Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Yeah--I know ed.

How can a simple question be horseshit? The answer might be but not the question.

This one deserves repeating.

The proposition that there may be a god has absolutely no relevance to the proposition that there was any "intelligent design" of life forms on earth. Scientists who believe in a deity, and there are many, simply assume that the deity created the cosmos, and the interaction of matter and energy according to the naturalistic laws of the universe gave rise to life on earth, and to its eventual complexity. After all, there may be fairies, pixies and elves, too, but that would not constitute evidence that there is any such thing as magic.

The IDiots have irreducible complexity as their only scientific argument. They have failed miserably time and again to describe an organ or an organism which is irreducibly complex. The genetic and fossil records are against them. William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy, which is pure anthropomorphism, but the argument is far older than that. Cicero advanced it more than 2000 years ago using a sundial in his version of the analogy. Basically, its the simple-minded and childish assumption that as man creates things, all things must therefore be created. It ignores process.

Whether or not there were a deity would have no bearing on the contention that life had been "intelligently designed."

As I had said even as a young child I knew the problem with the watchmaker analogy as where did the watchmaker come from?

I had a picture of an endless serial of ever more powerful and complex gods without end one behind the other.

Well stated; scientific evidence proves most things religious as hokus pokus. They require circular thinking and the tossing of logic to believe they have a god.

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...then there is the possibility of intelligent design.

The only way I can see to assert there is no possibility of intelligent design...is to first assert there is no possibility of a GOD.

If anyone can see a way reasonably to assert there is no possibility of intelligent design without first asserting there is no GOD...please explain it.

There are possibilities and there are possibilities. You might be made of spaghetti, Frank and I could come up with some tests to prove you weren't and you could say 'I'm made of very special spaghetti that doesn't test positive to your tests.'

At this point I think it's time for you to come up with an objective test that provides at least some proof that you are made of spaghetti, and that god exists. If we can detect a neutrino god should be easy, unless of course god has less impact on the universe than a neutrino - if that were so then intelligent design is probably out of its reach.

So offer some testable proof or stop playing your pointless game.

I am not playing a game.

Specify what you want me to offer "testable proof: of?????

That goes to the core of the ID bullsh*t. No one is obliged to disprove that any organ or organism was "intelligently designed." Those who make such an assertion have the burden of proving it. So far, the IDiots have proven exactly nothing. The alleged possibilities are meaningless in the face of that lack of evidence.

Why should he offer testable proof? What has caused you to demand that of him when there are others biologically like you who do not? That the others are fools is not an answer. They can just as easily say that you are the fool for making such a ridiculous demand when you know there is no possibility of anybody ever providing objective proof of the existence, or otherwise, of God.

Do you have any proof that western civilisation would exist in the absence of the general belief in the Christian God and the enactment of the revealed wisdom promulgated in His name.

Is it not the case that your rejection of certain carefully chosen aspects of that revealed wisdom is the source of your rejection of the Christian God? And if you are allowed to indulge your personal needs in that way you grant permission to others to choose to reject certain aspects of the revealed wisdom which suit their own personal needs and you are thus promoting general promiscuity. Which is what the "game" is trying to avoid.

What is your proof that a "pointless game" is in operation? Is it not the case that western civilisation is also a "pointless game" if your contention is valid? It is an outcome of the game and just as there is no possibility of proving that the Christian God exists there is no possibility of you proving that western civilisation is not totally dependent on the acceptance of the existence of the Christian God and the moralities of the revealed wisdom.

All you have done is claim you are pointless and thus are promoting nihilism.

What do you suggest we adopt from now on which will avoid the powerful becoming the sole authority in all things? There is no neutral ground.

ID is a heresy.

The thread seems to have decided to have another turn on the roundabout. For example--



How many times have we heard that circular drivel. All organs and organisms are irreducibly complex. That some people think they have been reduced to the satisfaction of their own technical expertise implies that there is no need for any further study of them and that any study that does take place is a waste of time. An anti-scientific proposition.

How is it possible to describe an irreducibly complex object? Setanta's statement is incoherent. If an organ or an organism is described, as a flagella was likened to a foot pump at Dover, then it is no longer irreducibly complex. That he uses the word "miserably", when it is not needed, is proof he is messing with our heads and it betrays his unscientific approach. His emotions are engaged as is the case with others.

After all the intelligently reasoned arguments for and against a god's existence and after all the passionate statements for agnosticism, atheism and deism, one point remains unassailable. At some instant in human existence, the first person or persons to think of it said, without evidence, "There is a god. I challenge you to prove otherwise." People fell for it and we have been arguing ever since. You don't have to guess these voices were of a primitive time, when the actions of nature were seen from an evolving intelligence's eyes. Some were quick to become the first priests, as an avenue to power, claiming knowledge and abilities beyond the kin of of Joe Sharpstick-for-hunting-and-fighting. What we have today is the emotional and refined ignorance, kept alive for the same kind of reasons.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

We want an alternative ed.

Mr Sagan was bamboozled by the contemplation of his own excellence and his perception that that those who reject Christian morality were leaderless and a good living was on offer to anyone who was willing to step into the breach.

What do we get when we are unbamboozled? Catatonia?

Like Dawkins he enjoyed 3 wives.

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." Carl Sagan.

Leave it to spendi to clarify an issue.

Um, either you are stupid, which I've never suspected, or you've just given me proof you are playing a game.

I am not stupid...and you were NOT clear as to what you wanted me to furnish "proof" of.

Read your own post.

Tell me what you want me to prove.

You certainly cannot be asking me to “prove” that I am made of spaghetti, because I have NEVER asserted that I am.

You certainly cannot be asking me to “prove” there is a GOD, because I have NEVER asserted that there is one.

So…what are you asking me to prove?

There is no game being played here, Hingehead. I am merely trying to understand what you are asking me.

This sentence is worth repeating.


Ain't that the (god-awful) truth!

But wouldn't a materialist have to say that the power was given to the charlatan voluntarily for a purely selfish reason and there would be no justification for wanting it back as long as the reason existed. It would revert back as soon as the reason vanished assuming all bridges hadn't been burned.

And Mr Sagan is careful not to define "charlatan". It will likely be a category he feels he is not a part of and expects his readers to be of a like mind. So that they can all cosy up under the Honesty umbrella.

Many a charlatan has brought solace and joy to a fading widow of some fortune. And to people lost in confusion.

Mailer's general sense of the word seems to me to be anybody who knocks on your door unasked with a view to doing you some good.

Mr Sagan is a self-appointed preacher in inkslinging mode. With a few sermons when the fee was adequate. And the accommodations. Recognising no authority but his own brain cells.

Isn't Media run by charlatans? Does anybody want the power we have given them back? Besides me I mean. I would abolish Media. It's defunct.

OK Frank

I want you to prove there is a God - you keep saying 'if it's possible there is a God' but like you being made of spaghetti it's possible but there is absolutely no evidence for it so provide some or get off the pot.

Hingehead...why on earth would I try to "prove there is a GOD?"

I have NEVER suggested there is a GOD in existence. I have never even said it is possible there is a GOD.

I have absolutely no idea if there is a GOD involved in the REALITY of existence.

My comment was: IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design. My point was that the only reasonable way (I could see) to assert or intimate there is no possibility of intelligent design...is to first assert or intimate there is no possibility of a GOD.

The "or get off the pot" remark is beneath you.

Whatever the above "thinking" happen to be the one sure thing it is not is the basis of a scientific theory.