Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Your suggestion of 'give an example of what you’re asking for' is a good one.
i.e.
Izzy said: ‘That’s 'The Ninth Configuration'…”

Didn’t say it was the first. Just the best telling of it, IMO.

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
“Now I remember.

THIS is where it got abhorrent years ago.”


Frank replied:
Okay, thank you for sharing that. But it still hasn't gotten abhorrent to me this go-around. We can discuss these issues without rancor...without hurling insults...and I am still willing to try to do that.

Obviously you did not like my response to one of your questions. Give it another shot...in a different way. I thought the response I gave, considering the wide scope of your question, was adequate. Essentially you wrote a short essay...and then questioned me about the subtleties of some of its content.

Form a more specific question--self-contained and of a less wide-ranging scope. Here is what I mean about a self-contained specific question:

Since a significant component of my position on the specific "Is there at least one god*...or are there none?"...is: I do not know...

...let me ask you:

Do you know if there is at least one god or are there there none?

* (When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Alright counselor, I’ll rephrase the question.

Can you give me any indication that you actually read and comprehended any significance aspect of my protein argument?

As it stood, you gave me no indication that you had even read it, let alone comprehended what I wrote.

Quote:

...let me ask you:

Do you know if there is at least one god or are there there none?

By your definition, Yes, I am certain there is at least one god.

But as asked with that definition, the proof of that in not in my protein argument. Totally different design paradigm. And because 'serious' scientists are willing to prostitute science with unsupported assumptions (infinite multiple universe, etc) it’s almost impossible to discuss rationally.

That is why I like biology, there is nothing natural about it. With physics it can be argued that all those delicately balanced constants are what they are because they had to be.
But I digress.

The problem I have with "intelligent design" being involved is...it supposes an agency of design that is infinitely more complex than the creation of its design...and where the hell does that come from?

I disagree, most of our concepts of morality comes from ancient Egypt, which also gave us the ten commandments.

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made.

. . .

When you get up every morning you know what's going to happen all day long. That is, you don't expect people to walk on water, the sun to stand still in the sky, or to suddenly be able to move faster than a speeding bullet. No magic will happen and you don't expect it to. And yet if somebody asked, you are possibly conditioned to answer, "Yes, the magic could happen." Nevertheless, you don't expect to wrestle with an angel on the way to the bus stop. You know the sun will cross the sky, the result of two heavenly bodies in their respective positions relative to one another.

Reasonable people know that evolution is a fact. I refuse to grant credence to anyone who opposes the truth of the evolutionary theory. Some would posit that a creator is necessary to the process, but the same rule that You know when you wake up what will happen all day long is much more reasonable and there is no evidence contrariwise. From the Big Bang until now there is no measurable evidence of divine intervention.

Death seems a necessary component of evolution, allowing for adaptation to occur. Also, the fact that almost every single organism is food to other organisms. The human notoriously will eat almost anything that doesn't eat it first. What's intelligent about a system that depends on death for survival?

Early humans had no libraries or Einstein from which to draw information. By the time their minds developed so that they could question their circumstances they had to already believe much that entered into legends and myths. Emotionally they could not bear to let go of departed loved ones. They saw enough death they had to know of the inevitable in their own case and like Woody Allen would prefer not to be there when it happened. So all the mysteries became the myths and notions that became codified into religions. Whatever could toss that dislodged boulder onto your house has the power to alter other circumstances. The whatever being invisible like your dearly departed, therefore they all likely live together in invisibility. Anthropomorphism. If you don't know the word look it up.

Science has debunked the myths and fantasies of the religious doctrines, leaving raw faith to sustain the gods.

The evolution that gave the world humans delivers a blurred demarcation between animal and human intelligence the more we know. The same force that causes a human to love a dog can cause a cat to love a chicken. Animals can solve problems and manipulate the environment. The problem is, the human is an insatiable problem solver and a greedy manipulator. He is making the other species go extinct. He is currently like two species intermingled, in that a sizeable portion has essentially adopted the golden rule, while a great many others follow the eye for an eye principle. The greedy eye for an eye crowd appears to be in command because the golden rulers are too polite or too few in number to successfully resist. It is becoming more recognized by the minute that humanity will likely soon make itself extinct.

Those who hold onto notions of divine benevolence can make all the excuses they wish, but when on a daily basis toddler children and other humans get blown to smithereens simply because they are there when the totally unnecessary wars gravitate in that direction, I have to scoff.

Christians holding onto Jesus have virtually no evidence the physical man existed. Even if they could place him in history there is no evidence of his miracles. Another situation for You know what's going to happen all day long.

In conclusion, I don't have to prove there is no god to be right. All you need do is provide one scintilla of evidence to make me alter one word of what I have ever written on the topic.

God is not dead, because he/she/it never existed.

Ah yes, something has obviously tampered with the awesome genome of virtually all biological entities.

Reminds me of a Bible story, but judging by your conclusion, you’re not interested.

But yes, LANGUAGE, (the spoken kind) is also enough to convince some people that it is not 'natural' either.