Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wande-

It's a load of assertions mixed in with a load of old stuff with some bullshit for flavouring.And it's not very well written either.It's sycophantic as well.It positively drools with approval.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande-

It's a load of assertions mixed in with a load of old stuff with some bullshit for flavouring.And it's not very well written either.It's sycophantic as well.It positively drools with approval.

Yeah, I don't trust the "Religion News Service" either. Those damned religious people, foisting their news on to us with their bias against fundamentalist religious views.

0 Replies

I don't trust the RNS either mate.Did you think I did or something.

I don't trust anybody who uses words incorrectly. I assume them to have a hidden motive or are stupid when they do that so in either case I don't take any notice except to laugh at the idea that somebody is doing.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

I don't mean numbers. I mean the portion of what we experience in the world that we attribute to direct supernatural influence.

Then whence comes your support for ID?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I don't trust the RNS either mate.Did you think I did or something.

¬_¬

I really should remember to put a Rolling Eyes

or

or

smiley after my sarcastic posts.

Quote:

I don't trust anybody who uses words incorrectly. I assume them to have a hidden motive or are stupid when they do that so in either case I don't take any notice except to laugh at the idea that somebody is doing.

It's called a metaphor. He isn't really on a freaking Crusade. The authors of the article were using a metaphor. Sheesh! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

patiodawg wrote-

Quote:

Then whence comes your support for ID?

Who said I supported ID? Where do I do that?It was a mistake if I did.

All I do I think is point out some of the flaws in the argument against it. What on earth has led you to believe that I give a flying fornication whether God,or god,exists or not. There's nothing I can do about it either way is there. If there is a God,and I'll capitalise it just to be on the safe side, I feel sure He will reward those who are like-minded and hold a resentment against those who's pride was so over-weening that they thought they could second-guess Him.

And if there isn't-well-what can I say.It's a cooling cinder in that case.The galaxy I mean.

0 Replies

Well now, Mr. Spendius, your position confuses me greatly. You argue against Evolution so vehemently, yet you have no vested interest in either Creationism or ID, the traditional people who have a grudge against Evolution.

Neither Hindus nor Buddhists have anything against Evolution. Atheists and agnostics tend not to either.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It's a load of assertions mixed in with a load of old stuff with some bullshit for flavouring.And it's not very well written either.

Are you sure you weren't reading one of your own posts?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

patiodawg wrote-

Quote:
Then whence comes your support for ID?

Who said I supported ID? Where do I do that?It was a mistake if I did.

All I do I think is point out some of the flaws in the argument against it. What on earth has led you to believe that I give a flying fornication whether God,or god,exists or not. There's nothing I can do about it either way is there. If there is a God,and I'll capitalise it just to be on the safe side, I feel sure He will reward those who are like-minded and hold a resentment against those who's pride was so over-weening that they thought they could second-guess Him.

And if there isn't-well-what can I say.It's a cooling cinder in that case.The galaxy I mean.

Then whence your vehement support for its inclusion in matters educational? I daresay I may not have read all of your great volume of posts with the utmost care and attention. How's about a quick, concise summary, without any digressions into football, women's knickers, ale, or the pending downfall of western civilization?

0 Replies

Spendius has confused a lot of people. He claims not to be anti-evolution or pro-ID. His views on religion are mixed. However, he believes it is dangerous to teach children evolution and would rather have them indoctrinated with myth. Children for spendius are "little blighters".

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Well now, Mr. Spendius, your position confuses me greatly. You argue against Evolution so vehemently, yet you have no vested interest in either Creationism or ID, the traditional people who have a grudge against Evolution.

Hi Wolf,

I'll save you a re-read of the past 4000 spendi posts and summarize based on 2% of Spendi's posts which are somewhat comprehensible...

Spendi doesn't support ID as valid science, and he doesn't disagree with evolution either. Spendi's main point (besides looking for chances to insert odd sexual references in to the discussion) is that ID is relevant simply because it exists and because people are talking about it.

Spendi thinks we should study ID not as a scientific idea, but as a cultural phenomena which marks a significant portion of the population as being stupid; an idea which Spendi pushes regularly by aruging that most people are dim witted scientific wanna'bees.

Nobody on this thread seems to want to take Spendi up on his discussion of ID as a sociological indicator of intellectual and educational weakness in society. Or on the idea that religion is a necessary psychological tool to brainswash and control the semi-civilized baboons of humanity. And Spendi doesn't want to start his own thread (which has been suggested) because he prefers to hock in little bits of absurdity, rather than to contribute any meaningful thought or comment.

That's just my personal interpretation of course. I could be totally wrong, but I don't think many on this thread would disagree (not even Spendi. Right Spunki?).

0 Replies

Intelligent design has great respect among the scientific community. Read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel to see the number of scientists who have supported it. Just a few of the names include:
Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD
William Lane Craig, PhD, ThD
Robin Collins, PhD
Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD
Jay Wesley Richards, PhD
Michael J. Behe, PhD
J.P. Moreland, PhD

The list goes on and on. Perhaps later I will add to it. Read Strobel's book and it includes interviews with these prominent scientists about intelligent design.

0 Replies

chr, Welcome to a2k. Lee Strobel is a religionist, and he pushes religionist ideas without scientific evidence.

Just because he can list PhDs on a list of people he claims supports "creation," none are able to produce real evidence to prove their point.

PhD does not mean their statements or theories about creation are correct without the consensus of scientists around the world - who do not have "religion" as their primary interest.

You need to learn the difference between what supports creation vs what supports evolution and science.

Show us one evidence for creation that is supported by science.

0 Replies

Furthermore, how many of those scientists with PhDs are very religious and how many actually work in a field that has relation to evolution?

Intelligent Design has no respect amongst the scientific community, because it is not science and no scientific research can be done on the matter.

0 Replies

Evidence
I quote from his book: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause...The universe had a beginning...therefore, the universe has a cause."

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Contraptions like the cilia and flagella are unlikely to have been built through Darwin's evolution. Michael Behe said, "I believe that irreducibly complex systems are strong evidence of a purposeful, intentional design by an intelligent agent."

Try to argue against these arguments. As to the list of scientists, that was how this topic was originally formed, with the question

Quote:

Is intelligent design theory a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory or is it only a religious view?

Is there a consensus in the scientific community one way or the other on this issue?

0 Replies

Re: Evidence

chr42690 wrote:

I quote from his book: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause...The universe had a beginning...therefore, the universe has a cause."

So? That doesn't prove that ID is correct and it doesn't disprove Evolution is false. Nothing in Evolution states that God didn't set everything in motion.

Quote:

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Contraptions like the cilia and flagella are unlikely to have been built through Darwin's evolution. Michael Behe said, "I believe that irreducibly complex systems are strong evidence of a purposeful, intentional design by an intelligent agent."

You're wrong. No one has demonstrated that cilia and flagella cannot have been created through evolution. Behe speaks rubbish when he talks about irreducibly complex systems. It is a rehash of the watchmaker argument formed by William Paley.

Basically what Behe states is, I can't understsand how something as complicated as cilia and flagella occur through evolution, so someone must have created it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Also, here is a very detailed argument explaining how molecular evolution is far too flexible for irreducible complexity to be a problem.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

I post a link to it, because it's far too much stuff for me to post.

Quote:

Try to argue against these arguments. As to the list of scientists, that was how this topic was originally formed, with the question
Quote:
Is intelligent design theory a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory or is it only a religious view?

Is there a consensus in the scientific community one way or the other on this issue?

Yes, and the consensus is that ID is not science. Just because you can give a long list, doesn't mean the majority of scientists believe in ID as a science. The list is not hte majority. There are far more scientists out there that do not believe in ID than there are that do, and I cannot list them all, because to do so would be insanely difficult.

0 Replies

Quote:
Is intelligent design theory a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory or is it only a religious view?

Is there a consensus in the scientific community one way or the other on this issue?

ID and creationism has nothing to support it; only a centuries old book that makes the claim. There is nothing claimed in the bible that holds up to scientific finds:
1. Young earth
2. Noah's ark and the world flood
3. Creation of earth and everything in it in six-24 hour days.
4. Man is crated in god's image.
5. Man was made by god from "dust."
6. Woman was made from a rib from Adam.
7. Heaven and hell.

A. God supports slavery
B. God loves the world, but will send all sinners to hell for eternity. Irrational at best.
C. God is against homosexuals, although he created them.
D. God created sin. Do you need proof?
E. How could there be a "first day of creation" without the sun? A simple logics problem.

If you want more, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

0 Replies

You know, after reading your post on the "Origins of Earth", chr42690, I'm beginning to wonder whether you really have an issue with Evolution. It may actually in fact be you getting us to do your homework for you and if that is the case, my opinion of you will become even lower than it is now.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

It's called a metaphor. He isn't really on a freaking Crusade. The authors of the article were using a metaphor. Sheesh!

Precisely Wolf.It is so bad a metaphor,perhaps acceptable in loose speech,that it tells me of a poor standard of language use.If Mr Forbes had been likened to a terrier after a rat or a hound sniffing a fox I wouldn't have referred to it.

But a "crusader"-goodness gracious me.In a prepared text for publication.

I know it was a metaphor.I knew things like that are metaphors when I was in short pants.It's a metaphor which shows a capacity to understand English on the same level as a high jumper managing to clear the bar at 20cms.

The authors of the article (more than one!!!) were assuming a stupid audience or are stupid themselves.

The comparison is invalid full stop.Sheesh.

0 Replies

"Therefore the universe has a cause" is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It is so vague that it has essentially no meaning. "Cause" is non-defined, and non-definable, in any testable way.

The ID folks originally argued that there were certain irreducibly complex systems that could not have come into existence piecemeal and required a designer. They said some cases were obvious.They cited the eye and bird flight. Evolutionary biologists showed they were not irreducibly complex, and in fact had evolutionary antecendents, each stage of which was functional. The ID people no longer use those examples. But they keep trying to come up with new examples. Each time they do, they get shot down. Their most recent one was microflagella. Again evolutionary pathways that led to them have been demonstrated (see previous discussion some hundreds of pages back now). It has been shown over and over again, that what the ID people have stated was "intuitively obvious" was objectively wrong.

There is no scientific controversy over ID. Scientists overwhelmingly say it is wrong. Life scientists overwhelmingly say evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of modern biology, and the evidence for it is overwhelming.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know