Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   intelligent design, right and wrong
biglfty
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 126 (41162)
05-23-2003 7:46 PM


your right in the fact that belief in intelligent designe does not mean belief in god. but, belief in the bible does mean belief in intelligent design.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2003 9:06 PM biglfty has not replied
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-23-2003 9:56 PM biglfty has not replied

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


Message 47 of 126 (41174)
05-23-2003 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by biglfty
05-23-2003 7:46 PM


but, belief in the bible does mean belief in intelligent design.
Belief in the bible as a literal account, you mean.
I'm an atheist, but I believe the bible to be true; mythically true, in the sense that all narrative, fictional or otherwise, is true - it shows us truths about the human experience.
The question is, why believe in the bible as a literal, historical account when the biological, archeological, and even simply logical evidence is against it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by biglfty, posted 05-23-2003 7:46 PM biglfty has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 126 (41177)
05-23-2003 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by biglfty
05-23-2003 7:46 PM


biglifty writes:
your right in the fact that belief in intelligent designe does not mean belief in god. but, belief in the bible does mean belief in intelligent design.
This is totally incorrect.
Belief in the Bible does NOT mean a belief in Intelligent Design theory. Almost every ID theorist refutes that very idea, while countering criticisms by evolutionary theorists.
Just check out the Discovery.org site if you don't believe me... and don't want to read ID books on the subject.
Creationism is the belief that God created man as it says in the Bible. Unbound by science or logic, creationists are at liberty to make claims such as "right and wrong mean there is a god." Or that fulfillment of biblical prophecy is a sign that god is real.
Intelligent Design theory is based wholly on scientific evidence (even if absent strict scientific logic) found within biological or cosmological entities themselves for design by an outside intelligence. As such, ID theorists are restricted to comments about natural (physical) phenomena alone.
As I have already stated, ID theorists refute specific biblical statements regarding genesis and human history because they depart from scientific evidence.
Thus belief in the bible, especially a strict reading of the bible, means a DISBELIEF in intelligent design theory.
Along similar lines, there are scientists who believe in the bible, yet refute intelligent design theory as very bad science and therefore proof of nothing, including their own faith.
Thus you can be both a believer and a scientist, and come to the conclusion that ID is wrong.
The only connection between belief in the bible and belief in ID, is that both maintain an entity of some kind was involved with certain natural phenomena in earth's past. But both exist independently of each other.
ID theory MIGHT help some with a general faith feel they have some scientific support, but only as long as such persons are not too strict about biblical truth or scientific methodology.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by biglfty, posted 05-23-2003 7:46 PM biglfty has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2003 5:34 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 05-24-2003 5:34 AM Silent H has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 49 of 126 (41208)
05-24-2003 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
05-23-2003 9:56 PM


holmes writes:
quote:
Belief in the Bible does NOT mean a belief in Intelligent Design theory. Almost every ID theorist refutes that very idea, while countering criticisms by evolutionary theorists.
Then show me a single advocate of ID that seriously considers the possibility that the I that Ded were aliens and not the god of the Bible.
Just one will do.
Why is it that every single person who advocates for ID can be seen to be a Christian?
ID is nothing more than Christian creationism scrubbed of the word "god" and replaced with the word "designer."
To act as if this really removes god from the equation is disingenuous at best.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-23-2003 9:56 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2003 11:29 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 05-24-2003 11:48 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 50 of 126 (41209)
05-24-2003 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
05-23-2003 9:56 PM


Sorry to butt in, but I think you may have misunderstood
or misread what was said ... becuase I think you are saying
more or less the same thing.
ID does not insist that the IDer was any known god or gods
(which you said & so did the person you are answering).
Literal belief in the Bible means a belief that God created
life the universe and everything ... by an act of intelligent
design. Therefore to believe in the Biblical creation account
makes one automatically accept ID ... but put forward God as
the IDer.
No-one is saying that ID is classical creationism, but a classical
creationist might use any evidence of ID to support their claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-23-2003 9:56 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 05-24-2003 11:30 AM Peter has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 51 of 126 (41218)
05-24-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rrhain
05-24-2003 5:34 AM


Ah, Rrhain, but what the proponents are really doing this for and what the idea is stating have to be separated.
They claim that it isn't religious, the ideas are couched in those terms. The individuals are obviously up to something else but that doesn't, I think, matter when we discuss the speculations being put forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2003 5:34 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 126 (41219)
05-24-2003 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peter
05-24-2003 5:34 AM


peter writes:
Literal belief in the Bible means a belief that God created
life the universe and everything ... by an act of intelligent
design. Therefore to believe in the Biblical creation account
makes one automatically accept ID ... but put forward God as
the IDer.
Unfortunately this is an equivocation. Belief in an intelligent designer does not require, or involve belief in ID theory.
I totally grant that belief in the Bible requires one to believe in an intelligent designer. However, this has nothing to do with a belief that we can discover that an intelligence must have designed specific biological or natural phenomena by looking at scientific evidence regarding their physical construction.
A good example of this kind of equivocation would be to say that all Egyptians believed in Creationism. To them the gods created the earth, which is a creation event, thus they believe in Creationism? No, they believed in a creation event, but it had nothing to do with Judeo-Xtian Creationism.
See the distinction I am making here? Hardcore Biblical literalists believe in intelligent design (small i small d) but would be forced to reject Intelligent Design (capital I and D), just as many ID proponents have had to reject hardcore biblical literalism because of certain inconsistencies between the two.
Those that are flexible on Biblical literalism can embrace ID, as a support for their faith in id.
Argh... I hope I am making sense with this. This is one of the problems with ID theory, both id (of creationism) and ID (of ID theory) are significantly different. They may come to the same conclusion (a God exists), but the methods and realities supposed by the two are different. And yet the waters of debate get muddied as creationists claim ID helps them, not knowing that all they really have is id and not ID (consequently mixing and matching methodologies)!
I would prefer if ID theory changed its name to something else so creationists could not make this equivocation, and that critics would not fall into the same semantic trap.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 05-24-2003 5:34 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peter, posted 05-27-2003 1:00 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 126 (41221)
05-24-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rrhain
05-24-2003 5:34 AM


NosyNed is totally correct. You cannot mix their motives with the theory they are advancing.
While all the active IDers I have seen appear to be bible thumping bigots of the worst order, their theory truly does not require belief in any specific god.
It merely requires a misstep in logic, ironically the same "leap of faith" and "black box" Behe says evos use, to come to a dubious scientific conclusion that certain natural phenomena are designed.
You want one person who could be an IDer and not a Bible thumper? Francis Crick (the discoverer of DNA). Now I can't say he'd be foolish enough to buy into ID theory, but he did believe that life was sown throughout the universe by aliens. That is id (small i small d). If he believes Behe's arguments regarding the irreducible complexity of biological systems, then he truly believes in ID, with the IDer being aliens.
In fact, I think there is a serious reductio heading toward ID theory for all the bible-boppers clinging to it. If they are serious about their scepticism and conclusions based on that scepticism, then Xtian mythology will eventually have to replaced with another IDer.
Certainly biblical literalism goes out the window with ID theory, and once people start trying to divine "purpose" of humans, based on construction, it is clear that the Xtian God was not the likely source. I'm sure we'll then start hearing about devils and saints being IDers, but that opens the door to polyIDers which undermines support for the Bible just as much as evolutionary theory.
To my mind, IDers first made a misstep in scientific logic (rushing to judgement that they have found design), and then made one in strict philosophy (totally assuming the identity of the IDer).
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2003 5:34 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
biglfty
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 126 (41246)
05-24-2003 9:29 PM


well, i'm gonna be computerless for about a week. and it would be kind of pointless to answer back then, plus i'm about out of answers anyways. so thats all for me on this post, or probably any other on here. sure is hard to win arguments with PHDs when your an 8th grader....

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2003 9:43 PM biglfty has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 126 (41250)
05-24-2003 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by biglfty
05-24-2003 9:29 PM


sure is hard to win arguments with PHDs when your an 8th grader....
So maybe you should be attempting to learn something rather than win agruments.
It is a great opportunity. The folks are very good to lend their expertise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by biglfty, posted 05-24-2003 9:29 PM biglfty has not replied

  
biglfty
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 126 (41256)
05-24-2003 11:23 PM


if i didnt want to learn anything i wouldnt be on here. i believe my views are right, but i also belive i have to learn the other side to make a difference.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2003 1:53 AM biglfty has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 126 (41259)
05-25-2003 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by biglfty
05-24-2003 11:23 PM


but i also belive i have to learn the other side to make a difference.
Well, this is the right approach and a rare one. It seems most of the creationists I see want to make outlandish statments about what the various sciences are saying and then "disprove" those. You at least understand that you have to know a lot about the ideas that you wish to argue with.
However, it isn't easy. There have been 10,000's of people working for many decades. Many of these are very smart people. They have had other smart people trying to shot their ideas full of holes the whole time. It is extremely difficult to get to know enough to be able to come up with any really telling original arguments.
It isn't even easy to learn enough to understand the arguments. If you want to learn and work at it there is a great deal to learn. I sure have a whole bunch to learn and love it.
Some with a creationist (YEC especially) bent have really tried to learn and realized that the simple-minded views put forward by the YEC camp are wrong scientifically and bad for belief as well. Do you want to learn that much? Or would you be better not trying?
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by biglfty, posted 05-24-2003 11:23 PM biglfty has not replied

  
biglfty
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 126 (41271)
05-25-2003 9:38 AM


i want to believe what is right. if i am wrong, and i discover without a shadow of a doubt that i am, then ok, i'll believe something else. but that wont happen. plus there are more evolutionists who switch to creation after a lot of studying then the other way around.

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2003 10:20 AM biglfty has not replied
 Message 60 by Gzus, posted 05-25-2003 5:51 PM biglfty has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 59 of 126 (41273)
05-25-2003 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by biglfty
05-25-2003 9:38 AM


{qswithout a shadow of a doubt that[/qs] There is very little that can be known without a shadow of a doubt. Pretty much nothing. Therefore one has to make a judegment on when to go with something in spite of some remaining issues.
plus there are more evolutionists who switch to creation after a lot of studying then the other way around.
Ha! Prove it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by biglfty, posted 05-25-2003 9:38 AM biglfty has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 126 (41298)
05-25-2003 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by biglfty
05-25-2003 9:38 AM


I think you will find that the majority of the 'evos' on this board are in fact people who have rebelled against religion. I doubt however, that you will find any creationists on this board who were once 'evos'.
[This message has been edited by Gzus, 05-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by biglfty, posted 05-25-2003 9:38 AM biglfty 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