Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me also point out that, in the context of natural science, the phrase "not directed" means "not directed by any predictable and verifiable natural force or agent." The question of whether random events are being directed by any metaphysical force or agency (be it fate or deity or what have you) is a question outside the scope of natural science.

I mention this because too many people today hear the phrase "not directed" and immediately leap to the conclusion that science is making dogmatic and religious assertions about God not being in any way involved in the operation of natural forces. In fact, science is not addressing the religious aspects of the question at all, it is speaking only of the natural aspects of the question and whether any natural direction in involved. Being clear about this distinction would help avoid giving creationists the opportunity to accuse science of promoting a religious and anti-Christian agenda.

Some of life's most marvelous structures are its smallest

Hey sir, I do this for fun.

I enjoy discussing things.

Now if you want only PhD scientists on the board, just say so.

I do not claim to be a scientist and I accepted that I was unqualified to discuss this stuff with the likes of you, and I intended to leave the thread. I only stayed because Thomas was gracious and invited a conversation. I'm sorry if that offends your scholarly sensibilities.

Please post your documentation that 'splitting the atom' was a universally accepted concept from the beginning and I'll take it back.

... By bombarding nitrogen with alpha particles, Rutherford demonstrated the production of a different element, oxygen. "Playing with marbles" is what he called it; the newspapers reported that Rutherford had "split the atom."

Nevertheless, it [the reference is to breaking the sound barrier - timber] was not generally accepted as a possibility at first. And many did not devote themselves to getting the job done.

I'm beginning to think that you are intentionally being contentious and refusing to see my point. Which is correct, by the way.

Yeah I can [The reference is to providing evidence supporting Fox's assertion: " ... almost every day or at least frequently you see something that the scientific community once delcared to be fact to be effectively disproved ... " - timber[/i]] , but I won't, because I frankly don't care enough to take the time and I am pretty darn sure you wouldn't accept anything I posted anyway.

I did misspeak and intended to say that Spinoza was excommunicated because of his advocacy for Aristotle.

I submit that you are incorrect re Copernicus who was inded excommunicated as I learned at the knee of Bishop Spong, Episcopal Bishop and a scholar on this stuff in his own right and also via the seminary curriculum of University of the South, Sewanee. Because such were exhonerated by later Popes does not alter the fact that they definitely were not in favor with the Church at the time.

I don't believe that I mentioned Galileo, but its nice of you to show off a lot of nice cut and pastes re that.

Quote:

Quote:

But as ignorant as I surely am regarding science,

Among other things, including as just demonstrated, history.

As you wish.

Quote:

There's a big difference between "open mind" and "uninformed, uncritical, unthinking credulity"

I accept that as your point of view.

Quote:

Quote:

Nevertheless I will not attempt to argue the point further.

Perhaps all for the best - pending broadening of your education sufficiently as to provide working familiarity with the salient points at discussion, at least.

And thank you very much for your warm, cordial, unjudgmental manner in informing me I'm a complete idiot. I'm sure I should appreciate it.

Anyway, I tried to leave earlier and I'll follow my own advice in doing so at this time.

Have a great evening.

Yes there is a consensus in the scientific community.

By scientific community I mean all conventional scientific organizations which accept the scientific process (for example publishing in peer reviewed journals) which encompasses the great majority of scientists.

The consensus is that Intelligent Design is not scientifically valid.

Steve quoted-

Quote:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Don't be so ridiculous Steve. Of course it was founded on the Christian religion. They had done the totem poles and the sun worship.

OF LOVE

In our last book we have been obliged to deal pretty much with the passion of love; and in our succeeding book shall be forced to handle this subject still more largely. It may not therefore in this place be improper to apply ourselves to the examination of that modern doctrine, by which certain philosophers, among many other wonderful discoveries, pretend to have found out, that there is no such passion in the human breast.

Whether these philosophers be the same with that surprising sect, who are honourably mentioned by the late Dr. Swift, as having, by the mere force of genius alone, without the least assistance of any kind of learning, or even reading, discovered that profound and invaluable secret that there is no God; or whether they are not rather the same with those who some years since very much alarmed the world, by showing that there were no such things as virtue or goodness really existing in human nature, and who deduced our best actions from pride, I will not here presume to determine. In reality, I am inclined to suspect, that all these several finders of truth, are the very identical men who are by others called the finders of gold. The method used in both these searches after truth and after gold, being indeed one and the same, viz., the searching, rummaging, and examining into a nasty place; indeed, in the former instances, into the nastiest of all places, A BAD MIND.

But though in this particular, and perhaps in their success, the truth-finder and the gold-finder may very properly be compared together; yet in modesty, surely, there can be no comparison between the two; for who ever heard of a gold-finder that had the impudence or folly to assert, from the ill success of his search, that there was no such thing as gold in the world? whereas the truth-finder, having raked out that jakes, his own mind, and being there capable of tracing no ray of divinity, nor anything virtuous or good, or lovely, or loving, very fairly, honestly, and logically concludes that no such things exist in the whole creation.

To avoid, however, all contention, if possible, with these philosophers, if they will be called so; and to show our own disposition to accommodate matters peaceably between us, we shall here make them some concessions, which may possibly put an end to the dispute.

First, we will grant that many minds, and perhaps those of the philosophers, are entirely free from the least traces of such a passion.

Secondly, that what is commonly called love, namely, the desire of satisfying a voracious appetite with a certain quantity of delicate white human flesh, is by no means that passion for which I here contend. This is indeed more properly hunger; and as no glutton is ashamed to apply the word love to his appetite, and to say he LOVES such and such dishes; so may the lover of this kind, with equal propriety, say, he HUNGERS after such and such women.

Thirdly, I will grant, which I believe will be a most acceptable concession, that this love for which I am an advocate, though it satisfies itself in a much more delicate manner, doth nevertheless seek its own satisfaction as much as the grossest of all our appetites.

And, lastly, that this love, when it operates towards one of a different sex, is very apt, towards its complete gratification, to call in the aid of that hunger which I have mentioned above; and which it is so far from abating, that it heightens all its delights to a degree scarce imaginable by those who have never been susceptible of any other emotions than what have proceeded from appetite alone.

In return to all these concessions, I desire of the philosophers to grant, that there is in some (I believe in many) human breasts a kind and benevolent disposition, which is gratified by contributing to the happiness of others. That in this gratification alone, as in friendship, in parental and filial affection, as indeed in general philanthropy, there is a great and exquisite delight. That if we will not call such disposition love, we have no name for it. That though the pleasures arising from such pure love may be heightened and sweetened by the assistance of amorous desires, yet the former can subsist alone, nor are they destroyed by the intervention of the latter. Lastly, that esteem and gratitude are the proper motives to love, as youth and beauty are to desire, and, therefore, though such desire may naturally cease, when age or sickness overtakes its object, yet these can have no effect on love, nor ever shake or remove, from a good mind, that sensation or passion which hath gratitude and esteem for its basis.

To deny the existence of a passion of which we often see manifest instances, seems to be very strange and absurd; and can indeed proceed only from that self-admonition which we have mentioned above: but how unfair is this! Doth the man who recognizes in his own heart no traces of avarice or ambition, conclude, therefore, that there are no such passions in human nature? Why will we not modestly observe the same rule in judging of the good, as well as the evil of others? Or why, in any case, will we, as Shakespear phrases it, "put the world in our own person?"

Predominant vanity is, I am afraid, too much concerned here. This is one instance of that adulation which we bestow on our own minds, and this almost universally. For there is scarce any man, how much soever he may despise the character of a flatterer, but will condescend in the meanest manner to flatter himself.

To those therefore I apply for the truth of the above observations, whose own minds can bear testimony to what I have advanced.

Examine your heart, my good reader, and resolve whether you do believe these matters with me. If you do, you may now proceed to their exemplification in the following pages: if you do not, you have, I assure you, already read more than you have understood; and it would be wiser to pursue your business, or your pleasures (such as they are), than to throw away any more of your time in reading what you can neither taste nor comprehend. To treat of the effects of love to you, must be as absurd as to discourse on colours to a man born blind; since possibly your idea of love may be as absurd as that which we are told such blind man once entertained of the colour scarlet; that colour seemed to him to be very much like the sound of a trumpet: and love probably may, in your opinion, very greatly resemble a dish of soup, or a surloin of roast-beef.

To be continued ....

Perhaps it is just such considerations which lead many people to hold on to a belief in a deity.

Interesting. Actually Spendius I was thinking the same regarding those who hold so tenaciously to the belief of transitional forms given the incredible lack of evidence.

Can we agree that the king is wearing no clothes?

Why There Are No Transitional FossilsWhy are there no transitional fossils? They are ALL transitional!

they sieze on gaps in what is an unarguable linear progression of evidence-based knowledge.

That very well may be but who are "they". I hope not exclusively the ones who sieze on gaps etc.

They don't include me. The photo album idea is for nursery school. Each person in it is a functioning member of the species which I doubt would be the case in an album beginning with a leg on the way to a wing which I fear would be a short album as the transition would surely lead to extinction.

If a mouse to an elephant was possible then they are really the same species.

That might be similar to a photo album where an modern Olympic 10,000 metre runner was connected to an 18th century glutton as depicted by Hogarth who had congress with an African slave and subsequent family additions were exclusively with people of African origin.

Anti-IDers on here don't sieze too readily on the points I raise. They don't even tip-toe around them. They take a wide detour. Especially on the social consequences of an exclusive scientific education proceeding for a few generations assuming the society didn't implode from trying to use reason when humans are beset with emotions.

Quote:

Anti-IDers on here don't sieze too readily on the points I raise. They don't even tip-toe around them. They take a wide detour. Especially on the social consequences of an exclusive scientific education proceeding for a few generations assuming the society didn't implode from trying to use reason when humans are beset with emotions.

Were the "points" you "raise" to less resemble offal and droppings of excreta to be avoided and stepped around, as opposed to interesting artefacts to be noticed, picked up, considered, and examined with care, were your postings to these discussions to be pertinent, relevant, topical, and of any substantive, intellectually honest, academically valid, scientifically sound, recognizable value whatsoever, your experience on these boards well might be other than heretofore it has been.