Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Yes, there are many examples of people's positions on these topics changing

http://clergyproject.org/stories/

@Briancrc,

Interesting reading. I think it's good for people to decisively decide in either direction. Even the bible recommends it. Says something like 'Be hot or be cold. If you are luke warm, God will spit you out of his mouth.'

Thanks for the link.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It also says something like 'your god is a loving god.' A loving god that 'spits you out' if you don't show enough enthusiasm? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Even the bible recommends it. Says something like 'Be hot or be cold. If you are luke warm, God will spit you out of his mouth.'

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

however, to science, the concepts of atheism or theism are immaterial . SCientific research merely assumes naturalism prevails. So all these arguments re the Dawkins' and Hitchins of the orld are of no real function in anything (with the exception of choosing up sides)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I found the attribution for LEMON v KURTZMAN. I suggest you read it on Wikipedia

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"Even the bible recommends it. Says something like 'Be hot or be cold. If you are luke warm, God will spit you out of his mouth.' "

God's publishing company LLC (all rights reserved)

Hey, I just read the stuff and try to figure it out. King James & the 70 hired scholars published it. As far as Dawkins et al goes, their critique of religion stuff was funny as hell but their scientific and theological arguments were pathetic. Even you do better than that.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Then obviously you have no sense about folks scientific contributions. Stay as ignorant as you are, its necessary for your worldview.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_studying_the_evidence

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Are you saying Dawkins rational in 'The God Myth" for example, is scientific? I'll gladly take on that challenge.

Crap, I left my copy in Colorado. I can get another.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

No, I have to admit my copy of "The God Delusion" (I assume thats what you were going for) is unread in my bookshelf. I like his approach in "The Greatest SHOW", "The selfish Gene" "The Extended Phenotype". These were all written before he became a purely popular writer qnd a vocal critic of religion.
Ive been a critic of his later style of argument biut, when Phillip Johnson published his inane work about" Darwin on Trial"---Dawkins, in MHO, went more for the jugular and left his quiet scientific style in favor of becoming a spokesman for atheism(without any credentials other than a quick wit).
You may disgaree with his methods that hes adopted as a popular writer and not as a scientist , but you gotta agree that people love to hate him and he makes some great unprovable arguments. Hes also been a financial success
Hes no more of a problem to science than was Michael Crichton , who was a practicing physician, who decided to try his hand at popular prose -science fiction.

His later books , like The Greatest Show, have once again shown his more mature style of carefully documented argument for adaptive evolution and a refutation of many religious based arguments against it .

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

No, I have to admit my copy of "The God Delusion" (I assume thats what you were going for) is unread in my bookshelf. I like his approach in "The Greatest SHOW", "The selfish Gene" "The Extended Phenotype". These were all written before he became a purely popular writer qnd a vocal critic of religion.
Ive been a critic of his later style of argument biut, when Phillip Johnson published his inane work about" Darwin on Trial"---Dawkins, in MHO, went more for the jugular and left his quiet scientific style in favor of becoming a spokesman for atheism(without any credentials other than a quick wit).
You may disgaree with his methods that hes adopted as a popular writer and not as a scientist , but you gotta agree that people love to hate him and he makes some great unprovable arguments. Hes also been a financial success
Hes no more of a problem to science than was Michael Crichton , who was a practicing physician, who decided to try his hand at popular prose -science fiction.

His later books , like The Greatest Show, have once again shown his more mature style of carefully documented argument for adaptive evolution and a refutation of many religious based arguments against it .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I found the attribution for LEMON v KURTZMAN. I suggest you read it on Wikipedia

I suggest you acknowledge that if there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Oh, and I found the attribution for Dred Scott v. Sandford. I suggest you read it on Wikipedia and see if you agree with THAT decision.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I suggest you acknowledge that if there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Ive acknowledged that tatement and stipulted to it quite a number of times. You just seem to have this bug up your ass that its a profound statement. Its not. It fits in the category of "the bleedin obvious"
Ive asked you several times to discuss the hows and ways that someone in science may even begin to apply your bumper sticker, all you do is default to rant and claiming that you are SMAART (like Fredo).

Asfar as Dred Scott, it has no relevance to this discussion whereas LEMON has a direct application to your previous assertion that we should be setting new precedent that is counter to that which has already been established (established--get it?)

Except for that dumass USSC reference and, of course, that silly phrase of yours, have you anything more substantive to add?

1 Reply

In my experience (i.e., reading, and reading carefully, for most of my life), most "gods" are not creator gods. So the possibility that one or more of those gods is real does not for a moment suggest an equal probability of an intelligent designer. Of course, even the loony super hero god of the bible (Frank's limited imagination rarely strays from that character) could well have created the cosmos, started life, and taken not active part in the evolution of life on the planet. "God" may be possible, and "intelligent design" may be possible, but there is no good reason to link the two--that there may be a god does not axiomatically mean that there may have been, or still be, intelligent designing going on.

Unicorns may fly out of Frank's ass tonight, too--and it would likely be his best shot at an intelligent epiphany.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

That is pretty much the apologia that Ken Miller presents in his "Finding Darwins God". And the neat thing is that Miller attempts an evidence based apologia.

As far as unicorns flying out Franks ass, the forensic evidence would refute that possibility since his head is so far up there, that it blocks the little unicorns' exits.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I suggest you acknowledge that if there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.
Ive acknowledged that tatement and stipulted to it quite a number of times. You just seem to have this bug up your ass that its a profound statement. Its not. It fits in the category of "the bleedin obvious"
Ive asked you several times to discuss the hows and ways that someone in science may even begin to apply your bumper sticker, all you do is default to rant and claiming that you are SMAART (like Fredo).

Asfar as Dred Scott, it has no relevance to this discussion whereas LEMON has a direct application to your previous assertion that we should be setting new precedent that is counter to that which has already been established (established--get it?)

Except for that dumass USSC reference and, of course, that silly phrase of yours, have you anything more substantive to add?

I have never claimed to be smart. I have mentioned that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed on several occasions.

If you have acknowledged that there is the possibility of intelligent design...I have not seen it. But since you have acknowledged it here...we can leave it.

You may not see it as "profound"...but it is important...vital to this conversation.

But, you acknowledge that you do not know if intelligent design played any part in where we are right now in our evolution.

We are now on the same page.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In my experience (i.e., reading, and reading carefully, for most of my life), most "gods" are not creator gods. So the possibility that one or more of those gods is real does not for a moment suggest an equal probability of an intelligent designer. Of course, even the loony super hero god of the bible (Frank's limited imagination rarely strays from that character) could well have created the cosmos, started life, and taken not active part in the evolution of life on the planet. "God" may be possible, and "intelligent design" may be possible, but there is no good reason to link the two--that there may be a god does not axiomatically mean that there may have been, or still be, intelligent designing going on.

Unicorns may fly out of Frank's ass tonight, too--and it would likely be his best shot at an intelligent epiphany.

That is some of the most absurdly self-serving tripe I've heard you spew, Fat Boy.

But thanks for the laugh.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

That is pretty much the apologia that Ken Miller presents in his "Finding Darwins God". And the neat thing is that Miller attempts an evidence based apologia.

As far as unicorns flying out Franks ass, the forensic evidence would refute that possibility since his head is so far up there, that it blocks the little unicorns' exits.

My head is not up my ass, Farmerman.

I am simply adding some common sense to this discussion...namely, that we do not know some of the things you people assert with such authority.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

No, I have to admit my copy of "The God Delusion" (I assume thats what you were going for) is unread in my bookshelf. I like his approach in "The Greatest SHOW", "The selfish Gene" "The Extended Phenotype". These were all written before he became a purely popular writer qnd a vocal critic of religion.

Yes, meant "The God Delusion". Glad to hear you recognize the shift in his approach. I was not being sarcastic when I said it was funny, his observations about the absurdities in organized religion had me falling down laughing. But when he veered into 'proofs' of God not being possible, his arguments were amazingly weak. The Selfisf Gene was a bit better but still far from 'proof of no God'.

I was asked to butt out of the 'Atheists Only' thread so didn't comment there on the recent 'proof' of God not being necessary to explain the universe arising in a YouTube video (NOVA episode which never made any such claim BTW.) The poster took a very similar approach to Dawkins by holding that the fact that we have learned so much about the universe is in itself - proof of no God. That always strikes me as a strange claim because as amazing as our findings are, they always end in an even greater mystery.

After watching the Nova episode, I followed a related link (same subject) entitled "Fingerprints of God" that did a better job on the science than the NOVA video.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know