Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@spendius,

By projecting your own agenda to include atheists you are (in your fantasies anyway) assuming the role of puppetmaster over non puppets. However, rejection of mythology is no hope that said mythology will succeed or fail but recognition for what it is. The liberalism of the Jesus message is quite appealing when compared with the old law. It is much more in line with my thought than the hide-bound conservatism that keeps us at war and getting assaulted over women's rights and welfare to the poor and the like. It is too soon in my view to know which will ultimately prevail. Meantime we are running short on time and options, I think.

0 Replies

bump

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

intelligent design does not necessarily have to be of a religious origin. Intervention by an ET with incomprehensible intelligence would qualify it to be considered a God like entity, composed by man , to reconcile his/her own existence. this does not discount any evolutionary concepts but rather suggests a little genetic engineering to an already evolving species could put that species " on a road less traveled."

2 Replies

@profy2diddy,

Quote:

Intervention by an ET with incomprehensible intelligence would qualify it to be considered a God like entity, composed by man , to reconcile his/her own existence. this does not discount any evolutionary concepts but rather suggests a little genetic engineering to an already evolving species could put that species " on a road less traveled."

You do not see the logical problem with theory as who created the ET with incomprehensible intelligence ?

You are just moving the problem back on step with no gains by doing so.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

On the 5th of July I noticed a surprising increase in the viewing figures for this thread. So I made a note of them.

On that date Replies stood at 20,406 and Views at 431,331. The latter is what surprised me.

Three weeks later they were 2o,421 and 434,383.

Now they are 20,423 and 441,639. Discounting the prof's post, which doesn't mean anything, and Bill's which only confirms that it doesn't, one might surmise that Replies remain at 20,421 whilst Views have increased by 7,256.

This thread, prof, in concerned with purely practical matters of the mundane sort and considered scientifically. Flying kites belongs on the philosophy forum.

The question at issue is whether a materialist, scientific agenda can successfully be applied to western society. It is no good applying one just in order to discover that it can't.

Intelligent Design theory is scientific. It exists in the realm where the objects of its study can not be seen with a microscope or a telescope or boiled up in a still and the fractions measured off in a jug. And it doesn't aim at establishing a lucrative patent. It already has that. And all its funds, barring a few exceptions in the old days, were voluntarily contributed.

Has anybody an explanation for our astonishing viewing figures? On July 5 I thought the thread was dead. Incorrectly.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I trust the prof will not get the impression that the other 20,422 Replies were all meaningful because a lot of them were not.

0 Replies

@profy2diddy,

profy2diddy wrote:

intelligent design does not necessarily have to be of a religious origin.

I agree, it's not necessarily of religions origin, but it almost always is of religious origin.

But no matter which origin you choose to assign as the intelligence behind the idea of Intelligent Design, there is no indication within the structure of biology that anything other than natural processes are involved or necessary in the biosphere of Earth. Not only has the natural process of evolution been theorized as a mechanism for what we see, but it's also been identified as a perfect match to all the evidence. All evidence supports and no evidence conflicts.

The idea of Intelligent Design is completely unnecessary as a mechanism and adds an additional layer of complexity to the question. It fails as an adequate solution on every level.

1 Reply

In addition to which, every suggested example of intelligent design has been shown to fail to meet its two tests--no evolutionary predecessors and irreducible complexity. All have predecessors and all function in some way before all the component parts join together. As a hypothesis, ID has not proved to be a good one.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

ID requires faith, and nothing else!

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

All evidence supports and no evidence conflicts.

That is not true. All forms of socially conditioned morality stand in direct opposition to the mechanisms proposed for evolution and human beings belong with the evolutionary chain.

The other organisms may well be subject to such mechanisms at a simplified level but none of them have any concern with the notion of intelligent design and are therefore irrelevant to the concept.

And if human beings revert to the status evolution theory necessarily assigns them to they will cease to be concerned with ID as well.

Not all of us are frightened of adding an additional layer of complexity to the question but it is easy to appreciate why ros might be.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Haven't you studied anything about evolution and nature?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

ID requires faith, and nothing else!

And that is untrue as well. It is possible to consider ID dispassionately and to leave aside all emotionally distorted opinions deriving from the operations of the fly zipper.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You are the one using emotion to believe in ID. Think rational-logical-common sense, and not with emotion!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

spendi, Haven't you studied anything about evolution and nature?

Are half-assed questions of that nature all you can come up with. Does it not bore you to be flogging the same line for 50 odd years?

ID runs through the mental operations of the human race as DNA does in the meat that allows them to take place.

How can you refute that when objectively considering the role of religion in societies past and present? It is a question of mentally modifying our behaviour in our best interests. And the evolutionist can hardly say that Christianity has not been a successful modification. So far at least.

The theologian is the supreme scientist.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You are the one using emotion to believe in ID. Think rational-logical-common sense, and not with emotion!

Like Spock do you mean? I don't "believe" in ID you silly moocow.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

How can you refute that when objectively considering the role of religion in societies past and present? It is a question of mentally modifying our behaviour in our best interests. And the evolutionist can hardly say that Christianity has not been a successful modification. So far at least.

Whether religion thinking is part of the human race DNA at least to a degree or not it still irrational silliness that should be label as such.

The very fact that we have the freedom to question such silliness is proof enough that we just do not need to throw our hands up when people try to sell a theory base on such thinking.

As religion thinking had interfere with our understanding of the universe and ourselves to that degree it is a danger to all of us.

Lighting rods when they first came out was not place on some churches due to the thinking that where and when lightings hit was god will and should not be interfere with.

0 Replies

One of the things so many opponents of "intelligent design" disregard (and for decent reasons, at times) is that it is possible there is a GOD...

...and that the GOD decided to "design" the movement of nature from totally inorganic to what now exists (and will exist)...

...exactly the way we are discovering that it has occurred.

But it is something that ought to be considered...at least by qualification.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

One of the things so many opponents of "intelligent design" disregard (and for decent reasons, at times) is that it is possible there is a GOD...

An it possible that there is a tooth fairy and both god or gods and the tooth fairy have the same level of evidence for them IE zero.

Until and if there is some scientific evidence for there being a god or gods then intelligent design can not be consider under the rules of science.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

One of the things so many opponents of "intelligent design" disregard (and for decent reasons, at times) is that it is possible there is a GOD...

...and that the GOD decided to "design" the movement of nature from totally inorganic to what now exists (and will exist)...

...exactly the way we are discovering that it has occurred.

But it is something that ought to be considered...at least by qualification.

I hope nobody thinks I am considering such a thing. It is a twee self-indulgence of anti-IDers in order to provide themselves with an endless series of sitting ducks to pander to their pride at having potted. (see Bill's last post--I wonder how many times he has got that tripe off his chest.)

It would never occur to me to consider the existence or non-existence of an inscrutable concept such as God.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Until and if there is some scientific evidence for there being a god or gods then intelligent design can not be consider under the rules of science.

What's the scientific evidence that a piece of fabric dyed red, white and blue with stars and stripes symbols is anything else other than a piece of fabric dyed red, white and blue with stars and stripes symbols?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know