Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
nator
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 91 of 204 (448380)
01-13-2008 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Branching Off
quote:
But what about "teaching the controversy"? Shouldn't we?
Should we "teach the controversy" regarding if the Holocaust happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 5:40 PM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Beretta, posted 01-15-2008 12:37 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 204 (448381)
01-13-2008 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
01-02-2008 5:07 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
quote:
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?
ID in science classrooms threatens in the same way Holocaust denial in history classrooms threatens.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Beretta, posted 01-15-2008 12:43 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 204 (448382)
01-13-2008 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Beretta
01-11-2008 6:36 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
quote:
If there is no God, only matter, then let's make up our own story of where we came from avoiding God having anything to do with it.
Can you please quote from Origin of Species or any other scholarly Biology paper that expresses the above?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:36 AM Beretta has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 204 (448384)
01-13-2008 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
01-11-2008 6:54 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
quote:
...unproven evolutionary assumptions accepted as fact are not good enough for everyone.
Do you accept DNA paternity testing as accurate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:54 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 9:07 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 95 of 204 (448385)
01-13-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Beretta
01-12-2008 7:04 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
quote:
Long laborious meticulous and empirical it may have been but he still only observed natural selection and variation within kinds
What method or system can I use to determine what "kind" something is?
Can I use DNA?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 7:04 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 9:17 AM nator has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 96 of 204 (448386)
01-13-2008 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Rrhain
01-13-2008 7:02 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
(Michael Behe)...He's a staunch religionist.
Well that's not quite the point I wished to make. He has an affiliation to a religious institution in that he grew up a Roman Catholic but I'm sure you must know many people who grew up in a religious tradition but never actually believed. Scientific considerations made him a believer in a higher intelligence.
Lots of people become believers for different reasons -his was scientific. What I meant to draw a distinction between is a Biblical creationist and an ID proponent. He still believes in long ages and a common ancestor which means he is not a Biblical creationist by any stretch of the imagination.
If you count him as a staunch religionist then we'll have to throw in Richard Dawkins and all the atheists who believe by faith that there is no creator God.
I certainly do think that the designer in all likelihood is God
Only agnostics get counted out in that case because they don't believe either way in fact by definintion they don't believe that you can know
So maybe the entire argument is religious on both sides but only one side can be right.So what does the evidence show is more likely?
God or no God -that is the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 7:02 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 7:05 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 115 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 2:17 PM Beretta has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 97 of 204 (448387)
01-13-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Beretta
01-13-2008 5:04 AM


Re: Turn on the lights
So, what are the testable predictions of ID and how have they been tested?
What are the potential falsifications of ID?
What discoveries about natural phenomena has ID theory contributed, and what further research has been proposed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 5:04 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 98 of 204 (448389)
01-13-2008 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
01-13-2008 8:50 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Do you accept DNA paternity testing as accurate?
What exactly is your point? Humans are related to humans -that hardly proves evolution in the macro sense. It is a scientific fact that humans reproduce and make other humans - and they pass on their DNA, mutations and all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:50 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 9:46 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 99 of 204 (448391)
01-13-2008 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by nator
01-13-2008 8:53 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
What method or system can I use to determine what "kind" something is?
Look at it for a start -kinds are pretty obvious. If they can reproduce that would make them the same kind though one human may not become pregnant by a specific other human but you nonetheless know they are the same kind.DNA is a bit problematic because we share 50% of our DNA with bananas which taken strictly would mean we are half banana or bananas are half human but luckily we can tell the difference.
I'd say that DNA shows that our common creator used the same materials in different arrangements to make different proteins for different creatures depending on what they consist of.
We need to be able to break down foods and incorporate them into our maintenance and growth so I suggest that accounts for our biochemical similarities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:53 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 9:54 AM Beretta has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 204 (448394)
01-13-2008 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Beretta
01-13-2008 9:07 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Do you accept DNA paternity testing as accurate?
quote:
What exactly is your point? Humans are related to humans -that hardly proves evolution in the macro sense. It is a scientific fact that humans reproduce and make other humans - and they pass on their DNA, mutations and all.
Evolutionary Biologists and Population Geneticists use exactly the same theories and processes as are used in DNA paternity tests to determine relatedness between species.
DNA tests show that humans are related to non-humans.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 9:07 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Beretta, posted 01-15-2008 12:53 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 101 of 204 (448395)
01-13-2008 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Beretta
01-13-2008 9:17 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
quote:
If they can reproduce that would make them the same kind though one human may not become pregnant by a specific other human but you nonetheless know they are the same kind.
So, does that mean that my housecats and Siberian Tigers are not the same kind?
Does that mean that robins and crows are not the same kind?
What about species that reproduce assexually, like worms and bacteria?
If classifications of "kind" is so obvious, then why isn't there a list published somewhere that everybody pretty much agrees with like there is for the gentic and morphological trees of life?
quote:
DNA is a bit problematic because we share 50% of our DNA with bananas which taken strictly would mean we are half banana or bananas are half human but luckily we can tell the difference.
Really? I was not aware that a complete banana genome had been decoded. Can you link to a source to this information?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 9:17 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 11:02 AM nator has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 102 of 204 (448399)
01-13-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Beretta
01-13-2008 3:37 AM


Re: ID is not religion
Sorry but recanting is futile.
Thanks for playing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 3:37 AM Beretta has not replied

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5934 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 103 of 204 (448406)
01-13-2008 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Beretta
01-13-2008 3:37 AM


Re: ID is not religion
As I have stated before, there are more than enough ID proponents that have no religion
Who? You should be able to supply more than enough names. And no making things up like you did with Behe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 3:37 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Beretta, posted 01-14-2008 1:35 AM reiverix has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 104 of 204 (448411)
01-13-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by nator
01-13-2008 9:54 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
So, does that mean that my housecats and Siberian Tigers are not the same kind?
Well can you, with human intervention, cross them? Lets face it, their disparate sizes size will be the limiting factor in the wild.
Does that mean that robins and crows are not the same kind?
Well again, do the experiment.
What about species that reproduce assexually, like worms and bacteria?
How do you identify these things? Are worms worms and are bacteria recognizable entities? Would you say they are the same kind or different? Is a bacteria a worm? Is a worm a bacteria? I think you know the answer to that.
If classifications of "kind" is so obvious, then why isn't there a list published somewhere that everybody pretty much agrees with like there is for the gentic and morphological trees of life?
Genetic and morphological trees of life are human constructs -there are different ways of interpreting them depending on your preconceptions. If you believe in evolution from a common ancestor, you make trees of life according to your philosophical beliefs -you assume they are related according to features like backbones but embryologically they often develop differently meaning they are not related or they would be developing the same way.Frogs and humans have hands that have digits but the one starts out as a plate from which fingers separate out and the other has buds that grow -so homology doesn't seem to make the grade.Maybe a hand is just a good design principle.
Really? I was not aware that a complete banana genome had been decoded. Can you link to a source to this information?
Sorry, read it some time ago - maybe you can source the information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 9:54 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 12:37 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 1:15 PM Beretta has replied

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5825 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 105 of 204 (448426)
01-13-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Beretta
01-13-2008 4:02 AM


Re: Religion or Science
But is it backed by all the natural evidence or did the worldview of 'matter is all there is' dictate the terms of the engagement.
Evolutionists absolutely cannot allow for God on the basis of their own self serving definition of science which cuts God out of the equation a priori.
So you start by not allowing for God no matter what the evidence shows and then no matter how the evidence refuses to fit your belief in evolution, you just keep jamming the evidence in to make it fit.
If that is what has been happening, then that is religious - an a priori commitment to naturalism or materialism precedes the evidence.
This has got to be perhaps the most lazy, uninformed, unintelligent argument I have ever heard for Intelligent Design. You accuse us of making the assumption that "matter is all there is" and thus cutting off God from the beginning. You say that this, in itself, makes evolutionary theory a theological argument. What is your problem with assuming that matter is all there is? This is what science has assumed from the beginning, and this assumption is what has led to the advancement of human civilization from your 12th century, dark-aged, hysterical people to our 21st century, medically advanced, philosophically advanced people that have already put men on the moon. If you have a problem with assuming that matter is all there is, then you are just trying to argue for argument's sake. Please, in the name of the Lord, show some evidence, scientific evidence that could pass a peer review at the professional level, that ID is not at all religioius, has no religious motivations, invokes no religious figures, and can be entirely verified by the entire scientific method. If you fail to do this, then you will not have shown that ID is scientific.
Secondly, even if matter is not all there is, it doesn't affect our state of being anyway. Even if there is a supernatural dimension, it doesn't affect science in our dimension in any way. Science still works as science here, and science will still show and substantiate the evidence for evolution regardless of whether there is some sort of spirit world or not. Science has shown evolution to be true and creation to be false, and the evidence will not suddenly change to show otherwise if we have other evidence of a supernatural world beyond this one.
Except that that is not what is happening -the vehemence belongs to the committed evolutionist who tries to keep the supernatural guy in the sky out of the picture no matter how impossible the pure naturalistic viewpoint looks.
The only reason you have to believe in Intelligent Design (i.e. Some Intelligent figure made us) is because you do not understand evolution at all, and the only reason you fight so much for your side rather than being objective and looking at the wealth of natural evidence is because you are scared of actually finding the truth. This is the reason why your people are religious, while evolutionists, not matter how vehemently we support our theory, no matter how many of us there are, are not, because we are backed by science. There is no scientific aspect to Intelligent Design, except the "scientific" observation that everything is too complicated for evolution to have taken place. This shows, however, not that God must have done it, but that you don't know how evolution works (or at most you have given it a cursory look) and that you are unable to understand it's implications. Furthermore, your assertions that ID is science fall through when one looks at the wealth of people who take ID and call the ID-er God himself. Then there are YECs, who take the Bible literally and are also religious. At most, an ID proponent can belong to the other group, that small group, that only believes in that small, hardly scientific proposition of the inherent complexity of the universe. But even then, as is testament by your own words, people in these groups will tend to see the ID-er as a diety.
Do you know that for 5000 years of earth history, the belief in God as the creator of all was the predominant worldview.There was a worldwide flood which is a common factor in all the world's cultures. Evolution took over as an alternative to the explanation that the people wanted to reject. Its amazing what you can do and justify if you write God out of the equation.
Whether evolution or creation happened is an historical matter - you look for historical records, cultural narratives and the scientific evidence to see which worldview all of these things fit better -creation or evolution?
Evolution is the man-made alternative to the creation story. The evidence doesn't fit evolution, it is made to fit.
You know that 5000 years ago, people still believed that the world was flat..correction..they didn't know that the world was there to begin with? They believed that serpents from the sea spit themselves out on land or that they rose from a hole in the ground and colonized the land around them. These might seem like entirely fine propositions for you, but they are not, sadly, fine for the rest of the scientific world. It wasn't until the Greeks and those after them began applying the scientific method to their work that we were able to see that the world was round, not flat, and that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not the other way around. Science was able to show that the lights in the sky were not the lights of distant souls, but stars, made up of elements like hydrogen and helium, elements that, discovered by scientific scientists, replaced the conventional, earth, wind, fire and water elements of the past. Science has made possible your current lifestyle, from the food you eat to the air you breath to the computer you write these posts on, and sience, over the course of a couple hundred years, has shown evolution to be the truth. Yet you continue to believe in the words of a bunch of drunk old men 2000 years ago. You continue to contend that evolution does not exist, and that God must have created us. You continue to say that Intelligent Design is not religion, even when the entire world knows that it was born out of Creationism to simply sound more palatable. Do you realize that it is you that is being religious, unwilling to believe the natural laws of the world, and instead, substituting your own? Do you realize that every time you try to assert the flimsy points of Intelligent Design, you further destroy your cause? Do you realize that the entire ID movement has yet failed to produce even a modicum of scientific data to show that God exists and that he created the world? Come to your senses. You only have one life, and nothing afterwards. Don't waste it trying to uphold the tired dogma of scared old men, and rather, embrace science and its applications. Try and make the world a better place, rather than keeping it tied and lashed down by your flimsy beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 4:02 AM Beretta 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