|
Author
|
Topic: Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3552 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: Theological arguments
sine writes: Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.
So, are you telling us that the so-called theory of intelligent design is valid simply because evolution is inadequate to explain certain questions? This is a fallacy. You're trying to prove one thing by trying to disprove another and declaring this the default position. It's nonsense.
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 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM | | sinequanon has not replied |
|
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 3124 days) Posts: 331 Joined: 12-17-2007
|
Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
I meant the intelligent designer need be no more divine than the laws of nature. See my reply to Modulous Message 15. It's easy to avoid semantics. Take the term "intelligent design" at its face value.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 5:23 PM | | sinequanon has not replied |
|
Tanypteryx
Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: 08-27-2006 Member Rating: 9.1
|
Re: Theological arguments
sinequanon writes: Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution. Studying the processes of evolution and the Theory of Evolution is the way understand challenging questions about evolution. Scientist want to answer the challenging questions about evolution. That is what makes it fun! ID does not provide answers to challenging questions about evolution. ID says the answer to all questions is God did it! That's a big help!
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 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM | | sinequanon has not replied |
|
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 3124 days) Posts: 331 Joined: 12-17-2007
|
|
Message 19 of 204 (445231)
01-01-2008 2:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
01-01-2008 2:06 PM
|
|
There is no evidence of a designer?
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:06 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:59 PM | | sinequanon has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: There is no evidence of a designer?
Looked.
Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:58 PM | | sinequanon has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Teleological arguments
Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution. Nobody is throwing out teleology. We are just calling a spade a spade when it comes to a certain movement which has proven religious motivations. If someone wants to put forward a teleological argument, it will be dealt with on its merits or lack thereof. As I said, teleology and ID are different creatures. Nobody is dismissing teleology as just a religious argument. Teleology has its own special criticisms, some of which (such as the problem of infinite regress) are addressed in arguments with regards to the teleological claims of ID. ID has other things going on, one of which is the religious agenda, and those things are criticised for what they are. Do not mistake ID for being a purely teleological movement though. There is more there and it would be foolish to ignore it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM | | sinequanon has replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
I meant the intelligent designer need be no more divine than the laws of nature. Wrong. No matter what sort of intelligent designer is proposed, you end of with an infinite regression in trying to explain the origins of the designer. Unless, of course, the intelligent designer is divine. Which is of course, what the IDiots think. Hence "cdesign proponentsists".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:42 PM | | sinequanon has not replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: Theological arguments
Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution. As others have already pointed out, no one (and I mean no one) in the field of evolutionary biology is avoiding the challenging questions. ID is not worth discussing for a whole host of scientific reasons; however, the most compelling reason to toss it on the trash heap of history without a backward glance is this: Cdesign proponentsists. In case you are unfamiliar with the term:
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.” Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.” Page not found · GitHub Pages Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. --Gertrude Stein
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM | | sinequanon has not replied |
|
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5970 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: 12-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 24 of 204 (445274)
01-01-2008 5:40 PM
|
|
|
Branching Off
But what about "teaching the controversy"? Shouldn't we?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 25 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 5:49 PM | | Organicmachination has not replied | | | Message 26 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 6:03 PM | | Organicmachination has not replied | | | Message 27 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 6:14 PM | | Organicmachination has replied | | | Message 31 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 7:18 PM | | Organicmachination has replied | | | Message 91 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:38 AM | | Organicmachination has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 9.2
|
Re: Branching Off
There is no scientific controversy. The only controversy is religious and/or philosophical. So if we want to teach the philosophycontroversy, that should be done in religious or philosophy classes, not in science classes. Edited by nwr, : spelling 
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3552 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: Branching Off
What controversy? Oh, that's right, the controversy between scientists and the general public on what science ought to be. Gee, I wonder which side I'll go with on this one...
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: Branching Off
But what about "teaching the controversy"? Shouldn't we? I'm a smidge confused, Org. In your OP, you admit that ID is creationism in disguise. Now you contend there is a controversy. What gives?
|
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5970 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: 12-30-2007
|
Re: Branching Off
Oh ha. Sorry about the confusion. I'm just trying to get conversations started, as this is a topic that tends to wash off relatively quickly. My views are as they were expressed in my first post, but I might be offering arguments on the other side as a means of getting debate started. Heh. Sorry about that!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 6:14 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 3124 days) Posts: 331 Joined: 12-17-2007
|
|
|
Message 29 of 204 (445301)
01-01-2008 6:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
01-01-2008 4:24 PM
|
|
Re: Teleological arguments
Do not mistake ID for being a purely teleological movement though. There is more there and it would be foolish to ignore it. I am aware of the political games being played with regards intelligent design. I think the games are being played on both sides of the argument. Some scientist seem to prefer arguing against YEC (so much easier and much more fun), and promote the misuse of the term "intelligent design" to shoehorn into creationism, other theories involving design. The literal meaning of the term "intelligent design" is not teleology. All that is required for intelligent design is intelligence and design. I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 4:24 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Is Intelligent Design religion ... ? At best it's half vast Deism.  At it's worst (and most common) it is a political scam\con\deception.
... or science? Is it a scientific theory ... ? It doesn't come up to the standard of science, as it is not a theory that is (1) based on evidence (2) testable with predictions or (3) falsifiable.
Does it have a place in our classrooms? It could be compared to other philosophies in a philosophy class or other religions in a comparative religion class. Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
™ Version 4.2