Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@cicerone imposter,

The claim of science that 'we will eventually find the path of abiogenesis' is no more 'evidence' than an ID believer saying 'eventually we will see the intelligent designer'.

Sorry dude, Frank is right. Come back when you have evidence if you want to assert certainty about the subject.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Those two issues are of very little interest - to me.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

panpermia is a very important brick in tha walk of modern ID. (Otherwise its merely search for some kind of god in charge). Youd just be another Apisa screaming at traffic.

ID gos back to the Greeks but was popularized in the early 1800's by the Rev Paley who first posed an early version of the " pile of junk in a windstorm creating a 747" story. It was then, nd pretty much always had been a Christianized version of cience that wanted a parallel position with "Scientific Creationism".
Scientific Creationism was shot down by the US SUPREME COURT as real science . This led the Johnstons, Aaronsens and Dembskis to conjure up a non deificated "science story". It is one without any evidence or a way to even hunt for any. Wvery time these guys came up with a "scientific" sounding story, some scientist, on a lunch break, would find a whole pile of counter evidence (like debunking the whole "irreducible complexity " tale).
Im amazed at your apparent ignorance of the modern ID story. You seem purposely ignorant of it . Is it becaue the whole ID tale is a fragile one? is baseless, and is without ANY evidence?

Im not as militant as some here may be, Ive been raised and taught by several Catholic teaching orders who themelves had been outcast orders of the Church and whose celebration of disbelief is well known. However, I think your short field of view to assert that science and ID's "beliefs" are co-equal is wishful thinking on your pqrt, cause they arent, not by a long shot.

Evolution theory is strongly evidenced while all ID can do is try to "Coattail" its belief as worthy of detaqiled discussion is kinda like comparing the periodic table to the four humours.
If it turns out that life is ubiquitous within the galaxy, the concept of a panspermia based biogenesis may become a hot research topic to the understanding how life began on this planet (However, I think evolution , as a fact, driven by genetic variability and natural selection, will probably remain unaffected) .

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

just imagination that can never be proven

If that doesn't sound like evolution then what does?!

You are funny.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Those two issues are of very little interest - to me.

:-) Why'd you bother posting here?

Bye...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Scientific Creationism was shot down by the US SUPREME COURT as real science .

I thought I'd made it clear that I care nothing about the "modern ID story". My interest is only in the basic concept of 'are we here by accident or design'.

Am I willfully ignorant of the historical background of people and groups who may have at one time associated themselves with the term ID or it's derivatives? Damn right I am, I couldn't care less. If some of them come up with valid rationales associated with it I'll listen, but other wise, I don't care.

And 'US SUPREAM COURT decisions'! Is THAT suppose to convince anybody on such matters??? I don't even trust them on Constitutional law matters let alone such matters as the origin of life. Is that a factor in your beliefs? Really, I'm suprised you would bring that up after all these words.

2 Replies

Quote:

'are we here by accident or design'

I don't think it's either .

I'm currently of the belief, and I'm comfortable using that word, that the physics of our universe have the unintentional consequence of self organising out of a sea of chaos. Gravity alone created proto stars from the single proton chaos that followed singularity we call 'the big bang'. Heavier elements were born in stars by unguided physical processes, more and more distinct environments arose from incredibly simple natural process. I think of evolution as a process that predates life as we understand it. Anything that can self replicate, by definition, becomes more common. And anything that becomes more common changes the environment in which it finds itself, which changes what can/will succeed in replicating itself.

Sorry waffling on a bit. But basically it's not designed AND it's not accident.

This is not based on anything more than reading a lot.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

It seems the word evolution is being ignored by some people on this thread.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
'are we here by accident or design'

I don't think it's either .

I'm currently of the belief, and I'm comfortable using that word, that the physics of our universe have the unintentional consequence of self organising out of a sea of chaos

Of course my use of the word 'accident' was only a euphemism for what has been variously called natural forces or as you put it, unintentional consequence.

I cannot fault you for the conclusion you reached, coming as it was from reading only. I might have done the same.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Am I willfully ignorant of the historical background of people and groups who may have at one time associated themselves with the term ID or it's derivatives? Damn right I am, I couldn't care less

Your assertions re: ID seem to hover around as if you have read the relevant literature and then, sometimes mid-sentence, you swap positions as if you didnt realize what you are implying.
Thats a little bit of Irwin Corey posing as a scientist.

Quote:

And 'US SUPREAM COURT decisions'! Is THAT suppose to convince anybody on such matters?

. Qe had a member here who amused me with his belief that h could have run a compelling defense in these USSC trials that govern the First Amendment.

I can imagine that you would try to sully the court decisions since they are fatal to your own worldview as science. Sometims the law is merely used as a "fact checker" where many people need to be reminded about what the founders had in mind.
Dont yell at me, Im only reporting the facts.

However, if you do proudly admit that you are willfully ignorant of the history of ID (both original and modern version), I submit that you are wildly missing the mark about the "Scientific" basis of it, thats really all the USSC was saying to the authors and teachers of ID. What they said was,

"ITS RELIGION NOT SCIENCE"
--simply stated, simply digested.
If you disagree with the whole foundation of the movement then you are caught in a spiral of conflicting logic.

Quote:

My interest is only in the basic concept of 'are we here by accident or design'.

Hows that working out for you?

Any grants out there to assist in defraying the research?
What type of research would you propose?

Would this add to any storehouse of scientific knowlledge that has some applications that we could see?

1 Reply

Relevant background:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-young-earth-creationism-became-a-core-tenet-of-american-fundamentalism-part-2

Quote:

How Young-Earth Creationism Became a Core Tenet of American Fundamentalism, Part 2

Most Christians assume that young-earth creationism has always been a core tenet of American fundamentalist Christianity—but this linkage is more tenuous than is often presumed. The story of how American fundamentalists—and, by extension, many conservative evangelicals—came to associate young-earth creationism with biblical Christianity is one that all contemporary Christians should understand.
...
By far the most influential proponent of young-earth creationism in the 1920s and 1930s was George McCready Price, the acknowledged “father” of modern young-earth creationism.

Price, a Seventh-Day Adventist1 and a self-described “geologist,” had nothing beyond an elementary school-level education in the sciences. However, historian Ronald Numbers points out that Price “considered it a virtue that he had never been infected with the disease of ‘universityitis.’”2 Undaunted, and believing that God had called him to uphold the true biblical view of creation, Price began researching and writing on science-related issues in the early 1900s.

Price rejected the day-age theory and advocated what he labeled “the new catastrophism” or “flood geology,” a theory that held that a universal flood had reshaped the earth according to its current features. This was an extreme position that relatively few Christians held, including most educated anti-evolutionists—but the theory gradually gained wider acceptance due to Price’s exhaustive efforts.
...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Im not trying to be snotty, just trying to stir up a conversation in an area that Ive got keen interests. With youre admission above, you've kinda left me with nothing to discuss , since some foreknowledge on both our parts is indispensable to intelligent exploration and discussion.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im not trying to be snotty, just trying to stir up a conversation in an area that Ive got keen interests. With youre admission above, you've kinda left me with nothing to discuss , since some foreknowledge on both our parts is indispensable to intelligent exploration and discussion.

I didn't think you were (being snotty) and I'm trying to do the same thing (stir up conversation AND encourage independent thought on the subject).

My 'admission' was only that I don't hold 'sacred' the pronouncements of either the Discovery Institute (or where they came from) nor the Supreme Court. In other words, that I want to arrive at my conclusions independently, not that I don't avail myself of what these institutions had to say.

I would think you would appreciate that a break from previous approaches would be necessary anytime that a radical departure from convention is called for. At the risk of comparing myself to their originators, wasn't this necessary for all ground breaking ideas? Heliocentric solar system, relativity, a finite universe with a beginning and - evolution, all required a break from previous thinking.

Nothing left to discuss? We've barely started.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Good science, Frank; in your world you don't need evidence, just imagination that can never be proven.

Read what I wrote, ci. It all makes sense. That silliness of yours as a response doesn't.

Anyway, I use the expression, "I do not know" a lot...more than anyone else in this forum...and more than you, by far.

You ought to give "I do not know" a try some day.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

If "evolution" happened or did not happen...and regardless of the form in which it happened...

...if there is the possibility of a GOD...

...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

People arguing that there is no intelligent design...are being as absurd as people who argue that Intelligent Design in the form of Biblical Creationism...is the REALITY.

It's just that the people arguing that there is no intelligent design are much more fun to laugh at. They take themselves so much more seriously.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Am I willfully ignorant of the historical background of people and groups who may have at one time associated themselves with the term ID or it's derivatives? Damn right I am, I couldn't care less.

Thats what you said , to which I reacted in my longer post. Now youve changed your position a bit.

Have you read the USSC decisions , or the Pa III DIST decision ? . Thee are quite interesting pieces of prose in themselves. They are clearly written and display both the majority and minority views.

Striking a position out of ignorance can be dangerous because several points within these decisions you might find somewhat helpful wrt your belief system and what constitutes scientific evidence.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Im really glad you're laughing. I figure that its a lot better than being in the depressive state of your condition.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im really glad you're laughing. I figure that its a lot better than being in the depressive state of your condition.

Not even sure what that was supposed to mean.

You seem to be saying that since "evolution" in some form has been shown to be "almost certain"...and since a 6000 year "blow on some clay and poof, humans" seems an absurdity...

...therefore there is no possibility of intelligent design.

But I think you are trapped in the true atheistic mode of "there are no gods."

There is at least the possibility of gods (or of creators), Farmerman...and because of that there is at least the possibility of intelligent design.

You are being stone-headed for no decent reason. You are pretending to be scientific, logical, and open-minded...when you are being the exact opposite.

And since I call this to your attention in a way that cannot be disputed...you are reduced to snide remarks, because you apparently do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge what I am saying as right on the button.

I'm glad you are glad I am laughing. Once again...a win/win situation.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

"Atheistic mode?" ROFLMAO

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Atheistic mode?" ROFLMAO

Glad you claim to be getting a kick out of it, ci...although my bet would be that you are not.

I am laughing at you, though...and there is nothing phony about that claim.

The atheists here are among the least logical...and most cowardly I've ever encountered. What you guys want to do is to debate people who come from the fundamentalist theistic position. Any reasonable theist sets you back miles...and an agnostic sends you into a laughable frenzy.

In any case, back on topic, my points on this issue are solid.

One: If there is the possibility of a god or creator...then there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Two: There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to get to "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" using logic, reason, or science.

Said another way: You guys are all full of rose bush fertilizer.

It is possible there is a god or a creator...and it is possible there is intelligent design.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know