Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,638 Year: 4,895/9,624 Month: 243/427 Week: 53/103 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5682 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 61 of 204 (447859)
01-11-2008 6:36 AM
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.
Evolution has been a philosophical alternative to the creation story from the beginning. If there is no God, only matter, then let's make up our own story of where we came from avoiding God having anything to do with it.
Assumptionwishful thinking) We can't see God therefore He doesn't exist.
You may imagine it is religious thinking to invoke God as a cause but it is just as religious to insist that there is no God when you cannot be sure that that is true.All it is, is an alternative belief
system.
ID is derived from creationism.
Only in as much as both believe that this world can't be explained in purely materialistic terms. They have points of similarity but creationism insists on the God of the Bible and 6000 years human history as a worldview.ID proponents often do not believe that - they just agree that evolution (in the macro sense) makes no sense if you look purely at the evidence.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 9:37 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2008 12:32 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 93 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:49 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5682 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 62 of 204 (447861)
01-11-2008 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Organicmachination
01-02-2008 12:39 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Simply observing the complexity of DNA, cells and the human brain and then somehow saying that they are too complex to have come around by evolution proves only that..
...unproven evolutionary assumptions accepted as fact are not good enough for everyone.
You have little idea how science works. You cannot make the conclusion that God did it from the observation that life is very complicated and improbable
but you could logically conclude that the evolutionary explanation may be right and it may be wrong and follow the evidence where it leads - to a supernatural intelligence outside of the material world if needs be.Neither can be proven -some things just seem far more likely than others to some people and for good reason.
negative arguments don't fly in science, unless of course, you have eliminated every single other possibility
..every single material possibility you mean which means you start with a bias that only material causes are possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Organicmachination, posted 01-02-2008 12:39 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Organicmachination, posted 01-11-2008 1:18 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 94 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:50 AM Beretta has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34060
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 63 of 204 (447876)
01-11-2008 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Beretta
01-11-2008 6:36 AM


Stop repeating falsehoods.
Evolution has been a philosophical alternative to the creation story from the beginning. If there is no God, only matter, then let's make up our own story of where we came from avoiding God having anything to do with it.
Try for once to get a few things right.
  1. Evolution is a fact. We can see it happening today and see that it happened in the past.
  2. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation so far on how the Fact of Evolution happened.
  3. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two different things.
  4. Neither has anything to say about the existence of God.
  5. Neither says that there is no God.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:36 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 4:01 AM jar has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 123 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 64 of 204 (447922)
01-11-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Beretta
01-11-2008 6:36 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Beretta,
Beretta writes:
Evolution has been a philosophical alternative to the creation story from the beginning. If there is no God, only matter, then let's make up our own story of where we came from avoiding God having anything to do with it.
You accuse scientists of making assumptions, but you yourself seem only to happy to assume that your concept of how evolutionary theory is true. For the record, you are wrong.
The most famous evolutionist of all, Darwin, was a Christian back when he was first forming his theories. Only later in life (abound 1851, when his daughter died) did he abandon his former religious beliefs.
Darwin started from a position of belief in a divine creator. When his observations contradicted this he changed his mind. He chose to completely turn away from religion, but there is in fact no reason why evolution and belief in God are incompatible. The ToE simply removes the necessity of resorting to God, in order to explain the complexity of life.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:36 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 5:56 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5794 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 65 of 204 (447946)
01-11-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
01-11-2008 6:54 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
..every single material possibility you mean which means you start with a bias that only material causes are possible.
No, I do not mean every single material possibility. If you believe that the biblical God created the world, you must be able to prove to me beyond contention that evolution is absolutely wrong, and that it wasn't any of the other 9 billion Gods us humans have created that made the world. If you cannot do this, you cannot argue that your God made the world. Also, you cannot argue that panspermia or some other natural method of life propagation might have created life here because, as molbiogirl pointed out, you run into an infinite regression problem. This leaves only supernatural explanations, of which only one possibility might be correct. You must rule out every single other explanation, natural and supernatural, before you can support any single one with any amount of credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:54 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 6:43 AM Organicmachination has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5682 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 66 of 204 (448113)
01-12-2008 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
01-11-2008 9:37 AM


Re: Stop repeating falsehoods.
Evolution is a fact. We can see it happening today and see that it happened in the past.
1."Evolution is a fact" is a mantra not a fact.Certainly not a fact in the way that evolutionists would have us believe. We see limited variation happening today and dedicated Darwinists assume that adding all these small variations up over a vast amount of time would amount to the evolution they choose to believe in or have been indoctrinated into - the common ancestor type of macroevolution. This is still at the level of fairytale not fact -nobody has observed this to happen, they assume it based on limited observations over relatively short periods of time.
The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation so far on how the Fact of Evolution happened.
The theory of evolution remains a theory and evolution remains controversial as science progresses to the point where it no longer appears that 'everything created itself randomly from nothing'would be the best explanation for the existance of everything.
Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two different things.
The fairytale and the fairytale explanation of how the fairytale may have happened - yes.
Neither has anything to say about the existence of God.
Oh yes it does -it explicitely says that nature is all there is and all that is necessary and implicitely says that God is not necessary in the least to explain our existance.'Science has nothing to say about God' is the patronizing attitude of the scientific establishment to those of the fluffy faith that should be allowed to wallow in their supernatural fables 'if it makes them happy.'
Neither says that there is no God.
Well a god that has no role to play and is not required by the random chance processes of evolution, is, for all intents and purposes, no god at all. Since this hypothetical god has no point, no purpose, no job to do, why pretend except to patronizingly accomodate others in a politically correct sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 9:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 01-12-2008 10:25 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5682 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 67 of 204 (448116)
01-12-2008 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Granny Magda
01-11-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Darwin started from a position of belief in a divine creator. When his observations contradicted this he changed his mind.
You mean when his reading of people like Lyell changed his mind and he started to look at the world in a different manner and tried to formulate a mechanism of how this evolution concept could work. It wasn't his concept but like other christians led astray or allowing themselves to be led astray, he wondered about other people's ideas and formulated his theory. He had plenty doubts about his own ideas though so he wasn't as good a Darwinist as today's radical fundamentalist Darwinists who cannot see anything that does not fit into their precious worldview even if it screams 'design' at them.
To not see design was more understandable in those days before cell biology and genetics made it an absolute necessity to be a blind believer in order to miss the design concept.
When his observations contradicted this he changed his mind.
Darwin's theory was based on philosophical considerations, it was not evidence-based.Darwin was very aware that the fossil record did not support evolution but he hoped that time and a more complete fossil record would provide all the billions of transitionals required by gradualism -they never did find them and Darwin would not have been a believer in evolution if he could have seen what we know now because he knew what would convince him that evolution had not in fact happened.
there is in fact no reason why evolution and belief in God are incompatible.
There are lots of reasons for incompatibility. The Bible for one says sin brought death.Evolution says death was there long before man so that would make the Bible a fairytale. That would also make Jesus' death on the cross 'for the sins of mankind' and 'to overcome death' completely unnecessary.
Either God created man and sin caused the fall of man or evolution is our creator.I call that completely incompatible.
The ToE simply removes the necessity of resorting to God, in order to explain the complexity of life.
Man's desire to rid himself of God brought about the ToE.It's an alternative explanation for what we are doing here.It frees up man to do pretty much as he pleases within the constraints of manmade law (which changes continually as long as there is no God and no absolute truth.)Now when we see design we can say 'no design, no God,just pure chance and mutation."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2008 12:32 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Woodsy, posted 01-12-2008 6:45 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 81 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2008 3:33 PM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5682 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 68 of 204 (448124)
01-12-2008 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Organicmachination
01-11-2008 1:18 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
you must be able to prove to me beyond contention that evolution is absolutely wrong
Actually you can't prove either beyond contention but some things, given all the facts we have at our disposal make more rational sense than others.
the other 9 billion Gods us humans have created that made the world.
Well the question is did God create us or did we create God? You have to assume that we created God but then you have to ignore the obvious possibility that a superior intelligence produced our ability to reason and be creative in the first place.
panspermia or some other natural method of life propagation might have created life here because, as molbiogirl pointed out, you run into an infinite regression problem.
There's no infinite regression problem if God is outside the natural system ie. supernatural. If God is eternal and not created then God does not have to have a cause. Only created things have a cause.
This leaves only supernatural explanations, of which only one possibility might be correct.
Truth would require that only one explanation is correct. Fortunately truth does not change with opinion nor consensus nor with wishful thinking.
Id doesn't concern itself with who the supernatural creator is, it's up to us to find out what's true but realizing that intelligence not chance must have created us puts us in a position to search for the truth without evolutionary blinkers on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Organicmachination, posted 01-11-2008 1:18 PM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by reiverix, posted 01-12-2008 10:46 AM Beretta has replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 69 of 204 (448125)
01-12-2008 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Beretta
01-12-2008 5:56 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Darwin's theory was based on philosophical considerations, it was not evidence-based.
Darwin is very famous for having done long, laborious, meticulous, empirical work to substantiate his theory. What liars these creationists are!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 5:56 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 7:04 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5682 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 70 of 204 (448127)
01-12-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Woodsy
01-12-2008 6:45 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Darwin is very famous for having done long, laborious, meticulous, empirical work to substantiate his theory
Long laborious meticulous and empirical it may have been but he still only observed natural selection and variation within kinds -the theory part is an extension of his observations based on all sorts of philisophical considerations.
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.
What liars these creationists are!
That too is a mantra. If you stick with this forum, you will see it repeated ad nauseum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Woodsy, posted 01-12-2008 6:45 AM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2008 11:05 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 95 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:53 AM Beretta has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34060
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 71 of 204 (448167)
01-12-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
01-12-2008 4:01 AM


Re: Stop repeating falsehoods.
Trying to head towards the topic.
The Topic happens to be "Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?"
So let's try to step through this in small manageable increments.
Step 1:
Who is the Designer?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 4:01 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:51 AM jar has replied

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 72 of 204 (448176)
01-12-2008 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Beretta
01-12-2008 6:43 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Id doesn't concern itself with who the supernatural creator is
Maybe ID doesn't, but the people supporting it are all motivated by religion, which is the topic btw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 6:43 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:37 AM reiverix has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1490 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 replied

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

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5682 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 74 of 204 (448181)
01-12-2008 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
01-12-2008 11:05 AM


Evolutionary hot air
What he saw were finches that had changed in a number of different ways
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.That's the problem you see -imagination is everything we need -evidence is for the idiots I suppose.
That is all the empirical evidence of finches that was needed
For what -to convince us that reptiles can change into birds and bacteria into people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2008 11:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2008 4:45 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5682 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 75 of 204 (448182)
01-12-2008 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by reiverix
01-12-2008 10:46 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta writes:
Id doesn't concern itself with who the supernatural creator is
Maybe ID doesn't, but the people supporting it are all motivated by religion, which is the topic
No not so, they are actually motivated by the truth and the misrepresentations and undue extrapolations of evolutionary wishful thinking.There are enough examples of ID proponents -Anthony flew and Michael Behe for example that have no religious affiliations but find the evidence for major evolutionary change by chance and random mutation unconvincing at best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by reiverix, posted 01-12-2008 10:46 AM reiverix has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2008 11:48 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 7:02 AM Beretta has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024