Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
39 online now:
(39 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,525 Year: 1,171/14,102 Month: 163/411 Week: 59/125 Day: 27/32 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 204 (445012)
12-31-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
I honestly don't know how people like N_J can continue to argue that ID is not religion in disguise.

Let me repeat this. The ID text book Of Pandas and People started out as a text book for creationism. The earlier versions of this book specifically refered to creationism and creationist. When they realized that they couldn't sell this book with the words creationism and creaitonist, they went back, highlighted all the words "creationism" and "creationist" and changed them to "intelligent design" and "design proponent". At one point, they only highlighted a portion of a word "creationist" and they ended up with the word "cdesign proponentist".

In other words, intelligent design is just creationism with a change of name. It's like me legally changing my name to George Bush and expect people to believe I'm now a republican.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Organicmachination, posted 12-31-2007 4:46 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 204 (445186)
01-01-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 9:13 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Don't you find it odd that cdesign proponentists continue to outright deny that the designer could have been aliens or zeus or the unicorn? Instead, when they are cornered cdesign proponentists always say the designer is the god of abraham.

Again, I must point to the ID text book Of Pandas and People. The previous versions of the book were written for creationism. They simply highlighted the words "creationism" and "creationist" and changed them to "intelligent design" and "design proponent" after they realized they couldn't sell this book because of the law.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 9:13 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 204 (445210)
01-01-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:04 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
sinequanon writes:

The intelligent designer/designers may be no different from the laws of nature. Both are intended to determine what shall be.


You have one of the most common misconception about the so-called "laws of nature".

There are no laws of nature. What there are are a set of behaviors by the universe that we can observe. We then invent/create a set of "laws" or mathematical constructs to attempt to explain these behaviors. It's like trying to throw in a best fit curve in your data.

Any freshman college student could have told you this. Even the laws that we have created/invented to describe the natural phenomena are subject to modification and change as new data and new behaviors are observed.

Please try to stop treating science like a religious dogma. It's not. There's no such thing as "truth" in science. All, and I do mean ALL, things in science are subject to modification, change, and even completely thrown out the window. It's not like the religion of intelligent design where no matter what the evidence shows cdesign proponentists continue to believe in fairies.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:04 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 204 (445222)
01-01-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Theological arguments
sine writes:

Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.


So, are you telling us that the so-called theory of intelligent design is valid simply because evolution is inadequate to explain certain questions? This is a fallacy. You're trying to prove one thing by trying to disprove another and declaring this the default position. It's nonsense.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 26 of 204 (445278)
01-01-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Branching Off
What controversy? Oh, that's right, the controversy between scientists and the general public on what science ought to be. Gee, I wonder which side I'll go with on this one...

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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 33 of 204 (445325)
01-01-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 6:55 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
sinequanon writes:

I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.


Ok, who designed the designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 6:55 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 7:35 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 37 of 204 (445370)
01-01-2008 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
01-01-2008 10:37 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Buz, aren't you suppose to be against intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:37 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:58 PM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 45 of 204 (445427)
01-02-2008 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
01-01-2008 10:58 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Buzsaw writes:

Wherever did you get that notion?


Well, a creationist like yourself insist that the universe and everything we see in it was created in 6 days by the god of Abraham. ID, on the other hand, technically insist that the designer could have been aliens or flying spag monster.

Furthermore, ID has absolutely no problem with evolution. Evolution, in fact, is a large part of the intelligent design movement... and I know you are against evolution.

The theory of evolution states that the bush/tree of life starts out at the trunk or a common ancestor and through eons of evolution branches out into many parts of life. ID officially states that life began at different bases but then evolved to the variations we see today. In other words, ID officially believes in different beginnings for different taxa of life where evolution picked it up and created new species out of the various beginnings.

To simply put, the theory of evolution gives an image of one big gigantic bush. Intelligent Design gives an image of hundreds of small bushes. Creationism gives an image of millions upon millions of dots, each representing a different species.

I bet you didn't know that part about ID huh.

So, again, officially speaking anyway, ID is against every fibre of the creationist movement. I don't know how you can support ID when biblical evidence is contrary to ID. Oh, have I mentioned that ID officially believes in a very old and ancient Earth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2086 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 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