Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Nobody is asking christians or religionists to dump the whole of "this" tradition overboard in one fell swoop.

Without beliefs what evidence is there that there will be any functions other than those associated with primitive promiscuity?

Judging from the epithets that have been used on here to describe Christians one might think that "fell swoop" is exactly what is required.

There is a lot of connected stuff that will have to go overboard alongside Christian theology.

Nobody serious is interested in evidence to support their beliefs. They are interested in the functions of the beliefs.

Without beliefs what evidence is there that there will be any functions other than those associated with primitive promiscuity?

1-It depends what you mean by religious.

2-I couldn't see anything to prevent that other than a forced separation of the sexes or an artificially induced reduction in the sex drive.

Promiscuity seems to be what is beginning to happen as religion declines and I don't see how the actions can be other than primitive. But I'm not sure what your "negative effects" are.

3-I've covered that I think.

4-One might think that would be the case. I can't see what would stop them if they took care of the disease and the offspring problem but then,in the latter case,it might not be sex.

Poppycock - Id-iots, yes. Christians who are not also ID-iots - and there are many, likely far and away the majority - not at all.

Such as what, and why might that be so?

Bullshit.

Where is your evidence for the plausibility of your 2, 3, 4?

Chum wrote-

Quote:

Where is your evidence for the plausibility of your 2, 3, 4?

What I see with my eyes.Maybe I see things you don't see Chum but that can't be caused by anything else than you not looking because it is there to see. Perhaps you should take off those rose-tinted spectacles now and again and see what Mr Burroughs called THE NAKED LUNCH.

Gray: "The theory of evolution has been around a long time. It wasn't even called 'evolution' when people began thinking they might have come from other organisms over time. But there was no mechanism in place to define how that happened.

"Charles Darwin in 1858 came up with the hypothesis about natural selection, but it wasn't until 1892 that the term 'evolution' was used to describe his theory. Since that time it has been tested a great deal and is now thought of as fact by most biologists.

"The basic theory has never been disproved. Some of the mechanisms people came up with have been disproved and fallen out of favor, but the facts of evolution have never fallen out of favor."

Van Dyke: "Most of the leaders in the intelligent design movement don't accept that there are adequate naturalistic explanations ... for the fine-tuning of the physical constants in nature. Intelligent design proponents think that the evidence for and against the theory of evolution should be taught in public schools and that science needs to be expanded to allow intelligent causes. Many in the ID movement believe that science is due for a revolution in its basic assumptions."

Jesseph: "You mention the fine-tuning of the universe. As far as I know, in the last year and a half, the fine-tuning argument has basically been stomped into the dirt because the currently accepted cosmological models solve the fine-tuning problems.

"If we believe that human beings are designed, it seems plausible that in addition to wondering and marveling at the design, we could also critique it. Whoever designed the human knee or the gastrointestinal tract is a very lousy designer, unlikely to get better than a C-minus in design class."

Hambourger: "The difference between the two sides ... is not whether evolution took place but something much less concrete and much harder to address by empirical research: Could evolution have taken place without planning, or could it only come about by intelligent design?

"But God, if he exists, could easily have designed the world to come about in just this way, by a long evolutionary process."

Gray: "Should intelligent design be taught in science class? I believe the answer is no, because it does not accommodate the scientific method in which an hypothesis can be developed and experiments designed for testing.

"Evolution is now considered a fact by nearly all biologists, allowing biologists to place all living creatures in a meaningful context and enabling scientists to have insights that might otherwise be unimaginable. Can we say the same about intelligent design?"

Van Dyke: "I would challenge Dr. Gray to give me any evidence of macro-evolution. I do not think, as a scientist, there is any evidence beyond micro-evolution to support [the idea] that we evolved from some other form of life."

Gray: "We are very closely related to the chimp."

Van Dyke: "Not really."

Gray: "Yes, we are. Ninety-six percent of our genome is virtually identical to the chimp. It is part of the species separation process."

Hambourger: "It just shows you how incredibly complex chimps are -- and we are."

Jesseph: "The intelligent design theory just doesn't cut it. Even with a lot of improvement, it would still be lousy science. It is not even up to the level of voodoo.

The main problem is it doesn't explain anything. To be told that fundamental elements of living things were designed by a designer about whom we know nothing other than he is intelligent and he designed is really to go nowhere. That's like explaining the inebriating properties of beer by the fact that it has a special drunk-making quality in it that is such that when you drink it you become inebriated."

Hambourger: "I think there is a serious danger that only you can know by looking into your own soul ... that secularists are motivated not by a genuine love of freedom and the Constitution but in many cases by a real dislike of religion.

"If those are your motives, I think it's important for you to realize you are in danger of two things: One is you are being extremely intolerant, and secondly, you are being a real hypocrite in trying to do so on the grounds of civil liberties."

Last week intelligent design was debated before an audience at North Carolina State University. Arguing in favor of intelligent design were Gerald Van Dyke, a botany professor, and Robert Hambourger, a philosophy professor. Arguing in favor of evolution were John Gray, a molecular biologist and Douglas Jesseph, a philosophy professor. Below is an excerpt as reported in North Carolina News & Observer:

Quote:

Gray: "The theory of evolution has been around a long time. It wasn't even called 'evolution' when people began thinking they might have come from other organisms over time. But there was no mechanism in place to define how that happened.

"Charles Darwin in 1858 came up with the hypothesis about natural selection, but it wasn't until 1892 that the term 'evolution' was used to describe his theory. Since that time it has been tested a great deal and is now thought of as fact by most biologists.

"The basic theory has never been disproved. Some of the mechanisms people came up with have been disproved and fallen out of favor, but the facts of evolution have never fallen out of favor."

Van Dyke: "Most of the leaders in the intelligent design movement don't accept that there are adequate naturalistic explanations ... for the fine-tuning of the physical constants in nature. Intelligent design proponents think that the evidence for and against the theory of evolution should be taught in public schools and that science needs to be expanded to allow intelligent causes. Many in the ID movement believe that science is due for a revolution in its basic assumptions."

Jesseph: "You mention the fine-tuning of the universe. As far as I know, in the last year and a half, the fine-tuning argument has basically been stomped into the dirt because the currently accepted cosmological models solve the fine-tuning problems.

"If we believe that human beings are designed, it seems plausible that in addition to wondering and marveling at the design, we could also critique it. Whoever designed the human knee or the gastrointestinal tract is a very lousy designer, unlikely to get better than a C-minus in design class."

Hambourger: "The difference between the two sides ... is not whether evolution took place but something much less concrete and much harder to address by empirical research: Could evolution have taken place without planning, or could it only come about by intelligent design?

"But God, if he exists, could easily have designed the world to come about in just this way, by a long evolutionary process."

Gray: "Should intelligent design be taught in science class? I believe the answer is no, because it does not accommodate the scientific method in which an hypothesis can be developed and experiments designed for testing.

"Evolution is now considered a fact by nearly all biologists, allowing biologists to place all living creatures in a meaningful context and enabling scientists to have insights that might otherwise be unimaginable. Can we say the same about intelligent design?"

Van Dyke: "I would challenge Dr. Gray to give me any evidence of macro-evolution. I do not think, as a scientist, there is any evidence beyond micro-evolution to support [the idea] that we evolved from some other form of life."

Gray: "We are very closely related to the chimp."

Van Dyke: "Not really."

Gray: "Yes, we are. Ninety-six percent of our genome is virtually identical to the chimp. It is part of the species separation process."

Hambourger: "It just shows you how incredibly complex chimps are -- and we are."

Jesseph: "The intelligent design theory just doesn't cut it. Even with a lot of improvement, it would still be lousy science. It is not even up to the level of voodoo.

The main problem is it doesn't explain anything. To be told that fundamental elements of living things were designed by a designer about whom we know nothing other than he is intelligent and he designed is really to go nowhere. That's like explaining the inebriating properties of beer by the fact that it has a special drunk-making quality in it that is such that when you drink it you become inebriated."

Hambourger: "I think there is a serious danger that only you can know by looking into your own soul ... that secularists are motivated not by a genuine love of freedom and the Constitution but in many cases by a real dislike of religion.

"If those are your motives, I think it's important for you to realize you are in danger of two things: One is you are being extremely intolerant, and secondly, you are being a real hypocrite in trying to do so on the grounds of civil liberties."

Surely in today's relatively godless world,

you should be able to substantiate your far reaching claims in terms of cause and effect. And with only a modicum of effort I should think.

PS: Do you fashion yourself an underground fighter in a self-destructing technological society such as represented by semiconductors?

Myself, I think both Westinghouse and Edison were big wieners and we should have listened to Tesla!

Chumly wrote, without due consideration, it seems:

Quote:

Myself, I think both Westinghouse and Edison were big wieners and we should have listened to Tesla!

Nicola Tesla worked for both Edison and Westinghouse. Edison cheated him shamelessly, and profited from his work without either giving credit where it was due, nor recompensing Tesla as he deserved. George Westinghouse, however, used his wealth to make Tesla's asynchronous bi-phase generator, and therefore, alternating current, a reality. Edison, heavily invested in direct current, attempted to make it seem that alternating current is dangerous in a way which was not true of direct current (the exact opposite is actually true), and enlisted Lord Kelvin to his campaign. Westinghouse used his financial resources to back Tesla, and enabled the building of the first great electric generating station using the 170 foot drop of the Niagara River at the falls. He made Tesla a multi-millionaire, gave him huge amounts of stock in the newly formed company, and publicly gave him creit for his work. Westinghouse got in over his head, though, party for reasons which were frivolous, but largely because the demand for the inexpensive AC which could be pushed hundreds of miles over the copper wire (something you cannot do with direct current) was so great, the project was expanded and cost overruns threatened to eat up the substance of the company. Althuogh remaining a millionaire, Tesla surrender his rights to the earnings of the company, and gave back the huge block of stock which was a part of the original deal, at no cost to Westinghouse. You have casually, and i suspect from mere ignorance, slandered George Westinghouse in a manner he does not deserve.