Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 204 (445317)
01-01-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Branching Off
But what about "teaching the controversy"? Shouldn't we?
Only if we teach the design controversy as well ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 5:40 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 7:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5826 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 32 of 204 (445323)
01-01-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
01-01-2008 7:18 PM


Re: Branching Off
By "teaching the controversy" I mean of course the same sentiment that George Bush put forth a couple of years ago on the matter. He said that ID should be taught in schools alongside evolution so that students know what the debate is about and so they know both sides of the story. I don't mean the controversies within evolution or ID themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 7:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3408 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 33 of 204 (445325)
01-01-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 6:55 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
sinequanon writes:
I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.
Ok, who designed the designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 6:55 PM sinequanon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 7:35 PM Taz has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2758 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 34 of 204 (445328)
01-01-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 6:55 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
...and promote the misuse of the term "intelligent design" to shoehorn into creationism, other theories involving design.
Nope.
It's the IDiots who have defined ID as supernatural.
Dembski recently admitted that ID is creationism:
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.
OREGON: Ask Governor Kate Brown to Veto Legislation Mandating LGBT Content in ALL School History, Geography, Economics and Civics Curriculums | Family Policy Alliance

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 6:55 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:40 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2758 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 35 of 204 (445331)
01-01-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taz
01-01-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
sinequanon writes:
I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.
Ok, who designed the designer?
Yeah, Sin.
Why don't you clear up that whole infinite regression problem I mentioned earlier?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 7:29 PM Taz has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 204 (445365)
01-01-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Organicmachination writes:
Is it a scientific theory or a religious one?
Hi Org. Welcome to EvC. The following is Merriam Webster's primary definitions of religion:
(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I see nothing in the above which defines the scientific aspects of the observation, practice and applications of intelligent design as religion. That the majority of ID advocates are religious does not make ID a religion perse.
Intelligent design researchers, archeologists, scientists and cosmologists who do so for the purpose of falsifying or verifying the Biblical model are not practicing religion in the persuit of falsifying the Biblical model.
For example, marine biologist Dr. Lennart Moller's expeditions to Aqaba including sophisticated underwater photography with a marine research ship came about by the Biblical reference to the location of Mt Sinai being in Arabia. That the Biblical model was what pre-empted the research does not make the research a religious practice. This can be applied to much activity going on by ID based science etc.
Another example would be mathmatical probabilities and statistics, observation of the complexity of DNA, cells and the human brain etc relative to ID probabilities etc. Discussion and debate in the classroom or any other location relative to these is not practicing one's religion as per the definition of religion.
Edited by Buzsaw, : typo fix

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Organicmachination, posted 12-31-2007 4:46 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 10:50 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 12:31 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 48 by Organicmachination, posted 01-02-2008 12:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3408 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 37 of 204 (445370)
01-01-2008 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
01-01-2008 10:37 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Buz, aren't you suppose to be against intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:37 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:58 PM Taz has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 204 (445373)
01-01-2008 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taz
01-01-2008 10:50 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Taz writes:
Buz, aren't you suppose to be against intelligent design?
Wherever did you get that notion?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 10:50 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 01-02-2008 11:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2758 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 39 of 204 (445387)
01-02-2008 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
01-01-2008 10:37 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
OK, Buzz, let's assume that creationism ... oops I mean cdesign proponentistsism ... oops I mean ID ... is not "religion".
Howzabout "religious"? Or is creationism not religious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:37 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2008 10:22 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 204 (445395)
01-02-2008 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 6:55 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.
ID has asked no awkward questions. It raises some serious issues about the public understanding of science and what scientists should be doing towards presentation. However, as far as the actual science goes, Intelligent Design simply distorts and lies about current knowledge.
If you can find some awkward questions that ID has raised...I'd be interested in hearing them.
All that is required for intelligent design is intelligence and design.
And implementation - another thing ID proponents never seem to want to speak about in front of scientists. When you ask a ID proponent about the implementation they will say that Intelligent Design is only about the study of design, purpose or directive principle in nature (teleology). When they are looking for funding and support, then the Designer starts getting an identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 6:55 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2981 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 41 of 204 (445400)
01-02-2008 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by molbiogirl
01-01-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Scientists should be questioning the definition, not accepting it because "somebody said so". The reason they do accept it is to avoid debate. It allows them to be ambivalent about the term "intelligent design" and paint as creationism theories which are not.
The infinite regression issue is not specific to intelligent design. The laws of nature have the same problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 7:33 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2008 8:55 AM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 46 by Taz, posted 01-02-2008 11:17 AM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 3:01 PM sinequanon has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 6025 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 42 of 204 (445416)
01-02-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:40 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
sinequannon
The infinite regression issue is not specific to intelligent design. The laws of nature have the same problem.
Bold statement sine.Care to show the steps that determine in what way the laws of nature are infinitely regressive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:40 AM sinequanon has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 204 (445421)
01-02-2008 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 12:31 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Mobiogirl writes:
Howzabout "religious"? Or is creationism not religious?
More precisely, howzabout religious folks, some of who study, research and work to verify/falsify the ID model relative to what is observed.
Also this: Many of the "religious" insist along with their secularist non-religious friends that the ID model should be restrictively ignored in education and science with the effect of imposing the secularistic model exclusively on the students and science arena.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 12:31 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by reiverix, posted 01-02-2008 11:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-02-2008 11:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5935 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 44 of 204 (445424)
01-02-2008 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
01-02-2008 10:22 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Don't you find it a bit suspicious that the people who are pushing ID the hardest are the fundmentalist type?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2008 10:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3408 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 45 of 204 (445427)
01-02-2008 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
01-01-2008 10:58 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Buzsaw writes:
Wherever did you get that notion?
Well, a creationist like yourself insist that the universe and everything we see in it was created in 6 days by the god of Abraham. ID, on the other hand, technically insist that the designer could have been aliens or flying spag monster.
Furthermore, ID has absolutely no problem with evolution. Evolution, in fact, is a large part of the intelligent design movement... and I know you are against evolution.
The theory of evolution states that the bush/tree of life starts out at the trunk or a common ancestor and through eons of evolution branches out into many parts of life. ID officially states that life began at different bases but then evolved to the variations we see today. In other words, ID officially believes in different beginnings for different taxa of life where evolution picked it up and created new species out of the various beginnings.
To simply put, the theory of evolution gives an image of one big gigantic bush. Intelligent Design gives an image of hundreds of small bushes. Creationism gives an image of millions upon millions of dots, each representing a different species.
I bet you didn't know that part about ID huh.
So, again, officially speaking anyway, ID is against every fibre of the creationist movement. I don't know how you can support ID when biblical evidence is contrary to ID. Oh, have I mentioned that ID officially believes in a very old and ancient Earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:58 PM Buzsaw 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