Intelligent Design

[Patches]

The problem with intelligent design is that it is dishonest, for it is simply a cover for creationism.

Jesus christ, I agree with something Victor said.

Someone alert the press.

 

[Nicodemus]

The ironic thing is science as we know it came out of Judaic/Christian/Islamic tradition.

By a recourse to antiquity.

 

[Lark]

I have to say that the theories of intelligent design that I've seen have been as absurd and reductionist frequently as the standard evolutionary theories but then I am afterall what Professor Dawkins and his ilk would refer to as a "Faith Head", whatever legitimacy I considered them to have years ago I dont consider them to have any longer.

The constant defensiveness and hostility is very telling, I suspect they have become the very thing they once sought to oppose only with different hallmarks and colours.

 

[Qlip]

By a recourse to antiquity.

I wouldn't call the 1600's antiquity.

 

[Nicodemus]

I wouldn't call the 1600's antiquity.

Then you have a strange concept of science.

 

[INTP]

what is there to talk about? intelligent design is clearly an attempt to explain something that cant be explained with their science. this whole intelligent design thing is based on that there was an intelligent creator, if they cant explain this intelligent creator, the theory is based on nothing. its fundamentally the same as giving an explanation that god did it to anything that people dont understand. they search something that darwinism(or science that they themselves dont understand) cant explain and say that god did it. it doesent matter if other scientists can explain it or not, since scientists do admit that they dont know everything, if they knew everything, there wouldnt be any scientific research. one good example of this was that bacteria that they didnt understand how it was fundamentally built and used it as a proof for this intelligent design. funny thing about this is that scientists were able to explain how this bacteria was built with science, those promoters who used this bacteria as a proof that there is an intelligent designer just didnt know about it. that mathematician was pretty retard, even tho he must know alot about math, but he fails to apply his math with reality.

what comes to those religious people at dover school board, they(and everyone like them) should be taken any sort of power away from them. they clearly dont know how to use this sort of power and use it for promoting their idiotic subjective beliefs.

overally i see good and bad about these attempts on challenging science. the good thing is that those people give a boost on scientific research and sort of challenges science to look deeper into things that people are trying to explain with "god did it". on the other hand majority of people in many places are religious fools(im not saying that every religious person is a fool, but most of them are, especially these people who follow some religion strictly and simply deny everything that questions anything that they believe in) who believe this sort of things because they simply dont know anything about science. if enough people start to believe on this sort of things, it doesent matter anymore if science could explain that god didnt do this, because they believe in what they want to believe in and they want to believe in some intelligent creator because for some reason it makes them feel good.

i think there should be some sort of scientific board of the best scientists in the world that would do research on things that people vote for.

 

[Qlip]

Then you have a strange concept of science.

And you like to bait conflict. I was talking about the development of science, not what we've codified it as.

 

[Nicodemus]

And you like to bait conflict.

Your initial post made it sound as if science sprouted from those religions. That simply is not true. Antique knowledge, acquired through antique science, has always been present in the educated world. It is then due to the Renaissance, a recourse to and even stronger influence by antique knowledge, that 'modern science' came to be.

I was talking about the development of science, not what we've codified it as.

You can, by the same token, say that science came out of monarchy.

 

[Qlip]

You can, by the same token, say that science came out of monarchy.

I think it's important to point out that at one time there was no difference between science and religion.

The success of science was born of the incubation of Greek thought in a Christian world. I'd qualify that as coming out. Sure, the principals of science may have been practiced in isolated situations. All great ideas manifest several times, it's where they take root is what counts.

 

[Nicodemus]

I think it's important to point out that at one time there was no difference between science and religion.

That which we call science did not spring from the christian religion, however. It sprang from antiquity. When you enter a house, illuminate it for a moment and then leave again, the house is not giving birth to you.

The success of science was born of the incubation of Greek thought in a Christian world. I'd qualify that as coming out. Sure, the principals of science may have been practiced in isolated situations. All great ideas manifest several times, it's where they take root is what counts.

Science began to become successful again when people started to part from the christian religion and embrace the real world again. Science took root in Europe because it was born in Europe, not because christianity sullied it for a thousand years.

 

[Mole]

Jesus christ, I agree with something Victor said.

The important thing is we agree on how we will disagree.

 

[Qlip]

That which we call science did not spring from the christian religion, however. It sprang from antiquity. When you enter a house, illuminate it for a moment and then leave again, the house is not giving birth to you.


Science began to become successful again when people started to part from the christian religion and embrace the real world again. Science took root in Europe because it was born in Europe, not because christianity sullied it for a thousand years.

All this sounds like some sort of delightfully perverted appropriation of the immaculate conception myth. Anyway, my attention span on these sort of arguments is short, and I've hit my limit.

 

[Nicodemus]

The birth metaphors have been used on both sides; and given the meaning of 'Renaissance', they also seem appropriate.

 

[Lily flower]

It's called "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. I always thought that microevolution and macroevolution were the same, also.

 

[Mole]

Science began to become successful again when people started to part from the christian religion and embrace the real world again.

Yeah, take your pick, the natural or the supernatural?

 

[skylights]

it frustrates me that creationists have taken the respectable idea of there being something divine about the way nature inherently works, slapped thinly-veiled label on it, and retooled it as a way of getting their very specific religious beliefs reconsidered. back in my day it was called "deism" and/or "pantheism" and it didn't come with a KJV bible in tow. >:/

@ lily flower - i do not think it was your intention, but your post came off as rather artificial circular reasoning, if you will... it just makes it hard to trust... start at one premise, decide to stray, and based off one experience return to your initial premise... it just does not seem very... well, scientific?

i think my general problem with discarding evolution is this:

even the specifics of gravitation itself are still being debated within the scientific community, as are the details of relativity... there are still unsolved questions regarding the overlap of the four fundamental interactive forces as well as regarding general relativity and quantum mechanics, and yet those are two theories that most people accept unquestioningly. if you choose to reject evolution on the grounds of it not totally being worked out yet, that's fair - i am no expert myself - but then it also only seems logical to question the nature of other scientific principles that are not fully explained as well... might as well start refraining from using most technology, etc...

and then my problem with ID being this:

Intelligent Design makes some interesting philosophical points, but speculative philosophy has no place in a Science classroom. [...] in practice ID has focused on tearing down theories of evolution (thus belying its creationist motives, since ID as such is perfectly compatible with evolution)

to all accounts i am really a believer in "intelligent design" if we are defining it simply as nature driven by a greater force, but i would never self-identify with Intelligent Design. it's really quite blatantly creationist, just a foot in the door.

 

[INTP]

it frustrates me that creationists have taken the respectable idea of there being something divine about the way nature inherently works, slapped thinly-veiled label on it, and retooled it as a way of getting their very specific religious beliefs reconsidered. back in my day it was called "deism" and/or "pantheism" and it didn't come with a KJV bible in tow. >:/

@ lily flower - i do not think it was your intention, but your post came off as rather artificial circular reasoning, if you will... it just makes it hard to trust... start at one premise, decide to stray, and based off one experience return to your initial premise... it just does not seem very... well, scientific?

i think my general problem with discarding evolution is this:

even the specifics of gravitation itself are still being debated within the scientific community, as are the details of relativity... there are still unsolved questions regarding the overlap of the four fundamental interactive forces as well as regarding general relativity and quantum mechanics, and yet those are two theories that most people accept unquestioningly. if you choose to reject evolution on the grounds of it not totally being worked out yet, that's fair - i am no expert myself - but then it also only seems logical to question the nature of other scientific principles that are not fully explained as well... might as well start refraining from using most technology, etc...

and then my problem with ID being this:



to all accounts i am really a believer in "intelligent design" if we are defining it simply as nature driven by a greater force, but i would never self-identify with Intelligent Design. it's really quite blatantly creationist, just a foot in the door.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

[skylights]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

sweet, they're as old as i am.

In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in one of the twelve populations: the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy. Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid cycle) when oxygen is present. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. Around generation 33,127, the experimenters noticed a dramatically expanded population-size in one of the samples; they found that there were clones in this population that could grow on the citrate included in the growth medium to permit iron acquisition.

that's really cool.

Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists

See also: Atheism and obesity and Atheism and Mental and Physical Health and Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese
A 2009 picture of a significantly overweight PZ Myers can be found HERE. A 2010 picture taken in Australia shows PZ Myers drinking ale/beer and he had excess weight in his abdominal area.[295] In 2010, PZ Myers had health problems related to his heart.[296] In addition, medical science research indicates that excess weight impairs brain function.[297][298] Given PZ Myers' biological training and the wide dissemination of the harmful health effects of being overweight in terms of cardiovascular health and brain function, it is unfortunate that preventative medicine was not used in greater measure in terms of his health.[299][300][301] PZ Myers' inattention to diligently implementing the recommendations of medical science is not entirely surprising given his vehement advocacy of evolutionary pseudoscience. There have been a number of notable evolutionists who have been overweight (see also: Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality).
Also, as noted earlier, since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[302] For a list of overweight and/or obese notable atheists please see: Atheism and obesity

ok so maybe that's not related but conservapedia apparently thinks it is, and it cracks me up.

 

[Lily flower]

Yeah, take your pick, the natural or the supernatural?[/FONT]

Actually, if you read teh biographies of the original scientists, a majority of them were Christians who wanted to understand God through His creation. A lot of their faith stories have been removed from the public school curriculum, so you would not know about it unless you read their biographies outside of school textbooks.

Science and faith are not in any way incompatible, in my opinion.

It's really only since Darwin that there has been a chasm between some scientists (usually in evolutionary biology) and some Christians. If you look at microbiology and astrophysics, you find a lot of believers, simply because of the amazing nature of the things that they study.

If you are interested in a great faith & science book, try reading The Creator and the Cosmos.

 

[Snuggletron]

Science and faith are not in any way incompatible, in my opinion.

...But they are complete opposites in the way they function and produce a result.