Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

real life wrote:

blatham wrote:

There is an invisible, undetectable pink dwarf sitting on my shoulder

If undetectable, how did you detect it?

If invisible, how is it pink?

He knows it's there because it's the simplest explanation for the weight he feels on his shoulders.

As far as how it can be pink, that all depends on what it's invisible to. If it does interact with photons on some interval, we might reasonably assume that since sound and music both have something to do with wave phenomena, the musical concept of an octave exists with light too, in that any two frequencies that are related by a factor of two may be interpreted as the same note or color, depending on the context. It's just too bad that human sight only ranges from 380nm to 750nm wavelengths, comprising almost the entirety of an "octave".

Internationally-recognized physicist uses science to debate global issues
(By Matt Lawyue, College of New Jersey Student Newspaper, 10/31/07)

Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, was the first distinguished scholar brought to the College by Phi Beta Kappa. He held a lecture titled "Science Under Attack, from the White House to the Classroom: Public Policy, Science Education and the Emperor's New Clothes."

During the lecture, which took place Oct. 25 in Kendall Hall, the internationally-known physicist combined science and popular culture to argue the case for science and the truth. With a PowerPoint presentation, he called upon people to help defend against bad science and ignorance. This includes everything from the media manufacturing scientific controversies to "people believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old."

"Everywhere, people are being barraged by nonsense," Krauss said.

He used the television network Fox as an example of "100 percent nonsense" for its created controversy over a fake alien body a few years back. To the amusement of the audience, Krauss highlighted a statistic that said only 50 percent of America knew the Earth was round. "What about the other half?" Krauss said.

The focal point of his lecture was the discussion of three case studies: global warming, missile defense and intelligent design.

"Business as usual is not acceptable," Krauss said when referring to the issue of global warming.

He quickly criticized the U.S. government for prioritizing the economy over global health. With missile defense, Krauss highlighted the assumption that Americans believe we have an operating missile defense system.

"This country has no missile defense system and we wasted $60 billion over six years on a system that doesn't work," Krauss said. "It is abstract nonsense."

He labeled his last case study, intelligent design, as "simply opposed to evolution." Taking on the issue of science vs. religion vs. philosophy, Krauss defended science. "Evolution happened whether you like it or not," Krauss said as his defining rebuttal to intelligent design.

A question-and-answer segment was held at the conclusion of the lecture. Krauss spent the majority of time discussing religion and science. Asked whether or not he believed God and evolution could co-exist peacefully, Krauss said, "If there is a God, it has to be consistent with the timeline of evolution."

Statements such as this often leave him open for criticism. However, Krauss was well-received by audience members.

"I thought I was going to be offended, but I wasn't," Victoria Kudrak, junior special education major, said. "He was a fair-minded man in a non-combating way."

Dan Cardinale, junior biology major, also said, "What Krauss said needs to be said more often and with the same passion."

The College's year-old chapter of Phi Beta Kappa was awarded a visitor from a roster of 12 to 13 scholars.

Nancy Freudenthal, assistant provost of the Office of Academic Affairs, said, "Krauss had the greatest interest in coming to the College."

Imagine, folks, anti-IDers getting power.

Only for a few seconds though. That should be enough to get the drift.

Wouldn't life be interesting and jolly?

Vengoropatubus wrote:

real life wrote:

blatham wrote:

There is an invisible, undetectable pink dwarf sitting on my shoulder

If undetectable, how did you detect it?

If invisible, how is it pink?

He knows it's there because it's the simplest explanation for the weight he feels on his shoulders.

As far as how it can be pink, that all depends on what it's invisible to. If it does interact with photons on some interval, we might reasonably assume that since sound and music both have something to do with wave phenomena, the musical concept of an octave exists with light too, in that any two frequencies that are related by a factor of two may be interpreted as the same note or color, depending on the context. It's just too bad that human sight only ranges from 380nm to 750nm wavelengths, comprising almost the entirety of an "octave".

If he detects a 'weight' on his shoulder, then his statement that it is 'undetectable' is incorrect.

For him to know it is 'pink' , it would have to reflect visible light. But he said it's 'invisible'.

I only mention this because he appealed to 'intellectual consistency' when he demanded a place in the science curriculum.

I usually leave this thread well alone because there is nothing to be gained by discussing crackpot theories. Just thought I'd say that.

Intelligent design is not science, despite claims
(By Mark Erasmus, University of New Mexico Daily, 11/2/07)

It is time to put the intelligent design debate to rest.

Proponents of intelligent design aggressively market their viewpoint as real science, insisting it is not religion-based. One leading advocate, Michael Behe, writes, "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself, not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs."

Proponents of intelligent design claim that Darwinian evolution is a fundamentally flawed theory, and that there are certain complex features of living organisms evolution simply cannot explain, but which can be explained as the handiwork of an intelligent designer.

Their viewpoint is not religiously based, they insist, because it does not require that the intelligent designer is God. Design, writes leading proponent William Dembski, "requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator."

Indeed, design apparently requires surprisingly little of the designer's identity. "Inferences to design," contends Behe, "do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer." Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role.

Their premise seems to be that as long as they don't explicitly name the designer, it saves their viewpoint from the charge of being religious in character.

But does it?

Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an intelligent designer?

It could not. Such a being would not account for the complexity that design proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of designing the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own designer. If design can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported martian designer would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another designer.

By the very nature of its approach, intelligent design cannot be satisfied with a designer who is part of the natural world. Such a designer would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: It would not explain biological complexity as such.

Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, intelligent design is inherently a quest for the supernatural. Only one candidate for the role of designer need apply. Dembski himself - even while trying to deny this implication - concedes that if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence. It must, he admits, be that of a transcendent intelligence whom he euphemistically refers to as the big G.

The supposedly nonreligious theory of intelligent design is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science - to pretend, as one commentator put it, that faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope.

The insistence of intelligent design advocates that they are agnostic; regarding the source of design is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a designer who is susceptible to scientific study only to hide their agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural.

Funny how spendi seems so intent on defending ID, when it is clear that ID supporters are lying. It's good to teach a lie in school, Spendi?