Quote:
I'm loving my slippery slope today!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The case for Intelligent Design
The case for Intelligent DesignFollow
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
Funny, the thread reads "The case for Intelligent Design" and since "Intelligent Design" IS Creationism, that is exactly what we are discussing.
Ahh, but its not, you see.
Creationism is "God created the universe and all that's in it in 7 days."
End of story.
ID is "There really had to have been something responsible for the flow, as you can't explain the mechanics of life through random chance."
Which is wonderful, but you left off the last part of ID.
"There really had to have been something responsible for the flow, as you can't explain the mechanics of life through random chance ... so there must have been an intelligence behind it's design...".
That's the "intelligent design" part of Intelligent Design, right? If you leave that part off, you aren't saying anything that scientists don't say every day "We can't explain everything".
I also think you're completely wrong about what Creationism is. Sure. Perhaps in a very limited Judeo/Christian context, your statement is correct. But Creationism isn't restricted to those religions. In a broad context, Creationism is any attempt to explain "creation" through the intervention of a divine force. Period. Full Stop.
What you're doing is playing with semantics to hide the real issues. You take a very narrow definition of Creationism and an incomplete definition of ID, and declare them different. However, the defining point of ID is the "intelligence" behind creation. And this this intelligence must be greater/older/whatever then ours. So unless you're doing the whole alien intelligence thing (which fails on a number of levels), arguing for ID is still arguing for creationism. You're still saying that God (or some other deity) was responsible for everything.
It really is creationism in another outfit is all...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Confucius, he say, gbaji + Intelligent design = too many words to read.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
Funny, the thread reads "The case for Intelligent Design" and since "Intelligent Design" IS Creationism, that is exactly what we are discussing.
Ahh, but its not, you see.
Creationism is "God created the universe and all that's in it in 7 days."
End of story.
ID is "There really had to have been something responsible for the flow, as you can't explain the mechanics of life through random chance."
Which is wonderful, but you left off the last part of ID.
"There really had to have been something responsible for the flow, as you can't explain the mechanics of life through random chance ... so there must have been an intelligence behind it's design...".
That's the "intelligent design" part of Intelligent Design, right? If you leave that part off, you aren't saying anything that scientists don't say every day "We can't explain everything".
I also think you're completely wrong about what Creationism is. Sure. Perhaps in a very limited Judeo/Christian context, your statement is correct. But Creationism isn't restricted to those religions. In a broad context, Creationism is any attempt to explain "creation" through the intervention of a divine force. Period. Full Stop.
What you're doing is playing with semantics to hide the real issues. You take a very narrow definition of Creationism and an incomplete definition of ID, and declare them different. However, the defining point of ID is the "intelligence" behind creation. And this this intelligence must be greater/older/whatever then ours. So unless you're doing the whole alien intelligence thing (which fails on a number of levels), arguing for ID is still arguing for creationism. You're still saying that God (or some other deity) was responsible for everything.
It really is creationism in another outfit is all...
I just found myself agreeing with Gbaji.
That proves there is no intelligent design.
IT'S ALL CHAOS, MAN!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Ambrya wrote:
Well, like I said, your brother was wrong on a number of levels.
No, you said the analogy was wrong, not the statement. Whether or not my brother was wrong about English being the primary language spoken in the United States is highly proveable (the 2000 census states that only 17.9% of those surveyed spoke a language other than English at home), but ultimately pointless to argue as I'd be arguing an opinion voiced by someone about the education of their children. It wasn't the point, and you know that. The point was that because of his own fears of what a barrage of conflicting information would do to his kid (same kid that learned to play with the Playstation before he could walk)he thought his kid couldn't handle it, he didn't challenge him to higher goals.
I wrote:
None of these were 'taught', but adressed when they came up by means of a class discussion and interchange of ideas.
Ambrya wrote:
In bold, we have the material difference. Discussion that arises from education has a tendency to evolve, if you will pardon the use of the term. That's because the point of education, first and foremost--ESPECIALLY IN SCIENCE CLASSS--is not to teach kids stuff but to teach them how to inquire.
If, in the course of a biology class that was touching upon evolution, some kid raised his or her hand and said, "Well, what about the idea that God created, or at least guided the creation of, the world?" it would then be perfectly appropriate for the instructor to take a moment to say, "Well, there are people who have theories about that, but we don't address them in this class because ultimately it's an issue based upon faith rather than science, but if you are so inclined, you can research it for yourself, talk to me after class and I can give you the name of some books to look for." That would be a perfectly organic "evolution" of an educational discussion. Anyone who has a problem with a teacher answering a student's question honestly would need to have his or her head examined.
If, in the course of a biology class that was touching upon evolution, some kid raised his or her hand and said, "Well, what about the idea that God created, or at least guided the creation of, the world?" it would then be perfectly appropriate for the instructor to take a moment to say, "Well, there are people who have theories about that, but we don't address them in this class because ultimately it's an issue based upon faith rather than science, but if you are so inclined, you can research it for yourself, talk to me after class and I can give you the name of some books to look for." That would be a perfectly organic "evolution" of an educational discussion. Anyone who has a problem with a teacher answering a student's question honestly would need to have his or her head examined.
I see. How about someone who objects to a teacher adressing a controversial subject before the discussion heats up, much like they do in sex ed? Since I don't agree with ID but I don't look at it in a hostile manner, I just don't see it the way you do.
Quote:
It's an interjection, really apropos of nothing, which is basically the equivalent of the religious element sticking it's head in the door of the science class and yelling, "See, we're still here! See?! See?!" It's an interruption to the flow of education, like a speed bump, not an evolution thereof.
The only thing it can honestly hope to accomplish is to remind the children of the "believers" who are in the class and already learned about creationism in Sunday School that they aren't supposed to take what is being taught in the classroom so seriously that they "forget" the beliefs their parents would have them embrace. The other side of the coin is that it might get the children of "unbelievers" to question their parents' beliefs and therefore may have some evangelical value.
The only thing it can honestly hope to accomplish is to remind the children of the "believers" who are in the class and already learned about creationism in Sunday School that they aren't supposed to take what is being taught in the classroom so seriously that they "forget" the beliefs their parents would have them embrace. The other side of the coin is that it might get the children of "unbelievers" to question their parents' beliefs and therefore may have some evangelical value.
Curious.
From the Dover parent newsletter:
Students are told of the
theory of Intelligent Design
(ID). Isn’t ID simply
religion in disguise?
No. The theory of intelligent
design involves science
vs. science, where scientists
looking at the same data
come to different conclusions.
The theory does not
mention or discuss God,
Christianity or the Bible in
any way.
I wrote:
Again, the letter states that ID wasn't taught to the class. They were simply made aware of its existence.
You wrote:
I know, but that begs the question of WHY do these ID proponents want kids "simply made aware of its existence." I can't see a purpose for it other than to "remind" kids who are already being taught creationism elsewhere of what their "true" beliefs are supposed to be, or to make a half-hearted evangelical grab at kids who haven't been taught creationism. Either of those is, in fact, a violation of the concept of separation between church and state when dealing with a public school. But more importantly, it's the forced interjection of a non-scientific dialogue into a class that is supposed to be about science, and is therefore out of place.
Again, you're seeing forces at work that I just don't. I do see a purpose, and it's simply to state that there are other conflicting views about a scientific (Gasp! People even argued the Earth wasn't flat at one point!!) theory. It seems a pretty lame attempt at evangelism, since it isn't being made by a person that could 'make the hard sell', so to speak, but by a teacher at a secular school. If, in your worst-case scenario, a teacher reads this statement and it leads a kid to read the book and convert to a view of the world as something that was created by a higher power and not evolution, why ya care? Does that mean that they will renounce science? They'll become Amish, and pray for a cure to their ailments instead of popping pills like the rest of us? No. They'll most likely meld the ID theory to science in some fashion and continue along their merry ibuprofin-mosquito repellant-tupperware-V-8 engine way. The sky wouldn't fall.
Quote:
I really think the best solution to the issue is to create an elective course that kids can sign up for with their parents' permission, much like a Comparative Religions course, that deals with different theories on the origins of being, and make it a philosophy course, not a scientific one.
Edited, Mon Oct 17 19:14:30 2005 by Atomicflea
Quote:
Isn’t ID simply religion in disguise?
No. The theory of intelligent design involves science vs. science, where scientists looking at the same data come to different conclusions
No. The theory of intelligent design involves science vs. science, where scientists looking at the same data come to different conclusions
I've looked for the science behind ID. I haven't found any. Aside from fluff pieces declaring its existence, can anyone point me to it?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
I've looked for the science behind ID. I haven't found any. Aside from fluff pieces declaring its existence, can anyone point me to it?
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
The Dover Parent Newsletter wrote:
No. The theory of intelligent
design involves science vs. science, where scientists looking at the same data come to different conclusions.
The theory does not mention or discuss God, Christianity or the Bible in any way.
design involves science vs. science, where scientists looking at the same data come to different conclusions.
The theory does not mention or discuss God, Christianity or the Bible in any way.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Isn’t ID simply religion in disguise?
No. The theory of intelligent design involves science vs. science, where scientists looking at the same data come to different conclusions
No. The theory of intelligent design involves science vs. science, where scientists looking at the same data come to different conclusions
I've looked for the science behind ID. I haven't found any. Aside from fluff pieces declaring its existence, can anyone point me to it?
A primer.
Jophiel wrote:
The Dover Parent Newsletter wrote:
No. The theory of intelligent
design involves science vs. science, where scientists looking at the same data come to different conclusions.
The theory does not mention or discuss God, Christianity or the Bible in any way.
design involves science vs. science, where scientists looking at the same data come to different conclusions.
The theory does not mention or discuss God, Christianity or the Bible in any way.
Again, irrelevant since they don't discuss the theory. It's a short statement, and God isn't mentioned. You are all inferring that they are speaking of a Judeo-Christian God, BTW, which doesn't have to be the case.
Quote:
i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.
iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.
iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.
iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.
iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.
Am I the only one seeing circular logic here?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Yep, although it wouldn't be the first time that an experiment was skewed to a desired final result. If you can call that an experiment.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
You are all inferring that they are speaking of a Judeo-Christian God, BTW, which doesn't have to be the case.
Flea's Primer wrote:
Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution.
Edited, Mon Oct 17 19:38:00 2005 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Evolution IS substantiated.
Substantiate: To support with proof or evidence
Substantiate: To support with proof or evidence
PROVIDE THE PROOF....show me one instance that inconvertably points to evolution as being positively correct....repeat the experiment in a laboratory and make the results evident to all.
(oh...here comes the argument that evolution takes far to long to be directly observable and thus can not be repeated in an experiment.)
Quote:
So homeschool them. Or read the bible to them. Or send them to sunday school. Or send them to a private school. (Although if even a private school wants to stay accredited, its science has to meet state standards.)
SO here's a narrow minded view.....say that people of faith have no rights to the public education system if they don't wish to have pseudoscience crammed down thier childrens throats.
Take all reference to evolution out of classes...present biology as a class without the evolution.( Don't say it can't be done..it was done just fine when I was in school.)
Make Evolution an elective as well as ID at the HS level.
Some say that Christians are fanatical...what I see here is far many more being fanatical in espousing evolution.
if you take the theory of evolution out of the classroom then all the heathens will never know any theory
why do you hate us heathens?
why do you hate us heathens?
Jophiel wrote:
I'd be equally upset if they were speaking of Inuit myth or space aliens if that makes you any happier 
Strangely enough, it does. Very happy. Now, if only you spoke for every poster here, I could 'finish'!
Flea's Primer wrote:
Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution.
Jophiel wrote:
On a mass-scale the organism, yes. But individual pieces of the organism don't have to be functional or even play any role in the organism's existance so long as they aren't detracting from the organism's suvivability. There's plenty of time for flagella to develop so long as they're not detracting from survivability along the way.
My primer? BTW, I don't think that's what they were saying. It reads more like the structure as a whole has to be functional.
Edited, Mon Oct 17 19:53:05 2005 by Atomicflea
Angorak wrote:
Quote:
Evolution IS substantiated.
Substantiate: To support with proof or evidence
Substantiate: To support with proof or evidence
PROVIDE THE PROOF....show me one instance that inconvertably points to evolution as being positively correct....repeat the experiment in a laboratory and make the results evident to all.
(oh...here comes the argument that evolution takes far to long to be directly observable and thus can not be repeated in an experiment.)
Quote:
So homeschool them. Or read the bible to them. Or send them to sunday school. Or send them to a private school. (Although if even a private school wants to stay accredited, its science has to meet state standards.)
SO here's a narrow minded view.....say that people of faith have no rights to the public education system if they don't wish to have pseudoscience crammed down thier childrens throats.
Take all reference to evolution out of classes...present biology as a class without the evolution.( Don't say it can't be done..it was done just fine when I was in school.)
Make Evolution an elective as well as ID at the HS level.
Some say that Christians are fanatical...what I see here is far many more being fanatical in espousing evolution.
I was going to resort to reasoned argument, but it seems they don't apply.
My beliefs and values matter di[/i]ck to you right?
Don't ever, EVER think your values have any jurisdiction over proven evidence.
Fu[i]cking Mumbo Jumbo masquerading as a belief system!
Allah H'u Akhbar!
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'd be equally upset if they were speaking of Inuit myth or space aliens if that makes you any happier
Strangely enough, it does. Very happy. Now, if only you spoke for every poster here, I could 'finish'!
I think you can safely put me in that category as well. I dont care which faith or religion a theory is based on, if it's not based soely on a scientific basis then it should not be taught in the public school system in a science class
Quote:
if you take the theory of evolution out of the classroom then all the heathens will never know any theory
Apparently you didn't finish reading my statement....
I said make Evolution an elective subject.
I don't hate heathens..:) Most my friends are heathens and we have very engaging discussions.
but what gives you the thought that its ok to take a theory based completely all on science out of the classroom when most of the stuff learned in science is theory? Just because it is a theory that touches a sore spot on people of religious faith? That is imposing your own faith on others no matter what angle you look at it. As we supposedly live in a country with the freedom to choose what religion if any we wish to practice, then anything that is faith based of any religion and not completely based on scientific fact should be taught somewhere else. Maybe an elective course?
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'd be equally upset if they were speaking of Inuit myth or space aliens if that makes you any happier
Strangely enough, it does. Very happy. Now, if only you spoke for every poster here, I could 'finish'!
He speaks for me (at least on this point.)
[********** off you blinded ****.
I was going to resort to reasoned argument, but it seems they don't apply.
My beliefs and values matter **** to you right?
Don't ever, EVER think your values have any jurisdiction over proven evidence.
******* Mumbo Jumbo masquerading as a belief system!
Allah H'u Akhbar![/quote]
HAHAHA....You're an idiot....of course you can't resort to reasoned argument. I asked for proof and since YOU can't provide it you lash out in anger.
Why should your beliefs matter when evidently mine are meaningless to you?.
I'm not trying to impose jurisdiction over your choice to keep seeing things the way you do...
Psuedoscientific "theory" masquerading as fact...
If I were you I'd go have my bloodpressure checked...it looks like it is going into the dangerzone......lol
I was going to resort to reasoned argument, but it seems they don't apply.
My beliefs and values matter **** to you right?
Don't ever, EVER think your values have any jurisdiction over proven evidence.
******* Mumbo Jumbo masquerading as a belief system!
Allah H'u Akhbar![/quote]
HAHAHA....You're an idiot....of course you can't resort to reasoned argument. I asked for proof and since YOU can't provide it you lash out in anger.
Why should your beliefs matter when evidently mine are meaningless to you?.
I'm not trying to impose jurisdiction over your choice to keep seeing things the way you do...
Psuedoscientific "theory" masquerading as fact...
If I were you I'd go have my bloodpressure checked...it looks like it is going into the dangerzone......lol
Angorak wrote:
nothign worth quoting
Okay, who's got the can of Troll-B-Gone?
Ambrya wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'd be equally upset if they were speaking of Inuit myth or space aliens if that makes you any happier
Strangely enough, it does. Very happy. Now, if only you spoke for every poster here, I could 'finish'!
He speaks for me (at least on this point.)
Sweet release.
Quote:
but what gives you the thought that its ok to take a theory based completely all on science out of the classroom when most of the stuff learned in science is theory?
What....so what we teach in HS science such as geology and physics are all theory....:( wow....I guess our view of reality is totally screwed. How about higher mathematics...geez...oceanography...limnology...damn. Plate tectonics..crap.....I wasn't aware that all these are probably theories.
My point is that evolution is not repeatable or measureable in an experiment....these other sciences are...we can, for example, look into the nether regions of space and see....measure....observe changes. That's just one example.
Recent Visitors: 172
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (172)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The case for Intelligent Design
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC