Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@farmerman,

Quote:

If ID is your favorite story, what have you to say about Irreducible complexity...

It isn't, so I don't.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I have been reading DI only since about 2004 so I can only comment about what they have said since then but I can say with certainty that almost everything in the full quote you posted was a bald face lie,

REALLY? Annd you claim that thiose above statements are lies?? Obviously you have NOT red too deeply of the workks of Dr Dempski . He has been one of the most vocal of the DI board . (He too is a puter boy and therefore sees the entire world as a keyboard).

Quote:

starting at the outset by characterizing it as "Anti-Science". Talk about 'throwing bullshit'!

aso you ignore Behe's and Johnston's assertions about the "Supernatural being demonstrable" as being ANTI-SCIENCE eh?

Quote:

MN is a fully bastardized version of SM because it absolutely excludes something from the outset as a possibility. SM does not assume anything at the start but follows the evidence so of course ID does not identify the designer.

This is a bit of bolloxed prose but to say that ID does not identify the designer is only a very recent phenomenon of the Discovery Institute (Id venture to say its POST DOVER). You cant convince people of your "acceptance" of the SM unless you convince them that youve got no "Gods or Demons " in mind. Cmon, that whole stance was FORCED upon them. ANYWAY--Where have they gone since then.? Any research being published By Discovery... that convincingly makes their case?

If they did, Id venture a Toonie that theyd be all over the science press. Science presses are like Muslims, we are too busy shooting up each other to waste a lot of time on non-science types.
So, if youre aware of any "Discovery..." stuff pleeaase let me in on it? I hold on to all theories very lightly .(Unlike you and layman) who seem to jump on a piece of data that seemingly says what you want to read (but really doesnt, cf "Neutral theory an the "DEATH of DARWINISM").
If there is compelling evidence out there that can dispute or supplant any "holes" in present evolution theory, the authors in ID could probably earn a Nobel Prize (medicine because there IS NO BIOLOGY NOBEL PRIZE). Naturally it will be heavily reviewed and tested like "cold fusion" or "faster than light"neutrinos

Quote:

If you apply the logic of ID opponents this is true, again because of the Gordian knot of distortions I've attempted to unravel.

I applaud your effort. How's it going so far? Youve been trying to carry out a diwcussion based upon assertions and POV's that (I assume youre aware) have been debunked so many times that they are no longer novel arguments (Consider the Irreducible complexity or Specified Information arguments)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Why are you saying it is obvious?
See previous posts.

I've read all of your posts, Leadfoot.

There is nothing in any of them that shows it is "obvious" that any hidden part of nature is intelligent. That is just an unfounded assertion on your part.

Actually, we do not even KNOW there is a hidden part. I suspect there is...but there may not be. What we see or can sense...may be all there is.

But if there is a "hidden part" WE HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL OF WHAT IT IS. It is, after all, hidden. So saying it obviously is "X" makes no sense.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I hear you, and I'm totally ok with you & others disagreeing with my POV.

As I told EdgarB, I think it's time for me to get back to actively working on the project that this forum blogging was research for. I'll check back occasionally to see if anything interesting comes up but I think it's all been said now.

Thanks to all for playing.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

As I told EdgarB, I think it's time for me to get back to actively working on the project that this forum blogging was research for.

What project is that? (if you don't mind my asking)

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Wasn't there another "researcher" in sociology that made A2K the subject of "his" study?

It seems that a subsequent questioning by members made it clear that he was a she..

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

What project is that? (if you don't mind my asking)

Not at all. Don't know how to categorize it, maybe 'sociological' as timur suggested. Basically how people approach the subject of finding the meaning of life. Oddly, getting good feedback from atheists is far easier than from theists.

BTW, when I said 'thanks for playing' I didn't mean that I didn't take the subject seriously nor did I mean that I was 'playing' anyone here. I really do appreciate the feedback.

@timur - I've probably left clues as to my gender, but why would it make any difference?

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What project is that? (if you don't mind my asking)
Not at all. Don't know how to categorize it, maybe 'sociological' as timur suggested. Basically how people approach the subject of finding the meaning of life. Oddly, getting good feedback from atheists is far easier than from theists.

Thanks. But could you be more specific? I'm just curious. Is it a college thesis or something? Or something paid for by a corporation?

What have you concluded, if anything, from your line of questioning?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Oddly, getting good feedback from atheists is far easier than from theists.

This doesn't seem odd to me at all. By definition if you exist in a theistic society and find your way to atheism you have thought a lot about this stuff. It's like asking a mechanic about your car rather than someone who owns the maintenance manual.

That's probably a fairly spurious simile.

It's an interesting experiment that would require you to repeat the idea that life is software. The observer effect and all that.

Actually - it seems less odd to me than ever that you got material from atheists - you didn't seem to argue much with the theists on this thread - you even bathed in support of carbon copy machine Frank (you can't know the moon isn't made of cheese) the militant agnostic.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Thanks. But could you be more specific? I'm just curious. Is it a college thesis or something? Or something paid for by a corporation?

What have you concluded, if anything, from your line of questioning?

Too old for college. Who would pay?, but no, don't need the money.

Some conclusions but not very relevant to ID, science or religion. As I said to farmer, ID is not my favorite story. Will let you know if it's ever published and A2K is still around.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Will let you know if it's ever published and A2K is still around.

Ok. Maybe the DI will let you add it to their site (if you say the right things) Smile

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

The devil needs a better advocate

Completely redefining intelligence as something with no self-awareness and giving nature an capital N doesn't really add much to the discussion in my pathetically honest opinion. Or do I mean honestly pathetic opinion?

I think you're echoing shades of a point a made a few pages back when leadfoot offered the binary 'accident or design' and I suggested neither. But calling the consequences of natural forces 'intelligent' seems specious to me.

My intention was precisely to open new more enlarged povs to the wording "intelligence" and not to keep narrowing to the classic definition. Surely you can understand using the classic argument is easy criticism I don't need help to use classic arguments against myself own argument, I can do it alone. Same goes for Fresco "goals"...I can do that argument myself. Point being I deliberately departed of a narrow minded view of working/operating "intelligence", towards the contemplation of beauty in organized maths in natures unfolding as a CONSTANT. That vision of the permanence of mathematical beauty is timeless...it doesn't change whether we speak of now or 300 million years earlier. Again, its easy to make obvious statements, but for some, very hard to take some experimental steps ahead of common sense. I am not saying I am right or wrong, experimenting with concepts does not intend to be right or wrong in its exploratory phase. Its after that you see how much water an argument can hold. The timeless beauty of organized mathematical order in the nature of reality can perfectly be pictured in a very broad sense as intelligent no matter what you or Fresco or any other narrow-minded interlocutor thinks is the appropriate usage. The idea was precisely to avoid status quo or consensual thinking. That's how one evolves new povs instead of getting stuck in comfort zones. Also please note that I am a passionate defender of Darwinism. That was never called into question either on my informal dissertation on the matter.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

hingehead wrote:

The devil needs a better advocate

Completely redefining intelligence as something with no self-awareness and giving nature an capital N doesn't really add much to the discussion in my pathetically honest opinion. Or do I mean honestly pathetic opinion?

I think you're echoing shades of a point a made a few pages back when leadfoot offered the binary 'accident or design' and I suggested neither. But calling the consequences of natural forces 'intelligent' seems specious to me.

My intention was precisely to open new more enlarged povs to the wording "intelligence" and not to keep narrowing to the classic definition. Surely you can understand using the classic argument is easy criticism I don't need help to use classic arguments against myself own argument, I can do it alone. Same goes for Fresco "goals"...I can do that argument myself. Point being I deliberately departed of a narrow minded view of working/operating "intelligence", towards the contemplation of beauty in organized maths in natures unfolding as a CONSTANT. That vision of the permanence of mathematical beauty is timeless...it doesn't change whether we speak of now or 300 million years earlier. Again, its easy to make obvious statements, but for some, very hard to take some experimental steps ahead of common sense. I am not saying I am right or wrong, experimenting with concepts does not intend to be right or wrong in its exploratory phase. Its after that you see how much water an argument can hold. The timeless beauty of organized mathematical order in the nature of reality can perfectly be pictured in a very broad sense as intelligent no matter what you or Fresco or any other narrow-minded interlocutor thinks is the appropriate usage. The idea was precisely to avoid status quo or consensual thinking. That's how one evolves new povs instead of getting stuck in comfort zones. Also please note that I am a passionate defender of Darwinism. That was never called into question either on my informal dissertation on the matter.

I have shown this video a couple of times in A2K but it doesn't harm to pop it in a third time:

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

The bottom line, Fil, is that there are people arguing here who claim that because "evolution" of some sort is pretty much establish science...

...that conclusively shows there is no intelligent design.

IT DOESN'T!

If science can ever prove (or satisfactorily establish) that "evolution" is not part of an intelligent design of a creator or god...then that conclusion will make some sense.

Right now...IT DOESN'T.

But these supposedly logical, reasonable, scientific people just cannot acknowledge that in any meaningful way...

...because it is evident that the majority of them are not actually arguing the logic of the issue...

...they are arguing that there is no creator or god.

They duck this facet of the argument as inconsequential...when in fact, it is more than just germane to the issue...IT IS ESSENTIAL.

It, after all, truly IS the LOGICAL component of the argument.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Oddly, getting good feedback from atheists is far easier than from theists.

In real life, I find that both atheists and theists are protective about the real core of their outlooks. Sometimes theists have difficulty putting it into words, but it has to do with love.

With atheists, I think nihilism is lingering wound. I don't know that there really is any facing it. So we cover it over with bandages.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

And/or:

3 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

...With atheists, I think nihilism is lingering wound. I don't know that there really is any facing it. So we cover it over with bandages.

Is nihilism the only alternative? Also, is certain death, cessation of the individual subjective consciousness, really a bad thing, after all? Considering the punted alternative(s), I mean.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

But Fil, redefining intelligence to suit your needs derails the entire point of this thread. Is Intellegent Design Theory: Science or Religion.

I'm pretty sure IDers don't use your definition. And the forces/axioms whatever do not 'design' - there is no end point formulated before creation.

Saying mathematics is beautiful is hopelessly anthropomorphic in my view - and isn't 'science' as such. Unless you can prove it is actually beautiful. What you're saying is you find it beautiful.

1 Reply

Looks to me that the goal of science is to attack the unknown until it is no more, even if it may be a futile endeavor. The goal of ID and religion in general is to preserve, elevate and promote the unknown until it is no longer questioned.

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
" Oddly, getting good feedback from atheists is far easier than from theists."

In real life, I find that both atheists and theists are protective about the real core of their outlooks. Sometimes theists have difficulty putting it into words, but it has to do with love.

With atheists, I think nihilism is lingering wound. I don't know that there really is any facing it. So we cover it over with bandages.

That was a much better analysis of what lays behind the statement I made and the core motivations of both sides.

Hingehead's take on it was understandable in view of my use of the word "good" when what I meant was "more". In retrospect, he is right about it being easy to see why though. Theists are easy targets for criticism of their POV and probably much more reluctant to open up about it, especially on a topic like ID.

Love: A topic I would 'love' to see more talk about.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know