Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Science does not care that there are no gods. It is not trying to establish that even. That many science minded folks are atheists is, in my view, because there is no reason to incorporate such notions into their studies. If there was one whit of evidence, that would immediately change. When people get like Frank, where they have to force the issue into the room, with no cause or evidence, he ultimately gets the cold shoulder. He can take over every thread remotely close to the topic from now until the site closes and it will not change.

Nope...no jerkin' off.



Have you? And if you had not been...what?




You are quite right. I was not able to contain my anger...and often lashed out. I realized that was wrong...that I was being a coward. I knew that I would never do that in a face to face confrontation...so I was being a coward.

I will not do that again. No "anger management classes"...just some time to consider and to grow up was what I needed...and I am pleased I was able to make progress. No big deal...but I am still pleased.

You do go "ballistic" Farmerman...and you grow increasingly and needlessly rude. That is your right...do it if it meets some need. In any case, I never claimed anything "counter to evidence" and I defy you to present anything of that sort right here for discussion.

Other than that, I intend to treat you respectfully...and to present my comments where I think them appropriate...as any of the members of A2K should do.

ID IS A RELIGIOUS POSTULATE. That does not mean it is wrong...and science is doing what science should do...to study the evidence and try to tell us how whatever happened happened. But to go from what science is discovering to "there cannot be any gods" (or anything similar) is a step in the direction of the theists.

I will fight it. Do what you will.

So far, as far as all the thousands of science disciplines involved directly with life ascending, NO evidence has turned up that deviates from the sequence of conclusions that have been growing like weeds ever since DArwin.

I, for one, would LOVE to be the guy who finds a fossil with "Let there be light" on its carapace. Id be up for a Nobel Prize. and I would be writing a billion grant proposals for followup work.

Fame and fortune.

All the ID "Scientists" have yet to actually define a means by which to conduct their studies for their searches for "Intelligence in the Universe". They havent even been able to formulate a decent question to ask. Maybe they need some priests to help. Priests arent doing anything vital.

Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, men of reasonable intelligence and interest in science, would disagree with you, Edgar.

I'm done. IDers and the ilk will get no more of my time.

Frank appears to be speaking for others here. His assertions re: the above named folks is baseless.

Einstein, in his "God dont throw dice" phrase, actually shows how little Einstein understands because it appears from (Franks own admission re: ID), a god DOES play dice.

The progressions of evolution appear to follow the vagaries of the earths emnvironment. Environmental changes result in what appears to be mere selective opportunistic adaptation (as Krumple said) of organisms, but most likely, it resulted in the EXTINCTION of most forms of life. This has happened so often, that, according to the fossil record's ability to record the progression of life, over 99.9999 % of life has become extinct based simply upon rules that have been decoded several decades ago.

maybe you confuse direct connfrotation on an issue as rudeness, then I have to admit (by your definition) that I can be rude. I dont think I am any more rude than anyone else on this thread. Ive maybe gone ballistic but I dont think Ive gotten personally involved.
If you dont like being called wrong, perhaps you should modify your statements.

Really Frank? You're not just tossing names around, are you?

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

-- Carl Sagan.

Einstein, Hawking and Sagan all claim to be agnostics.

I'll furnish links after golf. (Gonna be a wet round!)

Maybe I've got some right at hand:


“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.


In his book on Stephen Hawking, “Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, Henry F. Schaefer III, writes:
Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.


In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Carl Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

They acknowledge they do not know...which is what I acknowledge.

I certainly am not saying any god that might exist has to be like the gods humans have imagined through the years. But there might be a god...and the god might have intelligently designed what we are the way we are.

In fact, there might be a god that designed and implemented the entire of existence just a minute (of our supposed time) ago...complete with all the supposed memories.

No real way of knowing.

Science IS showing us how evolution occurred...and anyone not realizing that it is an exhaustive undertaking being conducted by dedicated people is a fool. But to suppose that because we are finding out what we are finding out somehow means there cannot be a god involved...is just as illogical.

That is my point.

SCience really doesnt say that (as Edgar correctly presented). The only group that seems to be overly concered about the entire position is the IDers who , under their science and menu advisors, namely the Discovery Institute, announced the big "Search for Intelligence in the Universe". This announcement is now about 10 years old and, to date, has nothing to report. You seem to ignore the fact that atheists who are scientists really dont give a rats ass since nothing seems to interfere with research that would assault the implied naturalism of the research itself. They dont spend any time either , in the search for phlogiston or krakens. (The several batches of "cryptozoologists" arent really scientists , they are entertainers out on larks as they search for chupacabras and yetis)

Those who claim that "we atheists are the ones ******* with science" seem to be the same guys who dont want anyone to realize that they are convinced of the existence a "genesis like world"

Seems to me that I dont have to expound upon my position re: being "without gods in my work" as much as you need to underpin your statement of the "possibility that gods exist".

If I trip over something that is convincingly pro-deity, I would report it because itd make me famous and would change the scientific world. (Noone is really holding their breaths on this eventuality).

You seem to dwell in the minutae of statistics. In fact your position of doubt commands no position of statistical inference at all. Hence my statement that you are somehow in denial .

ALL I wish you would admit is that ID "hypothesis" is no science at all, it is religion in a lab coat.

Do you agree, fm, that all the processes that take place within a human body/mind/brain are physical or chemical and that there are no possible exceptions?

But the conditions under which the "something" works or does not work need to be considered.

There are two ways you could address the thing...

Claiming that Jehovah or Odin created the universe in seven days starting 6000 years ago is religion.

Claiming that there are a certain number of characteristics of living organisms which logically cannot be construed as having arisen via evolution and which, taken as a whole, indicate that our living world was designed is another question. THAT is science and trying to claim otherwise is dishonest.

"Vital" for what? You're back to your foolish circularities fm. If you are defining what "vital" means it is easy, as Mr Jennings said, to exclude priests if that is what you wish to do.

In what respect are scientists doing anything vital?

However, EB wrote of evidence, which exactly defines Sagan's position. So you had no good reason to throw Sagan up in his face. Of course, i know how important it is for you to preen yourself on the excellence off your understanding, so have fun.

This reduces the question to a superstitious crap shoot. Was it all created in the last minute, or wait, was it that last minute counting from now, wait, wait, was it just now? Really, that's incredibly silly even by your already low, low standards. You're the most religious agnostic i've ever heard of. If "god" created it all just a minute ago, complete with memories, was that just for you? Was that just your memories? Are the rest of us just figments of your imagination? Ever read The Mysterious Stranger, Frank, by Samuel Clemens?

They might say they don't give a rat's arse but they do don't they? Which culture, outside of the Christian, provided labs in which the supposedly disinterested research is taking place. And scientists are not always engaged in research. The simple fact that there is a need to declare that they don't give a rat's arse signifies that they actually do give a rat's arse.

Your remark is, once again, circular because your "research" is that which is conducted when not giving a rat's arse about ID.

In fact "ass" is a tender euphemism and results from your Christian sensibilities. "Nipsy" is more scientific. Or "rectal orifice". And the latter has an alliterative style and avoids cliche.

And why a rat? Why not a giraffe's arse? Or a sheep's arse. Is there a hierarchy of arses in which the rat is at the bottom? If there is it suggests that giraffe and sheep arses are more significant to them than those of rats.

The only reason I can think of why scientists care what IDers think is out of self defense. At every juncture there they are, like wet sand, seeking a way to ooze in and smother the scientific method.

What's that all about ed?

That's an awesome book by the way. I loved it.