Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9034 total)
74 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,545 Year: 3,191/14,102 Month: 132/724 Week: 74/96 Day: 3/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 204 (445309)
01-01-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Is Intelligent Design religion ... ?

At best it's half vast Deism. :D At it's worst (and most common) it is a political scam\con\deception.

... or science? Is it a scientific theory ... ?

It doesn't come up to the standard of science, as it is not a theory that is (1) based on evidence (2) testable with predictions or (3) falsifiable.

Does it have a place in our classrooms?

It could be compared to other philosophies in a philosophy class or other religions in a comparative religion class.

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 1 by Organicmachination, posted 12-31-2007 4:46 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 7:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 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 yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 204 (448180)
01-12-2008 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Beretta
01-12-2008 7:04 AM


Creationist arguments - held up by vacuum
He never saw a finch change into anything that was not a finch,he only imagined that it was possible so 'empirical' stopped right there.

I notice you gave up on the Dogs will be Dogs wil be ??? thread where this "turned into something not a (fill in the blank)" question is the topic.

Doesn't it weaken your claim whenever you repeat this canard that you cannot defend the concept when applied to a single set of evidence? Of course you'll never "see" when you keep your eyes closed.

What he saw were finches that had changed in a number of different ways, yet were clearly related to one another. That is all the empirical evidence of finches that was needed.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : finished sentence


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 70 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 7:04 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:30 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 82 of 204 (448232)
01-12-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Beretta
01-12-2008 11:30 AM


Re: Evolutionary hot air
Yes and then when the weather changed and the food supply then they reverted back to the mean but that would destroy the story -you need to imagine that given a lot of time and adding up the hypothetical more and more gradual changes, they would eventually change into something clearly different in a meaningful way that would allow us to imagine the macro possibilities.

Which is actually the topic of Dogs will be dogs, so feel free to drop over and defend this allegation from incredulity. Meanwhile you are confusing the finches Darwin saw with the finches observed and studied by the Grants.

However the evolutionary status of these finches has little to do with ID in general and whether ID is a religion or not, in specific.

Personally I say it fits all the definitions of religion that are necessary to include Deism, which is defined as a religion, and therefore it is without question a religion.

The fact that it is a religion that contradicts some christian and creationist beliefs is amusing to me.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : topic

Edited by RAZD, : and

Edited by RAZD, : restored link


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 74 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:30 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 204 (448431)
01-13-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Beretta
01-13-2008 5:04 AM


Turn on the lights and let the truth shine in ...
Beretta:
Personally. I'll go with the God of the Bible

Which makes ID a religion.

So if other Christians believe in evolution does that mean evolution is a religion?

Not if they believe that evolution is a naturally occurring event, even where "naturally occurring" means according to natural laws made at creation. If evolution is as "natural" as gravity it is not part of the religious beliefs.

Only if they believe that god is the motive force behind evolution, directing events would it reach the scale of being a religious belief -- for them (not for everyone else).

Now I agree that Jars response:

Beretta:
Personally. I'll go with the God of the Bible

Which makes ID a religion.

Is a bit of an overstatement. Rather I would say that your particular use of ID is religious, not that ID necessarily is because you (and all creationists\christians that adopt it) use it that way. The problem is that you can't separate your use of ID from your interpretation of what ID really involves.

As I've said, I find such use by creationist\christians rather amusing because of the contradictions involved between creationism\christianity and a pure ID approach. As a result all creaationist\christians that use ID use a corrupt version. This corrupt version of ID prevents them from pursuing a pure ID approach.

There was a thread a while ago about the ability of some people to combine their christian beliefs with the beliefs of other religions. It had some interesting comments, particularly about the resolution of contradictions, but the point is that combining creationism\christianity with ID is of the same nature as combining two or more versions of faith.

In a pure ID approach, the conclusions of science are necessarily all valid, whether it is the old age of the earth or the validity of evolution. We see this in some of the discussions by ID theoreticians about the old age of the earth and validity of evolution.

Let me outline how a pure ID approach would work:

Area A: discerning design

Assumption #A1: that there is an intelligent agent that is\has designed some aspect of the universe that we know. This can be anything from the beginning of the universe to the way quantum mechanics works on a daily basis.

Assumption #A2: that this design work can be discerned by humans as not being accomplished by natural means as we know it.

Conclusion #A1: that we must be able to discern all examples of human design from natural mechanisms. In other words we should be able, by some process, to identify human designed DNA from natural DNA, as an example.

Conclusion #A2: that, failing to develop the process required in Conclusion #A1, we must be able to discern examples of supernatural design mechanisms. In other words we should be able, by some process, to discern actual supernatural mechanisms in action, either at work in the present, or from the evidence of past usage.

Conclusion #A3: that, failing to develop the process required in Conclusion #A1 OR the process required in Conclusion #A2, we must learn as much as possible about all the natural mechanisms that exist in the universe so that they can be eliminated, and only when every last possible method of natural mechanisms has been eliminated can we consider supernatural means.

This means that all the (logically valid) conclusions of science that are based on all the evidence of reality that we currently know and as we currently understand, are necessarily all equally valid representations of reality, whether it is the old age of the Earth or the validity of evolution or the orbit of Mercury.

Area B: concerning the implementation of design

Assumption #B1: that the designer is a natural being, an extra-terrestrial, that is using\used natural means to accomplish their design (even though those natural means may not be known by us humans and thus could appear supernatural), together with

Assumption #A2 from above: that this design work can be discerned by humans as not being accomplished by natural means as we know it.

Conclusion #B1a: the means of accomplishment would leave evidence, "tool marks", of the work done by these beings, and thus demonstrate actual implementation of design (as do tool marks on watches and Mt Rushmore),

Conclusion #B1b: that implementation can be accomplished over interstellar distances by some means that is detectable, including mystery rays or the evidence of extra-terrestrial visits, OR

Conclusion #B1c: that implementation can be accomplished over interstellar distances by some means that is undetectable is specifically ruled out by assumption A2.

Conclusion #B1d: this does not answer the question of where the extra-terrestrial designer/s came from -- in less time than needed for the formation of the earth and the evolution of life on it. This leads to an iteration of extra-terrestrial designers until you run out of time and either have evolved or created being/s

This means, of course, that there should be a correlation between extra-terrestrial sightings and implementation of design, and that all extra-terrestrial sighting should be avidly investigated by ID proponents as possible evidence of the designers being caught red-handed.

OR

Assumption #B2: that the designer is a supernatural being, a god (or gods) of limited to unlimited ability, together with

Assumption #A2 from above: that this design work can be discerned by humans as not being accomplished by natural means as we know it.

Conclusion #B2a: the means of accomplishment would leave evidence, "tool marks", of the work done by these beings, and thus demonstrate actual implementation of design (as do tool marks on watches and Mt Rushmore),

Conclusion #2b: that implementation can be accomplished over interstellar distances by some means that is detectable, including mystery rays or the evidence of extra-terrestrial visits, OR

Conclusion #B2c: that implementation can be accomplished over interstellar distances by some means that is undetectable is specifically ruled out by assumption A2.

Conclusion #B2d: this does not answer the question of where the supernatural designer/s came from -- in less time than needed for the formation of the earth and the evolution of life on it. This leads to an iteration of supernatural designers until you run out of time and either have evolved or created being/s

Note that the assumption A2 is necessary for the detection of design, either in the existence of design or in the implementation of design, and that this means that the ability of the god/s involved is limited (see conclusions B1c and B2c).

Conclusions

A pure ID approach that avoids the question of religion leaves you with three conclusions:

(1) All science is valid: all the (logically valid) conclusions of science that are based on all the evidence of reality that we currently know and as we currently understand, are necessarily all equally valid representations of reality, whether it is the old age of the Earth or the validity of evolution or the orbit of Mercury. (Deism)

(2) All alien sightings are evidence of designers: there should be a correlation between extra-terrestrial sightings and implementation of design, all extra-terrestrial sighting should be avidly investigated by ID proponents as possible evidence of the designers being caught red-handed. (ETism)

(3) Limited god/s: the ability of the god/s involved is limited by their assumed inability to escape detection (see conclusions B1c and B2c), and without this assumption ID doesn't work. (Limited theism)

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : theism


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 86 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 5:04 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 7:21 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 204 (448433)
01-13-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Beretta
01-13-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Well can you, with human intervention, cross them? Lets face it, their disparate sizes size will be the limiting factor in the wild.

Well again, do the experiment.

So when we can cross human DNA with the DNA of bacteria and have bacteria produce proteins\etc. that can be transfered back into humans without autoimmune rejection symptoms (ie - it is human), this proves that bacteria and humans are the same kind?

ibid cows, pigs, monkeys, mice, etc etc etc ...

Excellent. Done. Therefore there is one "kind": life.

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 104 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 11:02 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:58 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 156 of 204 (449380)
01-17-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Beretta
01-17-2008 7:21 AM


Re: Turn on the lights and let the truth shine in ...
I don't know that there's a contradiction but if there is -what specifically is the contradiction?
One can be a YEC and an ID proponent at the same time.

Only if you corrupt ID to compromise it to fit YEC.

Possibly you don't see this because you are comparing your corrupted version of ID to YEC and not considering the pure ID approach.

For pure ID: the earth is 4.55 billion years old, that is what the evidence of objective reality shows.

For YEC: the earth is 6,000 years old (and evidence doesn't matter).

There is no way to reconcile these views without corrupting one.

I disagree. The individual's specific religious beliefs are not needed or wanted in science, the science behind intelligent design is what is important in ID.

You can't have it both ways. If they are truly independent, then your previous statement that "One can be a YEC and an ID proponent at the same time" is false.

This is the basic contradiction.

In order to fully commit to this independence you have to be willing to accept evidence based on science that invalidates YEC concepts but that have no impact on ID. Like the age of the earth.

If you don't make this commitment then you are corrupting ID to conform to YEC.

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 143 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 7:21 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 158 of 204 (449383)
01-17-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Beretta
01-17-2008 5:58 AM


recanting again?
So when we can cross human DNA with the DNA of bacteria and have bacteria produce proteins\etc. that can be transfered back into humans without autoimmune rejection symptoms (ie - it is human), this proves that bacteria and humans are the same kind?

No perhaps it proves a common intelligent creator

In other words you were not being honest when you said (Message 104):

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.
Well again, do the experiment.

The experiment has been done: we have, with human intervention, crossed humans with bacteria, mice, pigs and cows, just to name a few. The products are fully formed living organisms too.

By your previous argument this makes us all the same kind.

Or you are not being honest (with us, with yourself, doesn't matter).

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 137 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:58 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 168 of 204 (449833)
01-19-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Beretta
01-19-2008 6:38 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Your whole post is off topic.

Dogs produce dogs produce dogs -that's the reality.

This is actually the subject of another thread made to answer this question from you on yet another thread ...


Click to enlarge

You haven't responded yet to Re: Example - Part 1: comparison of dog and eohippus skeleton, message 16, and where I have posted a more complete answer to you in message 33.

Don't you think it is rather disingenuous of you to make this claim again without dealing with the evidence on the thread in question ... one you have left, just when we get to the evidence? Is it too hard to deal with reality?

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 166 by Beretta, posted 01-19-2008 6:38 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 204 of 204 (547321)
02-18-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by achristian1985
02-18-2010 12:16 AM


gigo
Posting the same message to a number of different topics where your message has nothing to do with the topic is spam by definition.

eaching appropriate forums which show an interest in an important subject which I have researched at length

Is done by starting a new thread. If you actually have something worth saying you will get responses.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by achristian1985, posted 02-18-2010 12:16 AM achristian1985 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021