Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

No, but it assumes the existence of a designer. I assume that the designer would need to be some sort of supreme being, capable of designing every detailed aspect of earth, from the layout of the planets, to the patterns on a butterfly's wings, and the incredible complexity of DNA. I have just used the word God to describe this supreme designer.

0 Replies

Now don't get me wrong because I'm not trying to belittle you or the argument but I am asking "why?" Why would they bother?

I mean the very detail you describe, for me it has to be accidental rather than by design, driven by a multitude of influences rather than a deity, developed by a congruence of of those influences rather than a divine hand.

0 Replies

Re: teaching intelligent design theory

adele_g wrote:

Quote:
"I am afraid students will get a distorted view of science if they are taught a controversy that doesn't exist among professional scientists"

If controversy doesn't exist among professional scientists, it is extremely worrying. It seems that ever since Darwin introduced the idea of evolution, scientists have been determined to grasp onto the minute possibility that the existence of life on earth could have nothing to do with God, even if this means blinding themselves to the major and irreconcilable flaws in the theory. Blind acceptance of the theory by scientists does not validate it, instead it indicates that the education system, both at a secondary and a tertiary level, are teaching unproven theories as fact. I saw a post before which said that intelligent design theory needs to be proven before it is taught. What a joke, since when has evolution been proven. It is just a theory, nothing more. Students have the right to know that the theory of evolution has holes in it, and that there are other alternatives. Science has been dominated for too long by secularist educators who think that being objective in education is teaching only theories that don't involve the possibility of the existence of God. At least present the students with both sides of the story and let them decide.

It's this kind of idiotic thinking that is ruining science education. Please read the following and educate yourself.

"Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally?-taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along."

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/?fs=www7.nationalgeographic.com

Teaching intelligent design in science classrooms as an alternate scientific theory is the equivalent of teaching them that babies come from the f*cking stork. It makes me so mad that our idiot president has actually given legitimacy to moronic crap like this. How much further into the dark ages is this pinhead going to take us?

0 Replies

Well, I suppose it really depends on how you see that deity. For me, God would take the time and the effort to create such a wonderful and unique Earth because he wanted to put us humans on it. I believe he created humans to have personal relationship with Him, that's why he would go to such effort to make us intelligent beings that can wonder and reason and maybe eventually realise the purpose of our existence on Earth. It wasn't so he could watch us live out our lives aimlessly. I believe there is a purpose to our existence, and that the fact that there is a design so evident in the formation of even the smallest particles in existence is also evidence that there is a design to life itself.

0 Replies

Quote:

at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along

You are obviously unaware of the severely conflicting data which is already in circulation. Ever heard of irreducible complexity. There are machines within cells (bacterial flagellum) which could not have been evolved because without just one of their parts, they would not function. Evolution works on the premise that each part is added only if it will be of some benefit, if not- it is disposed of. 30 odd parts do not add themselves one by one if there is no use for them. These machines could not have formed on their own. Darwin himself said that if any part of the evolutionary process could not be explained, his entire theory would fall to pieces. I believe it has. I also happen to think that the intelligent design theory is a better explanation which has come along. Personally, I think it takes much more faith to believe in the ridiculously minute possibility of life forming from nothing, than it does to believe that the complex design of life came from an intelligent Creator.

0 Replies

adele_g wrote:

Well, I suppose it really depends on how you see that deity. For me, God would take the time and the effort to create such a wonderful and unique Earth because he wanted to put us humans on it. I believe he created humans to have personal relationship with Him, that's why he would go to such effort to make us intelligent beings that can wonder and reason and maybe eventually realise the purpose of our existence on Earth. It wasn't so he could watch us live out our lives aimlessly. I believe there is a purpose to our existence, and that the fact that there is a design so evident in the formation of even the smallest particles in existence is also evidence that there is a design to life itself.

But how do we know Earth is unique? We haven't seen the rest of the universe yet. And what if we think it's wonderful and unique simply because we are here?

This is where I think that intelligent design shows that it is a religious idea nd not a scientific one. I have no problem with intelligent design being discussed within a religious context, as a matter of faith, of belief, I have a major problem with it being put forward as a valid alternative to a scientific theory. It reminds me of Lysenkoism.

0 Replies

Quote:

But how do we know Earth is unique? We haven't seen the rest of the universe yet. And what if we think it's wonderful and unique simply because we are here?

This is where I think that intelligent design shows that it is a religious idea nd not a scientific one. I have no problem with intelligent design being discussed within a religious context, as a matter of faith, of belief, I have a major problem with it being put forward as a valid alternative to a scientific theory. It reminds me of Lysenkoism.

I know that we don't have lenses powerful enough to see the rest of the universe, to see if we are truly the only planet with life on it. I strongly doubt we will ever find another planet with life at all, let alone one as magnificent as the one we are living on. Humans are such amazingly complex creatures, I can't help but be in awe at the depth and complexity that there is to the human body. Perhaps I do think the Earth is so wonderful and unique because we are here. The fact that Earth exists is a miracle in itself. If we were any closer to the sun we would fry, and if we were any further from it we would freeze. I don't think we will ever find anything like Earth in the universe.

As for Lysenkoism, it was an agricultural campaign that the government of the day used as political propaganda. If by comparing Lysenkoism to intelligent design theory you mean that it is a belief challenged by empirical evidence but preferred for ideological reasons, I say right back at you. I think evolution is a theory which is challenged by empirical evidence but is preferred by the majority of the population because it means they can continue to pretend that God doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Touche

Is evolution challenged by empirical evidence? Now here I have to insert my usual comment that that is not a rhetorical question noris it some sort of subversive, deliberately disingenous question. I'm not making assumptions, I simply don't know of any empirical evidence challenging evolution as a theory and I would be indebted to you to be able to read some. And no, that's not a sticking the chin out challenge either. If you have some links for example I would appreciate reading the info.

As for pretending that God doesn't exist. Who are we to know? Some of us believe, some of us don't believe. And we're pretty convinced we're right.

And some of us take a stance based loosely on Pascal's Wager (I know it's more complex than it's portrayed but it's just a glancing reference) and we are going for the best we can get out of it. If I believe God exists or I pretend God doesn't exist, doesn't matter much.

I still think though that intelligent design is an issue of faith and not science and shouldn't be treated as such. But I am happy to read opposing views.

Lysenko - straining the memory here - tried to make Marxist dialectical materialism fit the natural world to please his political masters and to advance his career. I believe that Stalin approved. I also believed that Lysenko's efforts failed when nature refused to submit. In that sense it was an ideology imposed on a natural phenomenon. It wasn't scientific, it was ideological. Okay I admit I could have some details wrong there but my point is that ideology (and here I'm going to include religion) and science are on two different paths. One relies on faith and belief and one relies on objectivity. If we're going to make sense of the world then they must remain separate.

0 Replies

adele-g said

Quote:

I believe he created humans to have personal relationship with Him,... I believe there is a purpose to our existence, and that the fact that there is a design so evident in the formation of even the smallest particles in existence is also evidence that there is a design to life itself.

ANd you want to speculate about how evolution isnt fully proven, wow, the fact that the others let you get away with this in normal discourse and just keep truckin along , I find incredible.
As far as the flagella argument of Michael Behe, there is no serious "finding that undperpins n INtelligent Design view".
There are numbers of microscopic organisms that have cilia and flagella in "increasing" complxity that shows the function of the rotator propulsion isnt one that "arrives fully formed " from no precursors. The Journal of Paleo did a series of microscopic features , including eyes , a number of years ago. Its amazing what the fossil record shows when viewed without an ID driver.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

adele-g said
Quote:
I believe he created humans to have personal relationship with Him,... I believe there is a purpose to our existence, and that the fact that there is a design so evident in the formation of even the smallest particles in existence is also evidence that there is a design to life itself.

ANd you want to speculate about how evolution isnt fully proven, wow, the fact that the others let you get away with this in normal discourse and just keep truckin along , I find incredible.
As far as the flagella argument of Michael Behe, there is no serious "finding that undperpins n INtelligent Design view".
There are numbers of microscopic organisms that have cilia and flagella in "increasing" complxity that shows the function of the rotator propulsion isnt one that "arrives fully formed " from no precursors. The Journal of Paleo did a series of microscopic features , including eyes , a number of years ago. Its amazing what the fossil record shows when viewed without an ID driver.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but - are you an atheist?

0 Replies

I'm sorry this is way off the thread but the fact that farmerman mentioned the "flagella argument" in a thread that is touching on religion made me chuckle. Very Happy

I know, sick sense of humour.

0 Replies

No, but I am a failing agnostic.

I see that the issues of multiple design tries(of organisms), extreme morphological solutions to environmental challenges , multiple morphological tries at a single niche colonization , colonization of a large portion of the earth by extremely unique animals and plants that are found nowhere else, and just poor design features, belies a competent "Creator" and bolsters the mechanics of evolution.

The more data and evidence supporting the models of evolution are discovered, the more that the word "theory" becomes almost obsolete.

0 Replies

hey goodfielder. I got a million of them. I was leading a field trip with my undergrad class a few years ago , and they started this game of clapping and yelling out subjects in a catagory (I have no idea the games name, its just loud and raucous and the kids enjoyed it)
So they were yelling categories like

Shakespeare tragedies, and then hadda yell names of characters(clap clap clap yell)
Then It was , I dont know, rock stars.
SO I joined in and yelled out a category

"PLEIOCENE DINOFLAGELLATES_and this is for credit" Boy did that shut em up, until somebody started laughing. I hate bein a stuffed shirt.

0 Replies

Goodfielder
here's some links on bacterial flagellum if you wanted to explore further:

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/graphics-captions/Flagellum.html

http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm

Farmerman
I am not trying to say that the existence of God is proven, or that the theory of intelligent design is either. All I am trying to say is that it's worth looking at all options even if that means one that includes a God, no matter what the implications would be for your life. I am well aware that the intelligent design theory has not been proven, but I am sick of people going on as if evolution has been.

0 Replies

Quote:

"PLEIOCENE DINOFLAGELLATES_and this is for credit" Boy did that shut em up, until somebody started laughing. I hate bein a stuffed shirt.

I aspire to that kind of classroom management Very Happy

0 Replies

adele_g - thank you for the links.

0 Replies

No aspect of "intelligent design" has been demonstrated. In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the concept of descent through modification by natural selection from a common ancestor was advanced by Darwin and Wallace, the utility of the theory has been demonstrated literally hundreds of times. The theory has moved from biology into other disciplines and proven useful in their investigations. The basis for observing descent with modification has been moved from morphological consideration to the consideration of alleles of genes.

The Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism alongside the teaching of evolution. So the frustrated and determined proponents of that agenda cobbled together intelligent design and larded on the additional contention of the "intelligent designer" continuously taking a hand in order to attempt to salvage the god dodge by suggesting an everpresent and active deity. They have a religious and a political agenda to forward.

Many scientists are men and women of religious conviction. Charles Darwin was trained for the ministry, and the correspondence survives in which he and his father discussed the opportunity afforded to him as a educated man if he were to join Beagle in the long cruise proposed. Those with theistic conviction could simply accept a contention that a creator set up the conditions in which, operating within the physical laws of the universe, life arose and evolved from common ancestor by descent with modification by the mechanism of natural selection to create a great diversity of life forms. That IDers don't want to simply accept that, and the origin of their "theory" as a direct result of failure before the Supreme Court ought to be more than sufficient evidence that there is a agenda, religious and political, driving their effort. Rejecting creationism rejects the "revealed truth" contention that the bobble ougth to be considered a literal, irrefutable statement of the exact truth about the age of the earth and the origins of life. It is that which galls the religiously fanatical and drives the ID movement. To suggest otherwise is either to persist in being willfully naïve or to lie outright.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rejecting creationism rejects the "revealed truth" contention that the bobble ougth to be considered a literal, irrefutable statement of the exact truth about the age of the earth and the origins of life.

And it is this dogmatic literalism that makes the Trojan Horse so dangerous. Dogma is anti-scientific. And without science we have no way to inform ourselves about the realities around us. Adherence to authority without question, regardless of evidence to the contrary, is maglignantly fatal.

0 Replies

Quote:

Adherence to authority without question, regardless of evidence to the contrary, is maglignantly fatal.

Are you referring to adherence to the authority of evolution without question, regardless of evidence to the contrary?

I just found this book, maybe you should read it "Evolution as Dogma:
The Establishment of Naturalism".
Phillip Johnson

0 Replies

adele_g wrote:

Well, I suppose it really depends on how you see that deity. For me, God would take the time and the effort to create such a wonderful and unique Earth because he wanted to put us humans on it. I believe he created humans to have personal relationship with Him, that's why he would go to such effort to make us intelligent beings that can wonder and reason and maybe eventually realise the purpose of our existence on Earth. It wasn't so he could watch us live out our lives aimlessly. I believe there is a purpose to our existence, and that the fact that there is a design so evident in the formation of even the smallest particles in existence is also evidence that there is a design to life itself.

That's an interesting theory. Which correct predictions did this theory make, and how does its record of correct predictions compare with evolutionary biology, geology, and astronomy?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know