Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@wandeljw,

weve been trying the "evidence doesn't support what you propose as a possibility Frank", but he doesnt allow that fact to sink in. Instead he fores back that e must be "having problems"

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

You wrote,

Quote:

It is like claiming there is scientific proof of a god (something an agnostic would never claim).

But, it's Frank who is demanding others to claim the possibility there is or there isn't a god when he can't provide any evidence for it himself. Since Frank can't provide scientific proof, he really isn't an agnostic?

Logic, anyone? LOL

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

It is okay to say intelligent design is "possible," but this is not what intelligent design advocates themselves are saying. Intelligent design advocates claim that there is scientific proof for intelligent design. It is like claiming there is scientific proof of a god (something an agnostic would never claim).

I agree with your conclusion here, Wandel...although I am not sure ALL intelligent design advocates claim what you are say they claim and I am not even sure MOST do. But those that do...are all wet.

That has never been what I have been saying. Essentially, I have been pointing out a tautology:

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

No big deal there...but the heat that generates in the "scientific" community here show that segment to be as unwilling to acknowledge the obvious as the other side.

I have not asserted there is a GOD...I have not even asserted there is the possibility of a GOD...

...but if there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

And there is no reason whatever that the "intelligent design" would be exactly what scientists have been uncovering about evolution.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

See what I mean above, Wandel. Both those guys cannot acknowledge the obvious. They stonewall just like the theists do. They are as much an embarrassment to science and logic as the theists.

0 Replies

It is possible that winged unicorns will fly out of my ass tonight . . . the probability, however, is ZERO.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It is possible that winged unicorns will fly out of my ass tonight . . . the probability, however, is ZERO.

Not with your ass.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

you entirely dismissed wandel's point. Thus allowing you to continue your own mantra.

Carry on, you know the drill

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you entirely dismissed wandel's point. Thus allowing you to continue your own mantra.

Carry on, you know the drill

I most assuredly DID NOT entirely dismiss Wandel's point. I addressed it.

Learn to read, FM. It will make things easier.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Dismiss, one of its many meanings, is " to reject". So, in effect in order to reject something, you should have read it first.
What you actually meant was "ignore", different .

Learn to comprehend Frank, it will make things more correct.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Dismiss, one of its many meanings, is " to reject". So, in effect in order to reject something, you should have read it first.
What you actually meant was "ignore", different .

Learn to comprehend Frank, it will make things more correct.

I did NOT entirely reject it either, FM. I addressed what Wandel wrote...and did NOT entirely reject it.

Learn to read and comprehend. It will make things much easier.

0 Replies

"Intelligent design," as it is being addressed by wandel and farmerman, is specifically the doctrine that Creationists such as Ken Ham are peddling, namely that life is impossibly complex for it to have evolved.

Frank is arguing that evolution may be intelligent design--contrary to the argument that the Creationists that wandel and farmerman are addressing--and is talking past wandel and farmerman, mistakenly believing that he is arguing the issue that they are.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

"Intelligent design," as it is being addressed by wandel and farmerman, is specifically the doctrine that Creationists such as Ken Ham are peddling, namely that life is impossibly complex for it to have evolved.

Frank is arguing that evolution may be intelligent design--contrary to the argument that the Creationists that wandel and farmerman are addressing--and is talking past wandel and farmerman, mistakenly believing that he is arguing the issue that they are.

I am not "mistakenly believing" anything, Blue.

I addressed this problem in this thread years ago...with the exact same argument...which was provoked by an implied (at times stated) suggestion that "intelligent design" is not even possible.

Well...so long as a GOD is possible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

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

The fact that statement, in effect, is a tautology does not mean that it is not significant.

This "evolution" (in whatever form) MAY BE the intelligent design of a GOD.

As for Ken Ham or anyone else asserting that life is impossibly complex for it to have evolved...they do not deserve the serious attention they are getting. If you want to argue with the like of them...do so. But you are pissing into the wind if you do.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The only design uncovered by evolutionary scientists is design driven by ecosystems, not by an intelligent being.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

The only design uncovered by evolutionary scientists is design driven by ecosystems, not by an intelligent being.

You do not know that, Wandel...that is an assumption you are making. And it could be completely wrong. The "intelligent being" may have designed things so that it is driven by an ecosystem. That MAY BE the design.

Don't fall into the trap of overstating the case for your side like the IDer's do with their side.

If there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Are you asserting there is no possibility of a GOD?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am asserting that the ecosystem explanation is more complete and more precise, and therefore more appropriate for science curriculum. (This thread originated in response to attempts to include intelligent design in science curriculum.)

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

I am asserting that the ecosystem explanation is more complete and more precise, and therefore more appropriate for science curriculum. (This thread originated in response to attempts to include intelligent design in science curriculum.)

I agree. I have never disagreed.

Is there anything about my comment that is wrong?

If not (and there is nothing wrong with it)...why not simply accept it as correct and appropriate?

0 Replies

Your argument is irrelevant to the one wandel and farmerman are addressing, Frank. Yours is a straw man, and you're being disingenuous.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Your argument is irrelevant to the one wandel and farmerman are addressing, Frank. Yours is a straw man, and you're being disingenuous.

Fact is, my comment is not an argument at all. It simply states a truth...and as I have explained a couple of times already, insofar as there have been indications that some people here think intelligent design is impossible...it IS relevant to the conversation.

There are no strawmen being built here...and I most assuredly am not being disingenuous.

If you don't like what I am saying, Blue...go read something else. And even if not...you ought to consider taking your frustrations out on someone else.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Right, like I said, your navel gazing is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Right, like I said, your navel gazing is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

NO...it is not.

But right now, your pettiness is.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know