• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Intelligent Design

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
...But they are complete opposites in the way they function and produce a result.

Nah, religion has a way of producing real results with people. Everybody seems to be trying to use both of them for what they're not for.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.

I think it's extremely important to separate "religion" from "creationist" and yet again from "creationism should be taught in science class in public schools".

I don't think you'll find many scientists who think creationism should be taught in schools....even among the few who believe in it personally.
 

Snuggletron

Reptilian
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
2,224
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
10
Nah, religion has a way of producing real results with people. Everybody seems to be trying to use both of them for what they're not for.

I'm talking about methods, not mental effects. They come from complete opposite ends of reasoning. Creationism and faith-based assertions use reason it in a way that isn't compatible with science.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so

There is a grand design but I know not who or what the grand designer is and why he or it would allow so much affliction upon life. Some people call life the great miracle. I call life the great disaster!
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

But you're defining it based on your perception of nature, and that's not necessarily how nature really is beyond those perceptions.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
But you're defining it based on your perception of nature, and that's not necessarily how nature really is beyond those perceptions.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm talking about methods, not mental effects. They come from complete opposite ends of reasoning. Creationism and faith-based assertions use reason it in a way that isn't compatible with science.

Well yes -- any involvement of "faith" means you start with an answer and then use reason to support it, although there can be reason iteration loops to "test" the faith construct if one is at least somewhat honest. But basically there's a "leap of faith" required at some point, to get from what can be observed and tested to reach the inexplicable.

Science is supposed to look at data and then determine the conclusion (it's kind of the backwards process of faith). Scientists get hunches or have ideas sometimes about what the truth might be, but at that point it's also supposed to be subject to iterative testing, to see if the idea can be broken or not.

ID just basically says, "The world is too complex to develop on its own, it needed to be created," and then looks for examples of complexity to justify that position. The scientific response has been to discover natural processes that can develop complexity so that the assumption that "God" is necessary to the process can be shown as faulty.
 
Top