Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have never even said it is possible there is a GOD.

Quote:

My comment was: IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Now you're just starting to sound weird.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Quote:
I have never even said it is possible there is a GOD.

Quote:
My comment was: IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Now you're just starting to sound weird.

There is nothing weird about what I am saying, Hingehead.

I am not saying there is a GOD.

I am not saying there is the possibility of a GOD.

I am saying that IF there is a possibility of a GOD...then there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Essentially, I am saying it is not logical to suggest that intelligent design is impossible (which seems to be inferred in the comments of some posters)...unless you are willing to suggest that the existence of a GOD...IS IMPOSSIBLE.

If you think differently on that, I would love to hear it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
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.

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

Two questions for you, Bill:

Is there a GOD as part of the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a GOD as part of the REALITY of existence a possibility or an impossibility?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Is there a GOD as part of the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a GOD as part of the REALITY of existence a possibility or an impossibility?

Once more unless you can design tests that there is a god or not and come up with some scientific proof by those tests of there being a god you can not have a god being the foundation of any scientific theory.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Is there a GOD as part of the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a GOD as part of the REALITY of existence a possibility or an impossibility?

Once more unless you can design tests that there is a god or not and come up with some scientific proof by those tests of there being a god you can not have a god being the foundation of any scientific theory.

I take it that you are not going to answer the questions...and I don't blame you. It would be like exercising on quicksand.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The subject of this thread is Intelligent design a scientific theory or not and the answer is hell no for the reasons given.

Can you prove a negative such as there is not a god or the tooth fairy for that matter also hell no however that does not mean that you can use either a god or the tooth fairy as the foundation of a scientific theory without scientific proof that they exist.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

The subject of this thread is Intelligent design a scientific theory or not and the answer is hell no for the reasons given.

The subject of this thread is "Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?"

I have made a comment (observation) pertinent to that question...and you seem to be bothered b y the fact that I made that comment and/or observation.

Tough!

Quote:

Can you prove a negative such as there is not a god or the tooth fairy for that matter also hell no however that does not mean that you can use either a god or the tooth fairy as the foundation of a scientific theory without scientific proof that they exist.

Why are you asking this of me?

I am not proposing any scientific theories...and to be completely honest with you, if I were, I doubt I would be proposing them to you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Whatever intelligent design is or is not it is not a scientific theory unless and until there is at the very least scientific proof of some god existing and it does not belong in any public school science course.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Whatever intelligent design is or is not it is not a scientific theory unless and until there is at the very least scientific proof of some god existing and it does not belong in any public school science course.

Is that something you are proposing as a law...or is it a revelation from some GOD?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Never mind that tooth fairy baby talk Bill. You have been getting away with that long enough simply by imagining you are addressing mentally subnormal people which is understandable seeing as how you are so ******* exceptional.

Give it a rest eh and grow up.

Descartes said animals were machines and scientists don't come much more famous than him. La Mettrie said that as humans are animals they must be machines as well. He got sentenced to death which was probably carried out. Food poisoning at the table of Frederick the Great. A supposed safe haven. Fred liked JO. And he was born 60 years after Descartes died with the so called Enlightenment in full swing.

Are you, and the rest of us machines? It is only some form of intelligent design which gets us off the hook. On the hook and Zimmerman is only guilty of what a fox is when taking a chicken.

What form the intelligent design takes is merely a matter of politics. And machines don't do politics.

Even anti-IDers would likely be relieved if you ceased addressing us as infants with the brilliant insights you had at 8.

There is such a thing as a scientific theory of social organisation. (PMC--psychologically modified crops so to say).

One might speculate that the NSA's project has become necessary since confession went out of fashion. A priest may well be sworn to secrecy but that doesn't include a monthly report to the Bishop on the way things were drifting on his patch. No names--no pack drill. Just send an Inspector with a tin hat.

Just as a Bishop controls a number of priests, to some extent at least, an Archbishop, a Big City man, has Bishops reporting to him and he in his turn submits to the Vatican his report about the way things were drifting on his patch. The drift being towards or away from return to animality but in a species with exceptional cunning and holding all the aces. Factoring in such things as a good harvest or famines.

I presume you can see the point without me having to go into the sordid details.

One things is for sure as a scientific fact though--they are too smart for you. They are probably pleased that you don't think so. It makes you easier to deal with.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Whatever intelligent design is or is not it is not a scientific theory unless and until there is at the very least scientific proof of some god existing and it does not belong in any public school science cour

And equally, some scientific proof is needed of God not existing before atheist teachers are allowed to explain evolution to them. Unless an atheist nation is required.

We might get a good idea of how such teachers will explain evolution to them from this thread and others like it. Teachers are not intellectuals. Intellectuals are the very last thing educational establishments need. Same for business corporations allowing there is a difference outside of the mood music.

Think of the interesting questions the bright ones will ask their Mums and Dads. I thought of a few but didn't dare ask.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You wrote,

Quote:

some scientific proof is needed of God not existing before atheist teachers are allowed to explain evolution to them.

Do you understand anything about proving negatives? I think not.

It's obvious you have no clue about logic.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

No answers eh? Again.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:
some scientific proof is needed of God not existing before atheist teachers are allowed to explain evolution to them.

Do you understand anything about proving negatives? I think not.

It's obvious you have no clue about logic.

Are you of the erroneous "you cannot prove a negative" school, ci?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don't discuss anything with you, Frank. It's a waste of time - for me. Sorry.

Oh, and quit rewording what I post.

1 Reply

I am of the erroneous "I don't have to disprove delusions" to be on the correct side of the question.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't discuss anything with you, Frank. It's a waste of time - for me. Sorry.

Oh, and quit rewording what I post.

Thank you for discussing this with me, ci.

And I did not reword anything that you posted. I asked you a question about what you wrote. There is a difference. Maybe someone can explain it to you.

0 Replies

TO EVERYONE EXCEPT ci.

There are people who suppose...or who assert...that one cannot prove a negative.

That is an absurdity.

Just sayin'!

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

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.

While I believe it's true that priests and shamen were probably quick to exploit the effects of faith and religion on the population I don't think they created it with that intention. In a primitive world where there is no knowledge about how nature really works, it's actually logical to assume that Gods or mystical properties exist. So I think, surprisingly, religion developed out of a human instinct to try to understand things and figure out how they worked (almost a primitive science).

It's interesting to note that as science evolved it never had to take up the challenge of disproving a God. All it did was to start offering different explanations for how things actually work in nature and the basic pillars of religion (the lack of other explanations) began to collapse on their own merely in the light of better knowledge.

The problem today is that too many people still don't have the necessary knowledge to counterbalance the flim-flam. If they did they would see through it immediately (assuming they haven't been brainwashed during childhood already). This is why organizations like the Discovery Institute are so anxious to undermine science and science education. Knowledge and education are dangerous to their ideas, just as they have been since primitive times. Their beliefs are inherently undermined by the knowledge of alternate explanations which are proven and which don't require the supernatural.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Your scenario and mine are not in collision. I just didn't fill in as many gaps.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know