've never known a scientist who was afraid of anything. Albert Einstine said: "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details"
My friend that man was a scientist!
I do not want to rile you but could it be you have allowed someone else to tell you what your opinion on the matter is? Perhaps someone who fears losing attendees at church. God's greatest gift to us is our ability to think and reason. To simply believe and accept could very well be the same as rejecting God.
I really see no problems at all in merging everything together into a single cohesive whole. No problems except pesky dogma which I hold to be man made.
Sincerely,
Jman
This message has been edited by Jman, 04-08-2006 01:53 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2006 11:56 AM Jman has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 20 of 38 (302579)
04-09-2006 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Mammuthus
12-02-2005 6:08 AM


The economic destruction of the fundamentalist war against science also has military implications. Obviously a smaller tax base, caused by supressing science education, means less money to defend any given nation.
In the US this is already happening, the supression of stem-cell research has led to the US losing dominance in this field, which is potentially lucrative as well as life-prolonging.
This is the country part of creationists being against God and Country. I (and others, with better eloquence) have addressed the against God part in other posts in other forums.
This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-09-2006 06:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Mammuthus, posted 12-02-2005 6:08 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 9:50 PM anglagard has not replied

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


Message 21 of 38 (302608)
04-09-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jman
04-08-2006 4:41 AM


I believe in intelligent design but unlike the Christian I hold that God's design is creation followed by evolution.
That's not really intelligent design. That's theism and evolution, which are seperate positions that don't contradict each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jman, posted 04-08-2006 4:41 AM Jman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jman, posted 04-09-2006 3:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 38 (302645)
04-09-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
04-09-2006 11:56 AM


Why not? God uses His intelligence to design a world. Let's see... first we'll create the heavens and the Earth then let them evolve to the time when they're ready for humans. Easy. In fact too easy.
I've heard ID described as "the universe is too complex for everything to have come about by chance so there must be an Intelligent Design behind it...
Correct
The arguements against Evolution have always been described by Fundies as something like: They say it all came about by chance... with no God.
I'll tell you why the arguement persists. It's simply because the Fundies cannot abide someone else crediting God for His works independently of Christianity. They want to be in the loop thinking that only their approach is correct. It just ain't so. God can be known without a Bible.
Mr. Spock said: Who ever said that Humans were logical.
This message has been edited by Jman, 04-09-2006 12:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2006 11:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2006 5:39 PM Jman has replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 38 (302658)
04-09-2006 4:44 PM


Well OK then would someone please tell me exactly what ID is and why scientists poo poo it?
This is just too hard man. I know, more wine. Ahhhhh good
Jman

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ReverendDG, posted 04-09-2006 5:20 PM Jman has not replied

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


Message 24 of 38 (302675)
04-09-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jman
04-09-2006 4:44 PM


because it is trying to be pushed as science when it is really religion
the question of the designer comes down to being god in the end, we can not test god or find evidence of his workings, we can not use ID to predict anything
it does not provide us with answers that the ToE doesn't, nor is it a real theory with working definitions, no one seems to be able to define complexity but its used in arguments agenst the ToE
it is a wedge to get religion in science where it doesn't need to be

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jman, posted 04-09-2006 4:44 PM Jman has not replied

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


Message 25 of 38 (302682)
04-09-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jman
04-09-2006 3:38 PM


Why not? God uses His intelligence to design a world. Let's see... first we'll create the heavens and the Earth then let them evolve to the time when they're ready for humans.
Sure. The first part is theism; the second is evolution.
It's not intelligent design, which is the specific conjecture that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation are insufficient to explain the diversity and function of life on Earth.
I've heard ID described as "the universe is too complex for everything to have come about by chance so there must be an Intelligent Design behind it...
I'm not a proponent of ID myself, but I believe that proponents of the intelligent design movement would tell you that's an incorrent formulation of the position. Intelligent design isn't a movement in cosmology; its a movement that makes assertions about biological systems. I can only speak for what ID proponents have argued to me, of course.
But I think it's a mistake to conflate the seperate, compatible positions of theism and evolution into something called "intelligent design", because it puts a harmless face on what is a very dangerous and troubling educational movement. The philosophy you promote is entirely consistent with science and with the aims of a high school science classroom. True "intelligent design" subverts science to ideology, and I think you do yourself, your views, and the goals of science defenders a disservice by referring to your views as "intelligent design."
It's your choice, of course. But why you would want to associate your entirely reasonable position with the charlatans of the ID movement is beyond me, I must admit.
The arguements against Evolution have always been described by Fundies as something like: They say it all came about by chance... with no God.
It's better to say that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation are held by evolutionists (such as myself) to be sufficient to explain the diversity and history of life of Earth, without the need of intervention by God or anything else. Apparently evolution foes believe that the postulate that God was not necessary is the same as saying God was not present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jman, posted 04-09-2006 3:38 PM Jman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jman, posted 04-10-2006 1:50 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 38 (302802)
04-10-2006 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
04-09-2006 5:39 PM


Thanks to you both for helping out with answers. Plainly there is a minority group of Christians who believe that "nature" and "God" are somehow opposed to each other. They ask that their ideas be given equal treatment to those of science.
Now I can see that my position is different from theirs, more inclusive. That is to say, I see "nature and it's mechanisms" as being God's creations. It is God who made carbon 14 decay at the rate it does. In my view science is simply the study of the works of the Hand of God.
I wish some of those who want ID taught in school were reading this. Perhaps they would realize that many of us do recognize the force behind all. It is not talked about in science forums simply because it cannot be quantified and studied satisfactorily. If a scientist asks God for insight he or she will do so so quietly, in a personal way.
There are no "supernatural" aspects to the world nor are there "miracles". Everything in the universe is natural; all operates under the guidance of the greatest force we've ever known. When a "miracle" is observed to seemingly be a fact we will know that some process unknown to us is at work and we strive to understand it. We do not quit, falling on our faces in awe!
As for random mutations I rather think these events to be opportunistic within the larger scheme of planned purpose. What seems a chance event on a small scale may well be a planned event on a larger.
I do not support those who seek to have our scientific community proclaim that "some things cannot be explained by science....etc and so there must be an ID behind all." I say that "some things cannot be explained by science, yet".
I do not want my grandchildren to hear in public school that which they may freely listen to in Sunday School if their parents so choose.
I object in the strongest possible terms to a small minority claiming a mandate "to right a wrong" and ask them: if evolution is but a theory are you willing to allow, in the interest of fairness, that creationism is a theory too?
Everything they say distorts and confounds. In what stronger terms may we insult God?
To everyone in the world of minority Christian thought I say: Describe to all of us, in detail, what your empirical method is.
I have visited the Creation Science Center in Santee, California and found it to an effort that was very well done in an artistic sense. The displays are graphically attractive and a story line is in evidence. I am convinced that those who are responsible for this are sincere in their beliefs.
Now let me say that I found disturbing evidence when following their logic. It seems that when researching a bit of geology for instance they either present a conclusion which is plainly wrong to anyone to has taken geology 101 or that they stop in their research when they find the answer they want and present that as scienfific evidence/proof.
I was a humanities major and only took a small amount of geology but even I know that a plutonic mass takes a very long time to settle out into various mineral pockets and to finally cool and that quartz crystals take a very long time to grow in the cooling process.
The ID'ers will fail in their attempts to return us to the days of science being ruled over by the church. And may I say: Thank God for small favors!
Mind always overcomes emotion.
Are any ID'ers reading this? If so please explain, in detail, your brand of science to me. Remember please that if what you claim comes out of the Bible, I, and many others, call it religion.
Thank You,
Jman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2006 5:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 27 of 38 (304716)
04-17-2006 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
12-01-2005 6:13 PM


L O L at the ignorance
The scientists who view intelligent design as a science, not a dogma, believe that the smallest building blocks of life are so complex that they couldn't simply evolve from amoebas. That's about as far as I can go in my understanding of all this.

"amoebas"? What is he talking about?
It's funny when people that have no education in the field try to give their 'opinion'. It's like letting the janitor oparate on a patient instead of letting the doctor do it. Its not that they cant have an opinion, its that they think its a good one. Thats what scientists fear - willingful ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2005 6:13 PM roxrkool has not replied

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


Message 28 of 38 (306355)
04-24-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by anglagard
04-09-2006 6:13 AM


We did this to ourselves .We are not dominat anymore.
In the US this is already happening, the supression of stem-cell research has led to the US losing dominance in this field, which is potentially lucrative as well as life-prolonging.
This is not true. Anyone can pursue adult stem cell research. In fact, adult stem cells are more useful and they give better results than than the embryonic stem cells. We are pursuing adult stem cell research. We do not have to kill another human being to save some one using embryonic stem cells.
Yes, our dominance in the world is dying. Because of our own stupidity in 1992, we gave away the priced technologies away . In fact we allowed China and Japan to steal our technology. We could not be dumber than this. Marxists have managed to destroy our manufacturing industries by transferring them to other countries. R& D for the fortune 500 companies is being done in India. WE excelled in everything. But, because of pressure from Social engineers and globalists, we caved in. In the next 5 years, we will only have Walmart and McDonalds because of transferring technologies, transferring manufacturing induetries, massive illegal invasion and Outsourcing. My job was outsourced. We cannot blame anyone else for losing our dominance. We did this to ourselves.
This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 04-24-2006 09:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 04-09-2006 6:13 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by DrJones*, posted 04-24-2006 9:57 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 30 by Wounded King, posted 04-25-2006 6:30 PM inkorrekt has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 29 of 38 (306358)
04-24-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by inkorrekt
04-24-2006 9:50 PM


Re: We did this to ourselves .We are not dominat anymore.
Marxists have managed to destroy our manufacturing industries by transferring them to other countries.
I have to correct a spelling mistake here, you misspelt capitalists as marxists.
This message has been edited by DrJones*, 04-24-2006 07:58 PM

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 9:50 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by inkorrekt, posted 04-25-2006 11:21 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 30 of 38 (306564)
04-25-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by inkorrekt
04-24-2006 9:50 PM


Re: We did this to ourselves .We are not dominat anymore.
In fact, adult stem cells are more useful and they give better results than than the embryonic stem cells.
That is the kind of statement of 'fact' that could do with some evidence to back it up.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 9:50 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by inkorrekt, posted 04-25-2006 11:25 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024