Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,211 Year: 5,468/9,624 Month: 493/323 Week: 133/204 Day: 3/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3405 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 46 of 204 (445429)
01-02-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:40 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Hey sine, keep repeating your misconception. Someone ought to start believing you if you repeat it enough times.

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 47 of 204 (445434)
01-02-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
01-02-2008 10:22 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Please present the ID model.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

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

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5823 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 48 of 204 (445438)
01-02-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
01-01-2008 10:37 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
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.
Simply observing the complexity of DNA, cells and the human brain and then somehow saying that they are too complex to have come around by evolution proves only that 1) You have absolutely no idea how evolution works, its mechanisms and its inherent non-randomness, and 2) You have little idea how science works. You cannot make the conclusion that God did it from the observation that life is very complicated and improbable. This is a negative argument, and negative arguments don't fly in science, unless of course, you have eliminated every single other possibility. If you haven't done so, then for all you know, a form of evolution we have not discovered yet could have created you. To say that complexity=designer is at the least premature. This entire ID movement is at the least premature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:54 AM Organicmachination has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2755 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 49 of 204 (445462)
01-02-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:40 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
... and paint as creationism theories which are not.
For the third time, ID = creationism. The cdesign proponentists have admitted that ID = creationism.
You can't deny the facts, Sin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:40 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:41 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 50 of 204 (445493)
01-02-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 3:01 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
With that stance you've got an uphill struggle persuading a lot of people about the impartiality of your scientific methods.
If a group of druids suddenly got together and tried to sell druidism as evolution, would it be acceptable to claim that 'drevolution proponentsuids' have 'admitted evolution = druidism' and therefore it is not science? If you did, I'd be just as suspicious of your motives as I am with your reaction to intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 3:01 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 01-02-2008 4:47 PM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 5:06 PM sinequanon has replied
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 5:08 PM sinequanon has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 51 of 204 (445496)
01-02-2008 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:41 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
ID is not science because it does not follow the scientific method.
ID is creationism because its proponents say that it is creationism.
These are two unrelated points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:41 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22694
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 52 of 204 (445503)
01-02-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:41 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
I don't think Molbiogirl really meant that ID proponents have admitted that ID is actually creationism in disguise, because I don't think they admit that at all, plus ID has a number of positions that creationism objects to, such as an ancient earth and the sufficiency of evolution to explain much, though by no means all, of life's diversity.
What I think Molbiogirl meant is that the distinctions between ID and creationism pale in comparison to their common opposition to evolution, and that this was exposed by the edit history of Of Pandas and People, the ID textbook that received so much attention at the Dover trial. Apparently ID advocates felt it sufficient to turn a creationist textbook into an ID textbook simply by substituting "designer" for "creator" and "intelligent design" for "creationism".
While I do think your point that ID and creationism are different theories is undeniably accurate, that doesn't mean that it is an invalid shortcut for evolutionists to damn ID with creationist associations, because these associations most certainly exist. That's because both creationism and ID exist only as vehicles for fundamentalist Christians to oppose evolution. They are both politically based strategic and tactical responses driven by fundamentalist Christian perception of evolution as a significant secular threat.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:41 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 7:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 204 (445504)
01-02-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 11:16 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
But Intelligent Design invokes an "Intelligent Designer". If this "Intelligent Designer" is not God, what else could it be? Even if such an entity is not the God of the Bible or any other of our human Gods, is it not inherently religious because it invokes a God-like creator, one that not only created our Earth, but our entire universe?
Here is my take on it: Intelligent Design does not presuppose a god, rather it supposes an intelligence, a cognizance, a sentience. That does not, in any way, suppose ANY particular religion, least of all, the Judeo-Christian God.
And to solidify that notion, there are deists that would strongly object to the assertion of inherent religion. Religion is theology. And it has nothing to immediately do with science. It can entail a Spinoza's God or Albert Einstein's God, who indifferently exists apart of the creation with no sense of personal revelation.
ID also includes Direct Panspermia, which does not suppose ANY God whatsoever.
While it may be true that many, if not most creationists latched on to the idea if ID, one does not necessitate the other. And I, for one, shouldn't be made to apologize for it.
Put it this way: Supposing a God does exist who is responsible for the First Cause, are we supposed to pretend their is no design when there very well could be? I should hope not.
So here is the problem that I see: This systematic suppression of ID is nothing less than coercion. But if you think not, then I am curious to hear why it is you and so many others feel threatened by it. Why does ID threaten?

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 11:16 AM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 5:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 56 by nwr, posted 01-02-2008 5:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 92 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 132 by FliesOnly, posted 01-16-2008 11:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2755 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 54 of 204 (445505)
01-02-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:41 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
With that stance you've got an uphill struggle persuading a lot of people about the impartiality of your scientific methods.
As NWR has pointed out, the scientific method has nothing to do with creationism nor ID.
wiki writes:
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
Unlike evolution, which has from its beginnings been science, ID is derived from creationism.
wiki writes:
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.
wiki writes:
Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.
Of Pandas and People is the source of the term "cdesign proponentistsism".
Perhaps you'd like to explain how, a term cooked up after creos lost a court battle, a term first used in a creo textbook, somehow has scientific credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:41 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 6:21 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:36 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2755 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 55 of 204 (445506)
01-02-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
01-02-2008 5:07 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
ID also includes Direct Panspermia, which does not suppose ANY God whatsoever.
And, as it has been mentioned over half a dozen times in this thread, panspermia is no explanation whatsoever. Panspermia just pushes the question back: "How did the creator get created?"
This leads to an infinite regression problem.
Have you an answer for infinite regression?
Not to mention the fact that ID was cooked up in response to the creos losing a court battle.
Not to mention the fact that ID was quite literally cut and pasted into a creo textbook, thus "cdesign proponentistsism".
Not to mention the fact that the leading cdesign proponentists admitted, either on the stand on Dover or in subsequent interviews, that the intelligent designer is god!
While it may be true that many, if not most creationists latched on to the idea if ID, one does not necessitate the other.
Wrong, Juggs. The creos came up with the idea with the express intent of circumventing the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard.
This systematic suppression of ID is nothing less than coercion.
Ah, you xians jes love to cry persecution, doncha?
ID is not science. That's a fact.
If you think ID is a science, then perhaps you'd like to offer:
1. A method by which ID can be tested.
2. A prediction that ID has made.
3. A new hypothesis proposed by ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-02-2008 5:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 56 of 204 (445507)
01-02-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
01-02-2008 5:07 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
So here is the problem that I see: This systematic suppression of ID is nothing less than coercion.
I haven't seen any evidence of this alleged "systematic suppression". What I have seen are objections to putting it in the science classroom (where it does not belong).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-02-2008 5:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 57 of 204 (445519)
01-02-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 5:08 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Unlike evolution, which has from its beginnings been science, ID is derived from creationism.
I can see you are reacting to the questions of intelligence and design on the basis of where they came from, or who asked them, rather than their absolute content. That would not give scientists credibility in my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 5:08 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:45 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 204 (445528)
01-02-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 6:21 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
ID -- if taken to it's logical conclusion -- would be deism, which uses all science to understand ... you don't see this kind of IDian.
ID -- not taken to it's logical conclusion -- is only half-formed and lumbered with leftover preconceptions ... you do see this kind of IDian.
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 57 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 6:21 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 59 of 204 (445533)
01-02-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
01-02-2008 5:06 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Percy writes:
I don't think Molbiogirl really meant that ID proponents have admitted that ID is actually creationism in disguise, because I don't think they admit that at all...
She said...
Molbiogirl writes:
Dembski recently admitted that ID is creationism:
Sounds like you may be suggesting she get "on message".
There is little point debating the politics of a situation using technical references. If Molbiogirl's comment can morph into the opposite of what it says then her argument is a little too flexible for my liking.
While I do think your point that ID and creationism are different theories is undeniably accurate, that doesn't mean that it is an invalid shortcut for evolutionists to damn ID with creationist associations, because these associations most certainly exist.
But political counter-strategy masquerading as scientific argument and rigour only appears as corrupted science.
The fact that such a poison chalice as "intelligent design" even exists poses a fundamental question for science. It has chosen to pre-empt a theory for lack of confidence in scientific definition. It is as if science could be undermined by the ramifications of its own definition of intelligent design, and so accepts one which avoids the problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 5:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 9:12 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22694
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 60 of 204 (445538)
01-02-2008 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 7:05 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Hi Sinequanon,
I think you're getting too hung up on the way different people express the same thing. Molbiogirl expresses things rather directly, and she simply chooses not to acknowledge that IDists deny what is obvious to everyone else. Certainly Dover removed all doubt, not that there really was any for those familiar with the issues, that ID is simply thinly disguised creationism that springs from the same motivation to deny evolution.
But political counter-strategy masquerading as scientific argument and rigour only appears as corrupted science.
Actually, you're describing creationism and ID. Both direct almost all their efforts politically. What effort they exert toward science is devoted to giving a scientific veneer to their religious beliefs with an eye toward bolstering their political efforts at convincing school boards and state legislatures that they really are science. Where ID and creationism do not direct their effort is in conducting actual science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 7:05 PM sinequanon 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