Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Why thank you for the explanation, that actually made sense. But you are still pronouncing absolutes while science continues to learn. Maybe not a good candidate, but not necessarily out of the running:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140716-giant-viruses-science-life-evolution-origins/

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Tnx, That was truly an interesting article. Refreshingly different in that they were honest about how the picture of life and its origins keeps getting more complicated rather than clearer. Not that we haven't discovered an amazing mountain of data but it's the opposite of physics where the standard model keeps getting reinforced and clearer all the time.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

This is yet another fallacious sally on your part. It's a straw man because i didn't say that viruses were the precursors to living cells.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Refreshingly different in that they were honest about how the picture of life and its origins keeps getting more complicated rather than clearer. Not that we haven't discovered an amazing mountain of data but it's the opposite of physics where the standard model keeps getting reinforced and clearer all the time.

You must have a have a weak understanding of Physics or of Biological Evolution (or maybe both), because both are getting clearer all the time. You seem to be confusing an increase in Data and Complexity with a lack of clarity, which of course, might be true if you don't understand things, but it's not intrinsically true.

0 Replies

Science proceeds by induction based on what is observed, and therefore cannot even in principle attain absolute certainty (at least until the entire universe can be observed). The best it can do is slowly, gradually approach certainty asyptotically, using empirical data as its guide. Its claims must be flexible and sensitive to newly arriving data. Final answers are not to be expected.

Religions start off with an absolutely certainty, usually that this or that god or gods exist and control things. Working backwards, they cherry pick data that can be useful in bolstering that conclusion and use appealing rhetoric to ignore, distort or misrepresent anything that counters their preferred conclusion.

Color me silly, but I'm sticking with science.

0 Replies

Damn. Now even ros has resorted to yelling 'you don't know ****' .

I think there is a fundamental difference in 'clarity of picture ' between physics and biology. With the exception of the Big Bang , everything in physics is adding up, each new finding fills in an expected spot for the Standard Model. In Biology, as in the article on virus (2013 I think) new things are always popping up that "turns the picture upside down" as it said.

Yes, science is wonderful but sometimes the errors that are intuitively obvious today were settled science yesterday.

The case of Dr. Freeman who popularized the pre frontal lobotomy for the treatment of mental problems was the subject of a book I just finished. He and his treatment were hailed as a major breakthrough on the cover of Time magazine and many thousands of lobotomies were performed by him and others. Some of them were performed as late as the 1960s or 70s, some on children as young as 12. What would you say today if a doctor said he wanted to stick a sterilized ice pick (they called it a leukatom to sound 'scientific :-) into your eye socket just over your eyeball, hammer it through the bone, then swivel it about severing your prefrontal lobes from the rest of your brain?

Yeah, pick science every time, all the time!

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Damn. Now even ros has resorted to yelling 'you don't know ****'.

Well, I tried to be a bit more diplomatic than that Smile

But if reasonable people start telling you that you are being unreasonable, then maybe it's time to think things through again.

Besides, in one of your previous posts you expressed a sincere appreciation for new insights and discovery. So I have to tell you I think you're denying yourself one of the greatest insights a person can ever have. Think about it, if science is right, then the Universe doesn't have an Intelligent Designer and it doesn't need one. And remember, nothing about the Universe changes once we recognize that. All the beauty and elegance of nature is still exactly the same. And without an ID pushing the buttons, it means that all of this majesty and mystery are inherently part of the structure of our Universe. Try letting that sink in that for a moment and see how it feels.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:
Damn. Now even ros has resorted to yelling 'you don't know ****'.
Well, I tried to be a bit more diplomatic than that But if reasonable people start telling you that you are being unreasonable, then maybe it's time to think things through again.

Besides, in one of your previous posts you expressed a sincere appreciation for new insights and discovery. So I have to tell you I think you're denying yourself one of the greatest insights a person can ever have. Think about it, if science is right, then the Universe doesn't have an Intelligent Designer and it doesn't need one. And remember, nothing about the Universe changes once we recognize that. All the beauty and elegance of nature is still exactly the same. And without an ID pushing the buttons, it means that all of this majesty and mystery are inherently part of the structure of our Universe. Try letting that sink in that for a moment and see how it feels.

"Science" or anyone representing science...is absolutely correct that the universe does not need an intelligent designer.

But if "science" or anyone representing science is asserting with any kind of certainty that the universe DOES NOT have an intelligent designer...

...they have fallen into the same trap as the people who assert there is an intelligent designer at work.

They would be asserting blind guesswork as certainty.

In any case, I seriously doubt any decent scientist would assert there is no intelligent design...but rather than there is no need for intelligent design...and NO EVIDENCE whatever that there is any. (Which is a different assertion altogether.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

If you can be unbiased about it, you must admit that 'science' has said nothing like 'the universe doesn't have an intelligent designer'. I'm sure you can find scientists who will say that but that's an entirely different matter.

I also notice that you didn't address anything I actually said in my last post, just kept up the atheist drum beat of 'There is no God'.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

"Science" or anyone representing science...is absolutely correct that the universe does not need an intelligent designer.

But if "science" or anyone representing science is asserting with any kind of certainty that the universe DOES NOT have an intelligent designer...

...they have fallen into the same trap as the people who assert there is an intelligent designer at work.

"Does not need" vs "Does not have" is not much of a distinction. I would think that the theist could argue that an intelligent designer is necessary.

Quote:

In any case, I seriously doubt any decent scientist would assert there is no intelligent design

Why would a decent scientist assert that there is an intelligent designer? The inductive scientist develops hypotheses from evidence. Without evidence why would a scientist make a metaphysical supposition?

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Why would a decent scientist assert that there is an intelligent designer? The inductive scientist develops hypotheses from evidence. Without evidence why would a scientist make a metaphysical supposition?

Bingo. Inductive arguments can make probabilistic claims, but not much in the way of 100% certainty, save formal operations (math and logic) and definitions.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Quote:
Why would a decent scientist assert that there is an intelligent designer? The inductive scientist develops hypotheses from evidence. Without evidence why would a scientist make a metaphysical supposition?

Bingo. Inductive arguments can make probabilistic claims, but not much in the way of 100% certainty, save formal operations (math and logic) and definitions.

No "bingo" awarded here...by anyone with their thinking working.

No decent scientist would assert that there is an intelligent designer...or that there is no intelligent designer.

Briancrc's "response" was a non-response to something never posited.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

Why would a decent scientist assert that there is an intelligent designer? The inductive scientist develops hypotheses from evidence. Without evidence why would a scientist make a metaphysical supposition?

Apparently, this needs to be restated.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Briancrc wrote:
Why would a decent scientist assert that there is an intelligent designer? The inductive scientist develops hypotheses from evidence. Without evidence why would a scientist make a metaphysical supposition?

Apparently, this needs to be restated.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

If you can be unbiased about it, you must admit that 'science' has said nothing like 'the universe doesn't have an intelligent designer'. I'm sure you can find scientists who will say that but that's an entirely different matter.

I also notice that you didn't address anything I actually said in my last post, just kept up the atheist drum beat of 'There is no God'.

Technically you are correct, science doesn't rule out an ID and it never will. But that wasn't the point of what I wrote. I was describing a view of the world from a scientific perspective because I thought you might enjoy it (if you gave it reasonable consideration), but if you're not interested that's fine.

And I didn't mean to ignore everything else you posted, it's just that you pretty much repeated what you said earlier and I just got done explaining why that was a logical fallacy so I didn't want to have to rehash it all again.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

And the beat goes on...

0 Replies

@Algis Kemezys,

and the forces that be did indeed get their knickers in a right old twist when the dead sea scrolls, and the nag hamadi scrolls showed their faces after 1500 years or so.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty! Where the **** have you been for the last two years?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

I second that, welcome back, Berty.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

No decent scientist would assert that there is an intelligent designer...or that there is no intelligent designer.

I hate to go to the flying spaghetti monster well again, but why would a scientist assert there is none as if there was one to disprove? Why stop there? Why deny that there are 9 foot tall invisible rabbits? What is the logic? When someone makes an assertion accept it as true if it can't be disproved? Okay. When no one is looking you put on a dress and rub your nipples. If anyone is watching or secretly recording you, then you don't do it. Now tell us, when will you stop putting on dresses and rubbing your nipples? I'm a scientist, so I won't assert that you don't do this.

PS. Hope I didn't out you ;-)

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know