Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
46 online now:
dwise1, nwr (2 members, 44 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?
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 6 of 204 (445116)
01-01-2008 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Intelligent Design is not religion in the guise of science. The term is self-explanatory and does not imply God or religion.

Hijacking a self-explanatory term is different from inventing a new concept. "Do creationists use Intelligent Design to disguise their beliefs?", is a separate question.

The investigation of whether nature has developed through design seems a scientific enough one to me.

Whether it should be proposed in 'our' classrooms is a political question which I wouldn't comment on, not being from your country. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Organicmachination, posted 12-31-2007 4:46 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 11:16 AM sinequanon has responded
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 1:21 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 1:38 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 1:55 PM sinequanon has responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 11 of 204 (445205)
01-01-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 11:16 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
The intelligent designer/designers may be no different from the laws of nature. Both are intended to determine what shall be.

Not knowing where the laws of nature came from has not caused science to throw them out. Why should the concept of intelligent design be any different?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 11:16 AM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:06 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 13 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 2:09 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 2:16 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 15 of 204 (445219)
01-01-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
01-01-2008 1:55 PM


Theological arguments
Wouldn't a simple way to deal with this be to say, "if your theory is called intelligent design, then we will discuss intelligence and we will discuss design but we will not discuss theology"?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 1:55 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 2:35 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-01-2008 2:44 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 4:24 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 23 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 5:29 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 90 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:34 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 17 of 204 (445226)
01-01-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 2:09 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
I meant the intelligent designer need be no more divine than the laws of nature.

See my reply to Modulous Message 15. It's easy to avoid semantics. Take the term "intelligent design" at its face value.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 2:09 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 5:23 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 19 of 204 (445231)
01-01-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
01-01-2008 2:06 PM


There is no evidence of a designer?
How did you arrive at this conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:06 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:59 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 29 of 204 (445301)
01-01-2008 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
01-01-2008 4:24 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Do not mistake ID for being a purely teleological movement though. There is more there and it would be foolish to ignore it.

I am aware of the political games being played with regards intelligent design. I think the games are being played on both sides of the argument. Some scientist seem to prefer arguing against YEC (so much easier and much more fun), and promote the misuse of the term "intelligent design" to shoehorn into creationism, other theories involving design.

The literal meaning of the term "intelligent design" is not teleology. All that is required for intelligent design is intelligence and design. I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 4:24 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 7:29 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 34 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 7:33 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 01-02-2008 3:25 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 41 of 204 (445400)
01-02-2008 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by molbiogirl
01-01-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Scientists should be questioning the definition, not accepting it because "somebody said so". The reason they do accept it is to avoid debate. It allows them to be ambivalent about the term "intelligent design" and paint as creationism theories which are not.

The infinite regression issue is not specific to intelligent design. The laws of nature have the same problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 7:33 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2008 8:55 AM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Taz, posted 01-02-2008 11:17 AM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 3:01 PM sinequanon has responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 50 of 204 (445493)
01-02-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 3:01 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
With that stance you've got an uphill struggle persuading a lot of people about the impartiality of your scientific methods.

If a group of druids suddenly got together and tried to sell druidism as evolution, would it be acceptable to claim that 'drevolution proponentsuids' have 'admitted evolution = druidism' and therefore it is not science? If you did, I'd be just as suspicious of your motives as I am with your reaction to intelligent design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 3:01 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 01-02-2008 4:47 PM sinequanon has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 5:06 PM sinequanon has responded
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 5:08 PM sinequanon has responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 57 of 204 (445519)
01-02-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 5:08 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Unlike evolution, which has from its beginnings been science, ID is derived from creationism.

I can see you are reacting to the questions of intelligence and design on the basis of where they came from, or who asked them, rather than their absolute content. That would not give scientists credibility in my opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 5:08 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:45 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 59 of 204 (445533)
01-02-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
01-02-2008 5:06 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Percy writes:

I don't think Molbiogirl really meant that ID proponents have admitted that ID is actually creationism in disguise, because I don't think they admit that at all...

She said...

Molbiogirl writes:

Dembski recently admitted that ID is creationism:

Sounds like you may be suggesting she get "on message".

There is little point debating the politics of a situation using technical references. If Molbiogirl's comment can morph into the opposite of what it says then her argument is a little too flexible for my liking.

While I do think your point that ID and creationism are different theories is undeniably accurate, that doesn't mean that it is an invalid shortcut for evolutionists to damn ID with creationist associations, because these associations most certainly exist.

But political counter-strategy masquerading as scientific argument and rigour only appears as corrupted science.

The fact that such a poison chalice as "intelligent design" even exists poses a fundamental question for science. It has chosen to pre-empt a theory for lack of confidence in scientific definition. It is as if science could be undermined by the ramifications of its own definition of intelligent design, and so accepts one which avoids the problems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 5:06 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 9:12 PM 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