Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

You have this completely backwards.The Scopes trial was a premeditated effort to challenge the Tennessee law against teaching evolution in public schools. It wasn't a fight to introduce evolution. It was a fight to bring censorship in science education of one scientific theory to an end.A law against the teaching of evolution is no different than hypothetical laws against teaching the Big Bang (universe is billions of years old) or the geologic column (earth is billions of years old). Evolution, the Big Bang and the geologic column are all well-accepted aspects of various fields of science. Religious groups cannot control what aspects of science are taught in public schools.--Percy

No, NJ, this is not part of anyone's imagination. It is, unfortunately, a very real nightmare. One of the revelations of the Dover trial was the very public way it came to light that Christians will lie under oath (it's not only in the public record, it's in Judge Jones' decision, chapter and verse available if you doubt this) and assert that that their ID efforts have nothing to do with God when their private actions and statements indicate the opposite. Duplicity in the name of God is still a sin. You can't just do anything you want, stick God's label on it, and make it okay. Huh? How does that make any sense? You can't get a degree in evolution, either. What science majors get when they graduate from college is a Bachelor of Science degree, usually with a declared specialty such as physics, geology or biology.Your statement that "Intelligent Design, evolution, Big Bang theory, string theory, etc aren't branches of science" is nonsensical, so far off the mark it isn't even wrong. Intelligent design isn't science. Evolution, the Big Bang and string theory are science. What makes something science or not science is the way in which it is approached. Scientists would love it if the ID people would become participatory in the scientific process, but they don't.--Percy

Frankly I am not prepared to say whether the designer intervened during the evolutionary process or whether it was designed to design itself but I don't accept that either is necessarily a deistic position.If evolution was designed in such a way that it required no intervention it would not preclude a designer from intervening in life in general supernaturally. For example a creator could cause miracles that wouldn't impact the evolutionary process, a creator could give a consciousness or soul to part or all of the creation, a creator could interact metaphysically with that consciousness and even give it direction, or a creator could even inject him or herself physically into the creation.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

So my augument is ignorant when we look at the wonders that man has made and conculde man's intelligence and design has created these wonders. The macro and micro worlds of animals, plants and inorganic matter are infinitely more complex in design and wonder than anything man has made, yet there is not even the remote possibility that the Creator is the cause behind our existence.And my argument is based on ignorance and credulity, and I have misrepresented what you have said.The shoe is clearly on the other foot.

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

I wonder if NJ is noticing that while he is arguing that ID has nothing to do with God, here you are in the same thread arguing that it does. You guys should really get your stories straight. To ID people: Attempting to hide the religious nature of ID behind foundations like the Discovery Institute isn't going to work. As a public relations ploy it can be momentarily effective with those unfamiliar with the controversy, but ultimately these education battles end up in court. Trials are designed to explore underlying motives, and in open court these things invariably come out, especially when people like Behe and many other IDists will under oath offer answers like (paraphrasing), "It is my understanding that the designer is God."In other words, the pretense is not effective it all. There's really no point to arguing that ID has nothing to do with God or religion, unless your goal is just to stonewall discussion. ID is just the most recent strategy of fundamentalist Christians to reduce treatment of evolution in public schools. No one is attracted to ID because of the science behind it. They're attracted to it because of the possibility that it might prove effective in battling evolution where traditional creationism was not.--Percy

NJ can't even work out that he is arguing that ID is based on God. Even though I have pointed it out several times. Rather than engage the evidence he jsut goes on citign the ID party line. He is apparently not prepared to discuss the issues. His nasty remark to fallacycop would be more fairly directed at himself.

quote:

---

"It is my understanding that the designer is God."

---

Well, there is nothing wrong with considering whether or not God is behind any design we see in nature. It may be possible to determine scientifically that there is evidence of design in nature. It may be possible to determine scientifically that this design is the deliberate intent of the god that is described in the Christian Bible.The problem is that the IDers are unable to come up with a scientific test to indicate what is design and what is not. Furthermore, those who want to "prove" the existence of a god are unable to come up with a scientific method to determine who is the designer.The real problem, which comes out in the court trials, is that the main reason people think they see design in nature is that they are being influenced by their a priori beliefs that their god has in fact designed the world around them.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

And for some like John 10:10, repeating his mantra over and over (Message 67, Message 70, Message 79), every little thing is proof of their god's design ... there is nothing that is not designed ...... which reduces the concept to a null value concept for discerning design from non-design, makes it useless for any kind of science investigations into how things work (it's all god-powered anyway eh?), and ends up with a concept that is intellectual vacuous.Better to just keep to plain faith and leave "ID" out of it, imh(ysa)o.At least with creationist faith you have an excuse for bad design (see end of angalards post, "point 107" in Message 84 ... gives me the creeps). And they've never taken the time to see if that belief holds up against the facts. They've never questioned whether they could be wrong ...... and if you cannot question that, you are not doing science.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.

Your reasoning works just as well in reverse.The main reason people cannot see the wonderful and complex designs in nature is that they do not want there to be a Creator who has possibly designed the world around them. They've never questioned whether they could be wrong ...

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

Yet, it was creationists like Darwin and others who came up with evolution; it's American churches who largely oppose watering down science in the classroom with stuff like ID.So clearly it doesn't work as well in reverse, if by "work" you mean "is consistent with the evidence."

LOL. Do you know what a Deist is?Yes there are people that do not feel the need to be coddled by a mythtaken view of the world, but are willing to look at it with both eyes open. That does not make their view of the world less fullfilling, but more.This is but another pathetic attempt to use passive aggressive christian martyred one-up-man-ship guilt tripping reverse superiority, and it falls flat.You are perfectly free to shut your mind up in a box and stare at padded walls (or navels if you wish), and call it faith, but I have no need to do so.Why is it NOT ONE proponent of neo-paleyism ("intelligent" design) can discuss the evidence posted on Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... and show how it can be considered "intelligent" instead of silly? You have yet to construct a reason, let alone one in reverse.Now you could, sometime soon, actually make an arguement (but I'm not counting it) ...... So save the bandwidth until you have an argument eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.

Actually NJ, big people refrain from condescending behavior and arrogance.It must be your fallen nature you are putting on display.

I made the argument that design requires a designer, both in human terms and in cosmology terms. But you fail to see the need for either. Yes, this is pathetic.Enjoy

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

So who designed the designer?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

John 10:10 if you subscribe to nature be designed by a intelligent designer then one has to wonder on the nature of the designer.When proponents think of the Intelligent Designer they often think of the sunsets, kittens and puppies.However nature is chock full of diabolic parasitic organism that are creatively "designed" to the task of taking advantage of some other organism.Consider trichinella. The trichina worm pass into the small intestine of a mammal and, in 1-2 days, become mature. After mating, the adult female worm lay eggs. These Eggs develop into immature worms which travel through the arteries and are transported to muscle. Within the muscles, the worms curl into a ball and encyst. Once in this state the worm direct the surrounding cells. The cell is now called a nurse cell and this cell begins to redirect a net of blood vessels in order to provide added nutrition to the larva inside.Wonderfully complex and intricate? Does the provide the same degree of awe and wonder as a beautiful sunset?