6
   

A question about intelligent design

 
 
Cyracuz
 
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 12:48 pm
The way I understand it, "intelligent design theory" was formed to circumvent laws that prohibit state endorsment of religion, in essence, as an attempt to get creationism into schools on equal ground with scientific theories.

My question then becomes, if creationists feel the need to attempt to dress up their religious superstitions to make them look like science, isn't it then time for them to admit to themselves that what they believe in is perhaps unfounded in reason and logic?
Especially when their attempts are rejected by the makers and developers of the theories they try to imitate.
The very act of inventing ID seems to me to be admitting that creationism is a dead end...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 4,511 • Replies: 54
No top replies

 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 12:53 pm
@Cyracuz,
No one including its proponents has ever claimed that creationism is based on reason or logic.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 12:56 pm
@engineer,
Good point, engineer. In fact ID proponents are attempting to change the definition of science to include the supernatural.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 01:07 pm
@wandeljw,
So, in short, having failed to turn religion into science they now seek to turn science into religion?

These people are scary...
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 04:54 pm
@Cyracuz,
If a scientist looses his scepticism and impartiality in studying with intensive testing before making their results public, it could turn into a religion. No one can concoct a theory and magically make it a fact, you can use facts to support a valid theory.

Halloween is coming up and I think a fantastic costume would be an IDiot -- it should be easy to find a Court Jester outfit.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 08:16 am
@Lightwizard,
That's true, but if the scientist was interested in maintaining his reputation he would not present his failed scientific idea as science...

And yea, I can't think of a more scary creature at the moment that an IDiot, as you call them.. Smile Perfect for halloween..
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 08:27 am
@Cyracuz,
Michael Behe, as much as a scientist as he only claims to be, I don't believe is worried about his reputation with the brain washed, religious fundamentalists. That he is laughed at behind his back by actual scientists just comes with the territory.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 05:31 pm
Hmm... this thread got off all wrong... I was hoping we'd get some people who hold to ID to come by and add their take on it.
But now the whole thread just looks like bait with a bunch of us lying in ambush.. :O
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 05:42 pm
@Cyracuz,
They usually avoid threads like this, preferring to invade serious science threads instead.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 07:58 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
My question then becomes, if creationists feel the need to attempt to dress up their religious superstitions to make them look like science, isn't it then time for them to admit to themselves that what they believe in is perhaps unfounded in reason and logic?

I think the reason that won't happen is because the ID community is composed of two camps, those who know they are just cobbling together some pseudoscientific babble to squeeze into the political cracks, and those who actually believe their own bullshit.

True believers are an almost perfect shield against any inconveniences resulting from reality.
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 08:03 am
@Cyracuz,
There's been an ongoing discussion in Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion? with your question at their core, both by wandeljw, which are active almost on a daily basis, and began about four years ago. This question was posted in the religious category. I think that also won't especially appeal to IDers -- most of them have collected themselves around The Discovery Institute and some satellite blogs, so if they come aboard A2K, it's to troll and spread around poorly baited bullshit. There's only one member still arguing like they might believe in ID, but in reality is an aging sports jock and would really rather bet on the scoring of the NFL.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 01:35 pm
@Lightwizard,
Correction -- the ID Theory or Religion has gone quiet since Oct. 4th. It doesn't look like anybody wants to pick up the ball.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 02:33 pm
@rosborne979,
Well, I'll bite (there's been so much interest in vampires lately anyway).

I think your two camps are joined at the tent.

Criticizing, at least without humor, an adult for believing in a supernatural, often materialistic concept rather than truly spiritual, God is tantamount to criticizing a five year old for still believing in Santa Claus (again, a belief bound in materialism because the five year old is getting gifts). There's an unseemliness involved in that criticism even if scientific logic and reason has piled on a huge burden of proof to understand only by the power of the individual, educated intellect, and there are still those who can't get it. A person's intellect is a gift of genealogy and cultured by self-improvement, good social interactions, and often without the ideal environment.

If ID makes them comfortable or they can intellectually form an conciliatory concept with their religious faith, it's there own life. What I cannot buy is the manipulative, rather nutty concoction of the likes of Discovery Institute and Of Pandas and People where there is no proof for other than what is manufactured -- they are doing exactly what they accuse scientists of doing. ID fits into theism better than any of those movements* bound by a conspiracy theory that scientists are trying to "kill God." That some power we are not capable yet of understanding created the natural Universe -- Aristotle's Great Mover. That most of us are still trapped in a belief that this power is in any way concerned with our individual wants and needs is still going to be necessary throughout this century at least, even if it's the height of human egoism.

* can be regarded as bowel movement once one realizes they are talking out of their ass -- those are the IDiots
0 Replies
 
bobxxxx
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 06:58 pm
@Cyracuz,
"intelligent design theory"

"Intelligent design" means "The Magic Man Did It."

Since magic is not a scientific theory, it would be incorrect to say "intelligent design theory". It's better to call it "intelligent design magical creation".

The words "intelligent design" are being used to dumb down science education. When creationist morons try to do this, they are no better than terrorists and they should be treated like terrorists. If it was up to me these theocratic idiots would be put in prison for treason.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 07:48 pm
@bobxxxx,
bobxxxx wrote:
The words "intelligent design" are being used to dumb down science education. When creationist morons try to do this, they are no better than terrorists and they should be treated like terrorists. If it was up to me these theocratic idiots would be put in prison for treason.

But how do you really feel? Don't beat around the bush.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 08:51 pm
@bobxxxx,
I started another thread after thinking about this a little bit.

If we look at our evolution backwards, we will see a string of events, each being crucial to the next. Life could not have evolved unless the conditions for supporting life on this planed had been met. Humans couldn't have existed unless an amoeba suddenly was born somewhere in the murky waters of pre-history.

And so, when everything seems to point in our direction it is perhaps easy to see this as evidence that there was some grand design behind it; some purpose of a great intelligence that humans are the fullfillment of.

But in my opinion that is placing too much importance on the human creature. We are creatures that evolved because the oportunity was present. Had circumstances been different something entirely different may well have taken place.

But thinking in these terms almost makes it understandable how some people believe in intelligent design theory. It doesn't have to do with an inferior intellect. It has to do with an inflated sense of self Wink
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 09:11 am
@Cyracuz,
The human race found solace from all the turmoil in the world by referring to other living things as "dumb animals." Now we are finding out that a lot of animals are not as dumb as we thought and that even plants can be pretty smart, especially in the survival aspect. The plants popping up and blooming on a bed of lava at Kiluea -- pretty smart. We have to form a communion with all living things and that includes a sense of wonder in all the natural forms including inorganic, and the energy present not just here on Earth but in the entire Universe.

I always go back to what Mencken stated about religion (it's been my signature line in the past):

The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him a ride.

And:

It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the board of a corporation that is losing money.

The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent -- slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.
-- H L Mencken, Treatise on the Gods

(Slavery, BTW, is quite okay with Yahweh in the Old Testament).

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 09:19 am
Speaking of plant intelligence, I had to rescue my fig tree from some other trees. I had allowed that portion along the back fence to grow wild, to keep the people from the other subdivision off of my property. Certain trees popped up next to the fig and grew their leaves in a pattern that fit tightly over the fig leaves to deprive them of sun. They were intent on displacing that tree, totally.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 09:29 am
@edgarblythe,
I hate figs, especially their idolization in the Bible, particularly their leaves being used as modesty cover-ups for Adam & Eve. So quaint, so sweet and mushy.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 09:31 am
(Okay, I know I have a bank of fig trees at the entrance to my manor on FarmVille -- Facebook).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A question about intelligent design
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2019 at 10:21:32