Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wandeljw wrote:

georgeob,
It seems to me that farmerman and others have been saying that evolutionary theory is silent on the possibility of a creator (rather than outright excluding the possibility).

On that point I agree, and I have no objection at all to the science behind it and that behind cosmology and the high energy particle physics with which it so strongly interacts in attempting to model the origins of the universe - or, more accurately, the very early stages after the singularity or manifold multiverse , or whatever in scientific parlance, that may thought to ie beyond the known laws and theories of physics.

The essential point here is that science hasn't even dented this mystery and there is no assurance whatever that it ever will. In other words there is no scientific basis on which to conclude that we certainly will develop a unified scientific theory that will both model the very large and the very small in physics and, more importantly solve the riddle of existence.

Next to this overwhelming question the unprovable boast that there will certainly be no answers outside of science is trivial and absurd. The furor over evolution is a relatively unimportant side road. If there is a creator we cannot prejudge the manner in which he may or may not guide physical processes. The known universe is rather remarkably tuned for life in terms of the rate of expansion of the universe, and the values of the known basic physical constants. On the other hand if these constants had different values, we wouldn't be here to remark on it.

The leap of faith required for one to conclude "certainly no intelligent design is present" is far greater than that required to allow for the possibility. Blind credulity is the trademark of the pseudo scientists in this matter - not the skeptics. Certainly conviction that a literal interpretation of the Bible must be applied to the teaching of (say) biology is also absurd, but I believe the spark that creates the contemporary issue comes from those who implicity demand that everyone accept the unproven assertion that answers to the mystery of our existence will certainly come from science and from no other source. That in my book puts those advocates on the same bus with the bible thumpers they profess to scorn. Both are in the grip of blind credulity and both equally resist argument based on reason. Only the superficial manifestations are different.

0 Replies

george, Very simply put, we are the product of our parents who had sex. It wasn't god.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Next to this overwhelming question the unprovable boast that there will certainly be no answers outside of science is trivial and absurd. The furor over evolution is a relatively unimportant side road. If there is a creator we cannot prejudge the manner in which he may or may not guide physical processes. The known universe is rather remarkably tuned for life in terms of the rate of expansion of the universe, and the values of the known basic physical constants. On the other hand if these constants had different values, we wouldn't be here to remark on it.

[Sneak in the "ain't it wondrous" argument. "Look, there's gotta be a creator".]

The leap of faith required for one to conclude "certainly no intelligent design is present" is far greater than that required to allow for the possibility. Blind credulity is the trademark of the pseudo scientists in this matter - not the skeptics. Certainly conviction that a literal interpretation of the Bible must be applied to the teaching of (say) biology is also absurd, but I believe the spark that creates the contemporary issue comes from those who implicity demand that everyone accept the unproven assertion that answers to the mystery of our existence will certainly come from science and from no other source. That in my book puts those advocates on the same bus with the bible thumpers they profess to scorn. Both are in the grip of blind credulity and both equally resist argument based on reason. Only the superficial manifestations are different.

From the get go, you've set up this straw man, and you cling to it like a man drowning, but in all this time you've never pointed out just who it is that you're railing about.

You allow that "a literal interpretation of the Bible" should not be the guiding factor for study of things scientific but you give us no indication that ID has something better to offer.

Are you suggesting that possibly, we could have subjective analyses of "a literal interpretation of the Bible" by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and then these would be a sound basis for a high school curriculum?

I wonder what this "other source" might be, George. These mystery other sources have been pretty parsimonious, to date, with the goods supporting ID.

Quote:

georgeob:
Blind credulity is the trademark of the pseudo scientists in this matter - not the skeptics.

Now that's rich. More name-calling, but no one or nothing specific, another strawman that gives unthinking people something to latch onto so they mouth the talking points. The ID position is vacuous, it has nothing to offer in the way of facts or proof, so knibbling little attacks on anyone will work best; deflection, always a good gambit.

You're still firmly stuck at cockamamie. Try something positive. Here's ID's position and here are the facts to support our proposition.

[Weren't you complaining earlier in the thread that you didn't know what ID meant, George? You've come a long way in such a short time.]

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

That's not quite true, and I think you know it. Neo-Darwinism is often presented as excluding any possibility of any work by a creator, at any stage of the formation or evolution of the observable universe. This itself, is hardly scientific at all. This is far, not only from science, but also the disinterested "absence of religion" or a "distinct philosophy with a positive agenda" which you claim.

Evidently my use of the term "neo-Darwinism" was a red flag to some here. OK, suppose I has just said "Darwinism" instead. I believe the rest of the statement stands. Moreover it addresses the heart of the matter under discussion - something I have seen few of the anti-ID-in-any-form protagonists here willing to address. Why?

I'll discuss it as much as you want. The theory of evolution is utterly silent on the topic of God. It merely explains the origin of the species of life on Earth. If someone wants to say that evolution is God's method of creation, I couldn't care less.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'll discuss it as much as you want. The theory of evolution is utterly silent on the topic of God. It merely explains the origin of the species of life on Earth. If someone wants to say that evolution is God's method of creation, I couldn't care less.

Well evolution doesn't yet explain the origins of life with anything close to the detailed model and empirical basis as it does the evolution of species over time. Some questions of the complexity of life and the efficiency of the random (but with feedback) model, relative to the time required remain. Evolution Theory may well be shown to resolve them, but that hasn't occurred yet. It is merely the best available scientific description of the process. With that in mind, I am quite willing to accept your proposition above.

As for the rest - I'm all ears.

0 Replies

All the observable evidence for evolution are overwhelming, but there is nothing to argue for ID - only speculation. It seems only the religious seem to support ID based on teachings they have learned from the bible. As an atheist, I don't have that handicap, so my belief supports evolution.

There was an interesting segment on global warming on nightline last night. It addressed the consequence of global warming, and how it is affecting fauna and flora around the globe, and making many species extinct. Some frog species only survive under captivity, and whether man can save them from extinction is an interesting challenge. The effect of global warming will become more evident as scientists begin to reveal it's impact on this planet. Some people are still in denial, but weather patterns have begun to waken up the unbelievers.

The Origin of Species is again confirmed.

0 Replies

I have nothing to argue about global warming nor origin of species. What persons of reliegion would talk about is "meaning of species" instead.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Some questions of the complexity of life and the efficiency of the random (but with feedback) model, relative to the time required remain.

I question this assertion. Aside from the truism that some questions remain about everything, where do you get this idea from?

0 Replies

The idea that supernatural design can be found in nature was popularized in 1801 by William Paley's "Natural Theology". In the 1990's, Michael Behe revived Paley's ideas with the book, "Darwin's Black Box". Behe's arguments became the basis for intelligent design theory.

Brown University biology professor, Kenneth R. Miller made the following critique of Behe's book:

Quote:

Behe has gone two centuries into the past to find the argument from design, dusted it off, and invigorated it with the modern language of biochemistry. But there are problems in this excursion. Not the least of these is the fact that the argument from design has been answered, not once, but many times by writers such as Dawkins, Gould, and even Darwin himself. The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts, despite Behe's claim that they must. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes. As Richard Dawkins successfully argued in "The Blind Watchmaker", natural selection can act on these evolving systems at every step of their transformation.

0 Replies

Miller is also leading a concerned bunch of Catholic Scientists who are respectfully questioning the Church's recent release of a "ID friendly" missive from the Archbishop of Vienna.

0 Replies

either way...in schools, each subject matter should be taught and confined to their relevant areas.
in science, evolution theory should be taught as a part of natural science and in religious education studies, the creation principle can also be freely taught.

evolution has no concrete evidence that i can see as we are assuming that the variety according to darwin has occured because of natural selection.
in the carribean at the moment, there is proofs of lizards undergoing change.
however, this does not take away from their original moment of creation...nor does it prove that this is the method by which they were first created.
there are too many missing links to assume that we can wholeheartedly say that evolution is a fact and i guess its why it remains under the title of theory.

creation too has no evidence. we have a lamentable historical record, written by our forefathers in one shape or form and handed down.

based on this, i claim both require faith of some kind and this makes both the scientist and the priest with their white overcoats, supplanters of each other.

long may an open mind and a free thought reign!

0 Replies

baby, Do you know anything about land shifts or continental shift? Did you know that some parts of Antarctica is like a desert? Did you know that penguins are really birds? Do you know how they survive during the winter months when the temperature gets below 50 degrees F? Do you know anything about climate change in Antarctica - or for that matter on this planet?

0 Replies

raprap, Good post with some new information about Jefferson and evolution.

0 Replies

We must keep repeating the fact that evolution requires constant challenge, while ID can't be questioned.

0 Replies

Jefferson went to Big Bone Lick* Kentucky to see those giant fossilized bones. When he sent the core of discovery out west in 1806 he fully expected then to find giant creatures that would explain those giant bones.

I don't know if Jefferson realized how old the Earth as a planet was, but by the late 16th century it was well established that it could very well be millions of years old. Jefferson was also introduced to Priestly by Franklin who was each considered two of the foremost natural scientists of their time. In addition, at the time Jefferson was the ambassador to France, France was awash with scientific exploration and speculation, and if nothing else Jefferson had a curious mind..

Rap c∫;?/

*Big Bone is Just down from Beaver Lick and it is where the Museum of Creationism is being built. I'm told it is to be an amusement park with boat rides and a rollercoaster.

0 Replies

i hear what you are saying rap and i dont need to be decided at any point.
as you allude, a scientific viewpoint has to be one where, even when a supposition occurs, there must be room for error....mainly due to a lack of knowledge.
the most impressive thing about facts are that you can actually do stuff with them, without them being concrete....
this is born by our understanding of the basics of our physical world. no concrete evidence but models that work in real time.

yes, i agree about refining, but we are constantly refining and giving new meanings to the world we live in. we absolutley believe the truth we have today is better than the truth of yesteryear and the people of tomorrow will do the same.

creation genesis also has its attributes of wonder too. the seven days are a problem for those needing hard and fast rules but even in the writing, its obvious that those seven days are different to what we assign it.
for example, the sun and the moon arent created until the third day, so by what means was time told for the first two days.
if we are going to be literal.
genesis itself reaks of a big bang wherein the fist thing created is light and the very creation is set in motion by a wave like action.

i sense we draw our building blocks from the past, no matter how we may reject aspects of it, we still refer back to it in one way or another.
im not here to defend or dispute others beliefs, wether it be science or creationism.....
i believe these are both aspects of us and our natures.....and in our observable world, we are often fooled by the observation itself...the very nature of measurment affects the thing being measured....
im just skeptical about locking down things in a hard and fast manner when i know the next generation of observers are going to be coloured by their own views....

0 Replies

Ignorance is bless to some.

0 Replies

Quote:

**Darwin suddenly rushed his well developed book in 1859 because he was afraid he be scooped by Wallace who?d independently come to the same conclusions. Wallace?s rigor was nowhere as extensive as Darwin, but then Wallace didn?t have the advantage of twenty years of refinement.

Actually a deal was brokered by Lyell and Huxley and others of the Linnean Society.
Lyell stated in the Linnean minutes that to allow Wallace to publish his "paper" first. Darwin made edits to Wallace and vice versa. Darwin didnt have to rush , although, today, we would say he was subject to "anxiety attacks"

Wallace and Darwin broke up as a philosophical team when Darwin published his second bombshell"The descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" In 1871, this was big stuff and Wallace began going off the deep end because he was, by then, a devout practitioner of Spiritualism.

In truth, if it werent for Darwin playing fair when he shared his letter from Wallace with the Linnean guys, Darwin could have claimed his credit and noone would have been wiser. Wallaces letter came from the Celebes and he didnt send Darwin his paper till almost half a year later
Darwin was, meanwhile, holed up at his "Down House" sanctum and working on finishing touches of his work by conducting experiments with pigeons..As you said, Wallaces work was a bit light on the theory but heavy on evidence from island bugs and toads and birds.

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

*Big Bone is Just down from Beaver Lick and it is where the Museum of Creationism is being built. I'm told it is to be an amusement park with boat rides and a rollercoaster.

I feel the twisted need to travel down to Big Bone and visit the Museum of Creationism. I want to ride the boats and rollercoasters and just wallow in the experience of a total separation from reality.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know