Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@rosborne979,

Good post, rosborne. They had no clue about the beginnings of this earth or man, and the "only" answer for "all this" was an all powerful god who created everything. I think the bible said it best; god created everything in seven days.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

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

You have proven a negative!!!!!!!!!!! My my your name will go down in the history of mankind.

Can not wait to read your paper showing how anyone can prove a negative.

Why do you not begin by proving that the tooth fairy does not exist?

1 Reply

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1009939_535336123207544_275467256_n.png

0 Replies

I have some problems with your narrative, there, Roswell. I believe that the early shamans should be distinguished from the later priesthoods of the temple societies, in some matters. In a hunter-gatherer society, there really is no need for arcane knowledge--every has to know when food is available, where to find it, where and when herds of game animals migrate. That's the elementary education of the children in such a society. I think the early shamans were in the business of explaining and interacting with an unseen world of spirits--to that extent i'm with you. But i don't know that they necessarily explained the naturalistic world to their fellows--those were things everyone needed to know, or were teaching to their children.

It all changed with agriculture and the rise of temple societies. Then it becomes crucially important to be able to provide a reliable calendar. Plant too early or too late, and it can spell disaster--murderous disaster. Astronomy was the first science of the temple societies. Even outside the temple societies, there are monumental structures, like Stonehenge, all over the world which can "predict" the arrival of the seasons. Get that **** wrong, and your priests are going to be out of business right quick.

Initially, it was very important for organized religion to provide a b[]reliable[/b] version of science, and astronomy was their first scientific too.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

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

Agreed.

0 Replies

By the way, this is just speculation on my part and your part. I make no claims.

2 Replies

I once read a series of novels by Vardis Fisher - The Testament of Man. Each tale representative of a different phase in the development of humanity, with the final filling two books. It's an emotional presentation, rather short on theory. One of the best in the series depicted a people in extreme fear that the sun, which had been in a troubled circumstance as it sank from view, would not come up again. They were exhausted but overjoyed in the end, when their efforts prevailed and the sun at last appeared on the horizon. They were likely written in the 1950s, since the last book mentions Elvis Presley at one point. Don't know if anybody cares. Just thought I'd throw it in.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I thought you might be old enough to witness it first hand.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

It's your semantic game frank. You use 'possible' as literally as you can by your definition and refuse to acknowledge there are 'grades' of possible.

It's possible you and I will meet. It's possible the moon is made of orange juice. Are they the same degree of possibility?

In answer to the original question of this thread ID certainly isn't science because its not testable, and the 'theory' makes no predictions.

The theory for you being made of spaghetti is as testable and abundant as the existence of god, actually it's more testable.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I have some problems with your narrative, there, Roswell. I believe that the early shamans should be distinguished from the later priesthoods of the temple societies, in some matters.

Yes, I may have been a bit hasty in my use of the term "Shaman" (since I'm not sure exactly what that is) and I was in a rush when I wrote that post.

Originally I was just going to write Priests and not mention anyone or anything else, but then it occurred to me that lots of different players in culture/society try to exploit the effects of religion on a population and I wanted to spread the blame more widely than just "Priests", so I threw in the word Shaman just to broaden the scope of blame, rather than to pinpoint Shamen.

Based on what you describe it may be that Shamen were more of the "scientists" of the time than they were religious (even though the level of their science at the time still allowed the Supernatural). But I guess the same can be said of various Priests over the years as well (Mendel). Not everybody involved in religion is there to exploit it. Many are true believers, just as caught up on it as their followers.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Just a little side observation here--it's the true believers who make organized religion truly dangerous.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Dangerous to what? Setanta's lifestyle one might suppose. Which is pretty dangerous according to the scientists. The global warming aspect was on the News all day yesterday. Other days--other aspects.

Christian society didn't become powerful by skirting around danger and is not in the least concerned about being dangerous. It boasts about it.

We are here to survive and not to prop up Setanta's lifestyle. Fancy even a spurious evolutionist not knowing a simple thing like that and being reduced to pulling the Bogeyman stroke on a prestigious site like A2K with a side observation.

The "true believers" are not dangerous at all. As long as they don't start any fashions going viral.

Setanta has got a couple of circularities going I fear whereby the objective proof is logically certain once you accept his definitions of "dangerous" and "true believers".

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

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

You have proven a negative!!!!!!!!!!! My my your name will go down in the history of mankind.

Can not wait to read your paper showing how anyone can prove a negative.

Why do you not begin by proving that the tooth fairy does not exist?

Tell you what...why don't you go down in history instead of me.

Make the assertion that there are no live giraffes in the kitchen drawer that houses your tableware...then open the drawer and prove that negative.

Apparently the people with your intelligence will fall at your feet in admiration of this incredible acheivement.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

It's your semantic game frank. You use 'possible' as literally as you can by your definition and refuse to acknowledge there are 'grades' of possible.

Well...yes. I tend to think a thing is either possible or impossible.

If you are saying there are things that are more likely than not likely...I would agree with your problem with that tendency.

Quote:

It's possible you and I will meet. It's possible the moon is made of orange juice. Are they the same degree of possibility?

Hummm...I am having this discussion with someone who claims it is possible the moon is made of orange juice.

I guess I have my work cut out for me.

Quote:

In answer to the original question of this thread ID certainly isn't science because its not testable, and the 'theory' makes no predictions.

Okay...so what is your point. I have never suggested otherwise.

Quote:

The theory for you being made of spaghetti is as testable and abundant as the existence of god, actually it's more testable.

So...you cannot test it. So what?

In any case, you can test what I wrote:

IF THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A GOD...THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The only reasonable way to suggest that there is NO POSSIBILITY of intelligent design...is to first suggest there is NO POSSIBILITY of a GOD.

It is, in essence, a tautology of sorts. It adds something I consider significant...and in a way, it says, "Can you be sure that the way we are discovering that evolution has occurred...is not the way it was intelligently designed to occur by a GOD?"

If I were a god...that pretty much is the way I would have designed it.

In any case, if you think my comment is illogical or incorrect...take it apart and show it to be erroneous...if you can.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Make the assertion that there are no live giraffes in the kitchen drawer that houses your tableware...then open the drawer and prove that negative.

Sorry no can do as it could be an invisible giraffe or griaffes or giraffes that can only be seen by some people. Kind of like the Christian god for example.

What you can not understand is that giraffes in a drawer is no more unlikely then a god that did intelligent design even if both are "possible".

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Make the assertion that there are no live giraffes in the kitchen drawer that houses your tableware...then open the drawer and prove that negative.

Sorry no can do as it could be an invisible giraffe or griaffes or giraffes that can only be seen by some people. Kind of like the Christian god for example.

What you can not understand is that giraffes in a drawer is no more unlikely then a god that did intelligent design even if both are "possible".

Bill...you are incorrect that one cannot prove a negative.

In any case, why not assert there are no LIVING, VISIBLE giraffes in your kitchen drawer...then open it...and prove the negative.

You will be world famous...or so you suppose.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Strange Frank as once more the subject of this thread is whether Intelligent design in or is not science and the answer is hell no or does this so call theory belong under religion along with such things as the ability of a god/man to bring back to life a rotting corpse and the answer is hell yes.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

In any case, why not assert there are no LIVING, VISIBLE giraffes in your kitchen drawer...then open it...and prove the negative.

But there are such animals in my drawer and I can only feel bad that you can not see them just as some people can not see the Christian three in one god that surround all of us.

Same thing.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Strange Frank as once more the subject of this thread is whether Intelligent design in or is not science and the answer is hell no or does this so call theory belong under religion along with such things as the ability of a god/man to bring back to life a rotting corpse and the answer is hell yes.

Wow...even you do not normally mangle a sentence to quite the degree you mangled that one, Bill.

Congratulations!

Anyway...in all threads, there are diversions. When you challenged me on this issue...I responded.

You are dead wrong that you cannot prove a negative.

Most negative statements are much, much too universal to prove. There are no gods; there are no unicorns; there are no fairies; there is no life on any planet circling any star in the galaxy just discovered at the edge of what we consider the universe.

But there are negative statements that CAN be proved.

You would have come out of this discussion better if you had simply acknowledged that you were wrong.

But the mangled sentence was much funnier. Thanks for that.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
In any case, why not assert there are no LIVING, VISIBLE giraffes in your kitchen drawer...then open it...and prove the negative.

But there are such animals in my drawer and I can only feel bad that you can not see them just as some people can not see the Christian three in one god that surround all of us.

Same thing.

Ahhh...so there IS a living, visible giraffe in your kitchen drawer.

Drunk

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know