Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The lonely ego.

"Useless, useless"

I know.

Intelligent Design means only one thing: god created everything. People who accept this notion taking us back to Dark Ages. There is no scientific discoveries, no theories, no progress, nothing. An educated person from XXI century will not even consider such a dialog.

I credit some humans for many intelligently designed products. Steve Jobs was a genius at it.

Without the good Bishop of Brixen reading the Bible carefully and tipping Leibniz off Mr Jobs was nothing.

He "didn't do that" as Mr Obarmy famously said. And didn't the empty heads howl!

There were no Dark Ages. It is a label people like you apply to a few centuries in order to close the circle of your stupid conclusions.



Don't bring lack of neutrality and objectivity onto a science thread whilst hiding under the skirts of science and using science to flag up your intellectual credentials when you have none.

What I always found interesting is by this theory that a god is needed and had created all life as the master designer however that just cheerfully shoved the question back one space as if you need a designer for the life on earth as it would not have occur on it own being too complex then who created the must more complex god/designer?

A never ending serial of ever more powerful and complex gods perhaps?

The biggest question, who created the christian god who appeared very late in human history?

God created this planet 4.5 bya, then disappeared for over 4 billion years. LOL

What a guy!

You have either the causeless effect, the steady state or a caused effect.

Looking at what has been caused through a microscope and a telescope, and assuming a caused effect because if the assumption is not made the other two need an explanation, it is obvious that trying to get your head around the cause by labeling It God and addressing it as if it is a waiter, is ludicrous.

The question you need to answer is was it necessary for mankind to invent the gods it has done and, if not, what would be happening if it hadn't?

And if we are now ready to send the wreckers in what sort of structure do we create instead? A vacant lot being the only other choice. The one chosen I suppose for those structures in out of the way places but not for those we are seeing in every village, town and city we are being shown on Eurosport's brilliant coverage of the Tour de France.

Do not forget that the christian god did not show up until humans had been around for 200 thousands years or so either.

I don't think we need reminding not to forget that Bill. Although it might have been two million years. Or four. What's two million years between experts?

What makes you think that posters on this thread need such advice?

Animals had to evolve enough to be human enough to question. After that it was still a very long time, almost to the present, before the concept of a Christian-type god was considered. Why would a loving or vengeful god wait so long to reveal him/her/itself?

I have explained that ed. It was only when animals became human enough to question that they felt impelled to invent gods.

Even your expression "a very long time" is anthropomorphic. The period to which you refer is a sparrow-fart, at best, in the realm of Time: as Jesus explained in, I think, Luke. Thereby dismissing all mundane gods to oblivion in the contemplation of the One God in the infinite Realm of Time and, in so doing, invented Science as we know it. Or some of us at least. And everything else we are familiar with.

The Cross is the point of departure for our world; an epochal event of the first magnitude. No genuine scientist would stand in public opposition to religion whatever his private thoughts about the inconveniences it presses upon him.

How we twist events to suit our personal ideologies. You get no cigar spendi. Not even a packet of papers and a sack of Bull Durham.

Speaking of Bull Durham and the sack, I just watched the movie of the same name for about the 4th time. Obviously, I love that movie.

That was on local TV a few days back, but at a time I don't usually watch.

You nicked your image from an ad? Sheesh!!

You also failed to address my post. Snorts don't count. There was no ideology in what I said. It was firmly set in reality about which you lot blather a lot.

Phillip Wylie's take on the Jesus myth is that he represents a step of evolution, a move from the old law to the new law. But, evolution is not a certain step up a ladder. Because some change, it is not certain to affect all in a species. The change affected enough people to take hold among segments of population but even among many Christians the old law has not been supplanted. A noble move that may not in the end prevail.

In almost every post in which I have referred to the success of Christianity, a goodly number, I have added "so far", or words to that effect. It's eventual failure I have never ruled out.

I think it logical that anti-Christians hope for such a catastrophe because from an evolutionary point of view that is the only thing which will prove them right and them being right is more important than a return to barbarism.