Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
55 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 54 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,525 Year: 1,171/14,102 Month: 163/411 Week: 59/125 Day: 27/32 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 204 (445365)
01-01-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
12-31-2007 4:46 PM


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

Is it a scientific theory or a religious one?

Hi Org. Welcome to EvC. The following is Merriam Webster's primary definitions of religion:

(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I see nothing in the above which defines the scientific aspects of the observation, practice and applications of intelligent design as religion. That the majority of ID advocates are religious does not make ID a religion perse.

Intelligent design researchers, archeologists, scientists and cosmologists who do so for the purpose of falsifying or verifying the Biblical model are not practicing religion in the persuit of falsifying the Biblical model.

For example, marine biologist Dr. Lennart Moller's expeditions to Aqaba including sophisticated underwater photography with a marine research ship came about by the Biblical reference to the location of Mt Sinai being in Arabia. That the Biblical model was what pre-empted the research does not make the research a religious practice. This can be applied to much activity going on by ID based science etc.

Another example would be mathmatical probabilities and statistics, observation of the complexity of DNA, cells and the human brain etc relative to ID probabilities etc. Discussion and debate in the classroom or any other location relative to these is not practicing one's religion as per the definition of religion.

Edited by Buzsaw, : typo fix


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

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 37 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 10:50 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 12:31 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 48 by Organicmachination, posted 01-02-2008 12:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 204 (445373)
01-01-2008 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taz
01-01-2008 10:50 PM


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

Buz, aren't you suppose to be against intelligent design?

Wherever did you get that notion? :confused:


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 10:50 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 01-02-2008 11:15 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 204 (445421)
01-02-2008 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 12:31 AM


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

Howzabout "religious"? Or is creationism not religious?

More precisely, howzabout religious folks, some of who study, research and work to verify/falsify the ID model relative to what is observed.

Also this: Many of the "religious" insist along with their secularist non-religious friends that the ID model should be restrictively ignored in education and science with the effect of imposing the secularistic model exclusively on the students and science arena.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 12:31 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by reiverix, posted 01-02-2008 11:03 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-02-2008 11:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 204 (451395)
01-27-2008 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
01-27-2008 1:47 PM


Re: Science is not Truth????
Percy writes:

Actually conducting scientific research that gets written up in papers submitted to and published in quality peer-reviewed journals and that is subsequently replicated by other scientists is the only way ID will ever become accepted as science. To put it simply, to be science you actually have to do science. Political efforts directed at school boards and text book publishers are not science.

We all know that ID and creationism science related papers rarely if ever get into quality peer-reviewed journals. That word quality aka majority mainline ideologically accredited, as with alternative vs conventional in healthcare etc excludes about anything nonconventional.

That is not to say some (I say 'some') of mainline/conventional ID creationist science is not up to par scientifically due to the fact that a lot of YEC arguments are neither scientific or Biblical in their hypotheses.

Imo, my unique Buzsaw hypotheses on origins relative to the Genesis record and scientific laws as I have put forth over the years works to correct some ot the misconceptions of conventional YEC creationists. I strive to consider both observable scientific laws relative to observable data and the literal fundamentals of the Biblical record in formulating hypotheses.

So far as the science debate forums, go, if your standard for participation is quality scientific journal sanctioned, you essentially disqualify any ID creationist from the science debates. That's the dilema you must decide upon relative to EvC guidelines.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 01-27-2008 1:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by CK, posted 01-27-2008 3:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 01-27-2008 4:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Rrhain, posted 01-29-2008 1:17 AM Buzsaw 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