Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

So... are you alleging either 1) that this 'contempt' can only be 'committed' by IDers or those who disagree with your personal position or 2) that you can intuitively tell which authors are driven by this 'contempt' without reading a word of what they write?

0 Replies

If you would be so good as to remove the ambiguity from your post so that i know to what contempt you refer, i might be inclined to answer.

0 Replies

george, Science is the best we've got. Without it, we'd understand much less about our existence and our enviornment. I'm not willing to sacrifice the knowledge science has revealed thus far to say it doesn't prove anything.

You're expecting science to explain everything in short order. Technology that is available today wasn't even in existence one hundred years ago. What science has been able to do is to refine our knowledge about our existence. It surely doesn't answer everything, but that's expecting too much if you do. It's unrealistic.

If this planet is indeed 150 million years old, there have been many changes of geology, fauna and flora. Many things that lived centuries ago no longer live on this planet - without any trace evidence. We can't expect science to recreate something that disappeared centuries ago. We can only rely on existing fossils to provide us with clues. DNA is a relatively new science, but with it scientists have traced the geneology of the people in Australia, Asia and Europe from Africa.

Nobody can deny that this planet had a creator, but it also cannot prove it had one - yet.

0 Replies

Sentata writes:

Quote:

But Farmerman did prove to be valuable in this, confirming my suspicions with the information he provided about the author. As he makes his living applying specific scientific knowledge germane to this topic, i'll take his word over that of anyone here, especially those who appear to wish to forward the same agenda as Mr. Johnson.

That is a shame- I always find it more beneficial to research myself (tends to save embarrassment later). Should you wish to do a simple google search on Professor Johnson, you will find that he is widely noted as the 'Father of Intelligent Design'. His other credentials include being a Harvard and University of Chicago graduate and a law clerk for a former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Take a look at this interview with him in the
Washington Post:

Or maybe even check out any of the other 29,000 references. I find it a little bit of a miracle that Farmerman managed to avoid all of these! Confused

Maybe you could even check out the publishing credentials of the 40 books listed as his, currently being sold on Amazon...

As for my posting on 'contempt', I am sorry, I was actually replying to snood, not you. However you are welcome to comment once you read the posting in context.

0 Replies

As you had not quoted Snood, there was no way for me to have known that you referred to him in your post. That is not a big quibble on my part, i often reply to people without quoting them. You are likely to discover, however, if you do something about that hair-trigger of yours, that Snood's position is consonant with yours, and not with mine.

In fact, it was in the process of looking up biographies online that i came across the information about the publisher of his book. That you call him the "father of intelligent design" is more than sufficient reason for me not to spend my money. Science starts from a foundation of information, and proceeds by established procedure to make sense of the information, and gather more information. It is an inductive process. "Intelligent design" starts from a thesis, and then seeks to describe available information in such a way as to "prove" the thesis, which is not science at all. Were you to state that you never read books by "Humanists," it would not mean anything particularly to me, or to this disargeement, as my point has been, all along, what i would buy, not what i would read. Either you willfully ignore the distinction, or you find it more convenient to your mission to fling your contempt at me not to take note of the distinction.

I rarely buy books about science, because it is not my principle area of interest. When i don't wish to buy a book, i will look for the text online, or borrow it from the library. Even then, however, i apply a standard, as i do not wish to waste my time reading nonsense. I consider ID to be nonsense--everything regarding ID which i have read online was nonsensical, and claiming that one is engaged in science when one has determined the results one intends to find in advance, is, as i've already pointed out, no science at all.

To claim that Mr. Johnson is widely noted as "the father of intelligent design" is to advance argumentum ad populum, it cannot be considered convincing evidence of the worth of his work. In the pithy phrase of Anatole France, "That fifty million people believe a wrong thing--it is still a wrong thing." Being a prolific author means nothing either--one of the most prolific and popular science fiction authors of the twentieth century was Robert A. Heinlein. I consider him disgustingly racist, sexist, elitist and reactionary, and that based upon reading his work. Nothing you have to offer about Mr. Johnson is of a character to reasonably establish him as a trustworthy author on a scientific topic.

0 Replies

Would you/have you read a book by the 'Father of Evolution'- Charles Darwin?

0 Replies

I have read The Origin of the Species, many years ago. Darwin and Wallace both reached a conclusion based upon morphology while widely separated in time and space. That alone lends credence to what they had to put forward. They both applied a method of examining the data and coming to a conclusion--that is science. Mr. Darwin was trained to be an Anglican minister. Mr. Wallace was of such a religious character that it seems to have unhinged him in his fading years, and he became an almost incomprehensible mystic. The important thing about the work which they both did is that they examined available evidence and came to a conclusion, rather than deteriming an answer and searching for data they could bend to the task of supporting the thesis.

Which is what IDers do, and which is why i have little inclination to waste any more of my time reading what they write.

0 Replies

Quote:

Which is what IDers do, and which is why i have little inclination to waste any more of my time reading what they write.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

0 Replies

By reading their tripe.

0 Replies

george, you ignorant bitch!

Give it up guys. The IDers will not be convinced. Their convictions are not based on questions about how and why but rather on supporting their own wishes.

It won't do any good, but I'll one more time say that george's idea that scientific knowledge is based on adherence to authority is not only not accurate, it is impossible.

Science is based on a search for truth. That's what science is. That's the definition of science. It's a never ending questioning of theories and facts. If a "scientist" or researcher is not willing to question everything, then he or she is not practicing science. Without doubt, without open questioning there is no science, only dogma.

You're right george, science has nothing to do with the question of a creator. That's religion. I don't deny that there's the possiblity of a creator, everything is possible, theoritically, but the chances are so minisule that the need to teach it as a possibility in a science classroom is non existent. What is taught in science are theories, and some are so well documented and replicated or consistent that they can be considered to be facts until new technology or new understanding brings them again into question. The theory of the existence of God has no basis in fact. Comparative religion is the place for questions about God. All the IDers have is a lot of well developed arguments based on the play of words........PR if you will. That's not science.

I've never been able to understand why, if we can postulate a creator, that is a being that has been and is eternal, why we can't postulate eternity, i.e., what is has always been and always will be. What reason is there to add the concept of a human like being that did the "creating?" The concept of a creator is a matter of faith and does not belong in a science curriculum.

But I've said that so many times now that it makes my head hurt to say it again. It won't do any good.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I've never been able to understand why, if we can postulate a creator, that is a being that has been and is eternal, why we can't postulate eternity, i.e., what is has always been and always will be. What reason is there to add the concept of a human like being that did the "creating?" The concept of a creator is a matter of faith and does not belong in a science curriculum.

That's the no middle man argument--damned good one, too.

0 Replies

For me it's not even an argument. It's a question, Set. I would just once like to hear or see an IDer try to search out an answer. But I've never seen it and I doubt I ever will.

0 Replies

What i find hilarious is the constant accusation that those who will not believe as they do have closed minds. It were as though i'd never been exposed to religion, and upon first being shown what it were as an adult, i rejected it out of hand. Of course, the fact of the matter is that i was raised as a christian, and because of that experience, and reading the scriptures, and reading a good deal else, i came to the conclusion that i could not place any credence in what i viewed as supestition.

And the hilarity arises from dogmatic people accusing others of having closed minds. They are good for the occasional laugh, i'll give them that.

0 Replies

But that irony wears thin after a while. I too was raised as a Christian and came to my conclusions by thinking it out, as I was taught to question (not at church, but at school in the science classroom).

The suggestion that my conclusions, based on logical reasoning are a reaction against something has been made so predictably and dogmatically that I can't distinguish it from the religious dogma it's meant to support.

0 Replies

If science is based on some sort of adherence to authority then why the paradigm shifts? If we all believe hard enough do you think the sun will revolve around the earth again?

0 Replies

All christian churches have their dogma that are all man-made. It's too obvious to ignore. Do not eat meat on Fridays. Oh, we changed our minds. You can now eat meat on Fridays. It's a wonder more people can't see through these so-called church rules. What? You ate meat on Friday? Go to confession immediately and say 100 hale Marys.

0 Replies

"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

Quote:

The important thing about the work which they both did is that they examined available evidence and came to a conclusion, rather than deteriming an answer and searching for data they could bend to the task of supporting the thesis.

This (rather romantic) view may not be held by all, Setanta:

Quote:

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre P. Grassé, L'Evolution du Vivant (1973), published in English translation as The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977)

You broadly claim that all ID resources are 'tripe'. It is impossible to assert the validity of this statement- you can really only comment based on your experience with the resources you have actually read. Anything further merely reveals your blinkered approach to the issue.

To dismiss Professor Johnston because he is the 'Father of Intelligent Design' but then worship the 'Father of Evolution' to me smells of hypocrisy. I invite you to actually read one of his articles (no, you don't have to waste your 'hard-earned money' on this): How can we tell Science from Religion?

Lola:

Quote:

If a "scientist" or researcher is not willing to question everything, then he or she is not practicing science.

Is a scientist allowed to question Evolution?

0 Replies

The concept of organized religion is problematic when viewed as a solution to the human condition. C.I gives us a big hint as to religion's power and fallibility over the human spirit.

Quote:

All Christian churches have their dogma that are all man-made. It's too obvious to ignore. Do not eat meat on Fridays. Oh, we changed our minds. You can now eat meat on Fridays. It's a wonder more people can't see through these so-called church rules.

If this seems stupid or just too simplistic it is because it just is. But C.I. can only be blamed for his reporting of the obvious, for he is just simply the messenger. The stupidity lies not with organized religion and its administrators. So where does this stupidity lie? Well you tell me! Who is left? Other examples proliferate. The example leads to the conclusion: "if this is negotiable then perhaps priests need not be celibate or, for that matter male!"

But science really does not attempt to enter this realm. Once creationists open this door by trying to use the mantle of scientific investigation to destroy science's rational conclusions in favor of that supported by religious entities, science becomes the bad guy because it does not allow for presupposed beliefs or nebulous mystical explanations.

But, like C.I., science is really not the bad guy. The value of science, apart from its elemental fact finding mission, is ultimately the engineering of its results to not only to predict things like tomorrow's weather but to create life improving products like vaccines.

georgeob1 has informed us that

Quote:

I don't think the "top down" & "bottom up" metaphors carry much water. Certainly they don't prove anything. The mystery of our existence is quite unexplained by science. While it is both understandable and proper for science, at the boundaries of what is known, to seek explanations within the context of its theories, the fact remains that science cannot coherently explain the origins of the universe (or multiverse). There is no "scientific" basis whatever on which one can deny the proposition that the universe had a creator

OK, forget my top down, bottom up "metaphors" and their hydrophilic proclivities. But if not science, what is the mechanism that "coherently" explains of our existence if not that of the scientific method? Additionally, science, unlike religion, is not restricted to "boundaries of what is known". If science has any boundaries they are extremely brittle and any theories are perpetually subject to constant redefinition, synthesis, co-option, and even oblivion. georgeob1 ?'s Last sentence:

Quote:

There is no "scientific" basis whatever on which one can deny the proposition that the universe had a creator.

is truth condensed in a mere mortal's (like myself) sentence. So why are those that propose Intelligent Design so defensive?

JM

0 Replies

Quote:

Lola:

Quote:

If a "scientist" or researcher is not willing to question everything, then he or she is not practicing science.

Is a scientist allowed to question Evolution?

Of course. If not, then Evolution would not be science. That's what I said.

Quote:

To dismiss Professor Johnston because he is the 'Father of Intelligent Design' but then worship the 'Father of Evolution' to me smells of hypocrisy.

No one is worshiping Darwin. His work is highly respected because he followed the scientific method. Those who have continued to build on Darwin's findings have also adhered to the scientific method. The scientific method is a specific method. There are specific defining rules. The most important of which is that everything is subject to scrutiny and question. These rules can be listed and understood logically. Professor Johnston's claims are PR hype, and have nothing to do with the scientific method at all. The biggest problem with Johnston's claims is that they are claims and not subject to doubt. That is not (by definition) science.

0 Replies

Elsie_T:

I notice that over the last five pages or so, you have written quite a few posts questioning your correspondents' competence and frame of mind. But you haven't answered the question I had asked you on page 62. Needless to say, you are under no obligation to answer questions if you can't or won't. But just in case it was merely an oversight on your part, let me repeat it: Which correct predictions did 'Intelligent Design theory' make so far, and how does its record of correct predictions compare with the record of evolutionary biology, geology, and astronomy?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know