Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I see no evidence that holes are getting bigger , quite the opposite. As far as identifying new holes , thats what happens as we push the curtain farther back. The overall result is a more complete understanding of a process or theory.

maporsche wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But it is for these reasons that I dispute a conclusion that most Americans believe that it all happened exactly as described in the Bible. I don't think that. And I don't think you think that.

The problem is that he DOES think that. Exactly, literally, identically as described in the bible. He even thinks that the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.

Well there are some very good people who do hold this kind of view, and it harms no one. Maybe Real Life is one of them. I questioned that, however, as he has provided excellent, well disciplined arguments on various other subjects, and I rather thought him to not be a strict literalist. If he is however, that takes nothing away from the larger argument of what is and what is not appropriate to teach as science in the classroom. (I do hope science teachers do not take the first two chapters of Genesis literally.)

you could explain how you don't see any holes in the Theory of Evolution. The first, and perhaps most important hole, I see, however, is that the Theory of Evolution cannot explain where the stuff that evolved came from

Foxfyre wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But it is for these reasons that I dispute a conclusion that most Americans believe that it all happened exactly as described in the Bible. I don't think that. And I don't think you think that.

The problem is that he DOES think that. Exactly, literally, identically as described in the bible. He even thinks that the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.

Well there are some very good people who do hold this kind of view, and it harms no one. Maybe Real Life is one of them. I questioned that, however, as he has provided excellent, well disciplined arguments on various other subjects, and I rather thought him to not be a strict literalist. If he is however, that takes nothing away from the larger argument of what is and what is not appropriate to teach as science in the classroom. (I do hope science teachers do not take the first two chapters of Genesis literally.)

I find it very telling that because RL seems to speak intelligently, can sometimes formulate an argument, and writes in complete sentences that you automatically assumed that he couldn't believe in all that literal bible crap. That implies that people who do believe in that literal bible crap cannot form well disciplined arguments.

You just said A LOT without even knowing it.

Honestly, it surprises me that literalists even know how to operate a computer, but hey RL proves that anything is possible.

RL even believes that people lived for 800+ years as told in the OT.

The metaphor most commonly used is if the ocean represents all knowledge(in a deterministic universe, which is how we must assume the universe works), than all our knowledge is represented by an island in this vast ocean. The more we learn, the greater the area of the island becomes and the greater the circumference. The only thing expanding is our horizon - not the holes of our current theories.

A different paradigm would than be represented by another island, either in a different place entirely or overlapping the previous one - like einsteinian physics overlaps newtonian physics in many ways. And how newtonian physics broke away from the qualitative physics of Aristotle.

However, ID cannot in any way be considered a competing paradigm to darwinism. ID only preaches.

Actually it appears that RL is capable of much better arguments than some as he can make them without ad hominem criticisms of other members.

Quote:

you could explain how you don't see any holes in the Theory of Evolution. The first, and perhaps most important hole, I see, however, is that the Theory of Evolution cannot explain where the stuff that evolved came from

Not to belabor a point, if Im being the illogical one and YOU are the one who posted that there were holes in the theory of evolution, I dont know what those holes are that you speak of, so please enlighten me. So far youre being true to form (you call me names and then Im being the one casting ad hominems , )

"The theory of evolution cannot explain where the stuff that evolved came from" ---A direct quote from you. Perhaps you should understand where the theory of evolution actually begins. It begins at the point that life had made its appearance. Chemically and biologically, we have the evidence of how the train of life appeared on the planet (Historical Geology 101)(geochemistry of the Living State Geo 325). Perhaps youre confusing hypotheses of origins (note , I said hypotheses , not theories) with the "theory" of natural selection. We have certain evidence of lifes origin but not a theory sized complement that explains how life first originated on the planet.Many hypotheses and many myths surround this phenomenon. SCience will not stop looking for lifes origins because thats what science does. ID would want us to just stop and search for "pattern" and a god (or in your case , wed search for aliens and then merely defer the discussion from "when did life begin" to one of "where did life begin"?

ID would want us to just stop and search for "pattern" and a god (or in your case , wed search for aliens and then merely defer the discussion from "when did life begin" to one of "where did life begin"?

TKO wrote-

Quote:

LOL

That's self promoting.

Quote:

I'll get the discussion going right now...

That's so self promoting it's narcissistic.

Foxy. The thread is 13,130 posts and 188,945 views of which 233 have been added in the last 20 hours.

Prof. Jim Al-Khalili, theoretical physicist at Surry Uni., academic, author and broadcaster reckons that everytime physicists "push the curtain further back" a new scene is revealed vastly more complex than the scene when the curtain was drawn and amazingly more confusing.

I don't claim to be a scientist but I did take biology in highschool and have 6 hours of college biology which, while not qualifying me as any kind of expert, doesn't exactly make me totally uneducated on the subject either. No Darwin didn't begin at the beginning and does not attempt to explain a beginning, but that is nevertheless a 'hole' in Darwin's theory as where the stuff of life came from could logically have a bearing on what natural selection took place.

Perhaps comprehension of radio programs is not your strong point there spendi. Unraveling complexity is different than Irreducible complexity, it provides direction forward

Quote:

I don't claim to be a scientist but I did take biology in highschool and have 6 hours of college biology which, while not qualifying me as any kind of expert, doesn't exactly make me totally uneducated on the subject either. No Darwin didn't begin at the beginning and does not attempt to explain a beginning, but that is nevertheless a 'hole' in Darwin's theory as where the stuff of life came from could logically have a bearing on what natural selection took place.

Did you also stay at a Holiday Inn last Night?

Ill take it slowly from the top. Darwin's entire theory is about the rise of speciation. Its the inheritance of "Favourable characteristics" via natural selection. Your ignorance of where one theory stops and claiming that Nat selection "should" include the studies of origins is ludicrous. Besides, according to the real scientists working in the arena your idea and belief is purposely out of the scope of the sciences involved. The inheritance of traits presumes the existence of traits to inherit. While the boundaries of life get pushed further back, we cannot state that early life and todays life had any inheritable communication, we merely infer from traces and ichnofossils. We cannot , with any degree of accuracy , link the beginnings with the growth of life. Thats not a hole, its an entirely different area of study that is going on all over the world.

Darwin's theory lies untouched, unruffled and intact. "Holes", as you and others claim exist, are either a result of the willing retention of ignorance of the evidence and the discipline or else its the result of a theologically guided worldview in which you MUST insert a divine causality. Please dont try to convince yourself that your position is verifiable and sound.

Ask yourself the simple question, is your belief verifiable? Be honest.

By not being specific in your statements about what you consider to be valid observations, to me simply means that youre unable to verbalize the detail necessary to have an in- depth discussion of the topic, so, instead, we get vague references to "The stuff that evolves , where did it come from"?

If scientists are wrong about Darwinism, are they also wrong about the notion of intelligent design? Might not the notion of design be worthy of a second look?

Dembski argues that intelligent design, far from being a strange and exotic notion, is something we encounter and recognize every day.

Dembski points to entire industries whose very existence depends on being able to distinguish accident from design: including insurance fraud investigation, the criminal justice system, cryptography, patent and copyright investigation, and many others. We do not call these industries "unscientific" simply because they look for evidence of design.

This irreducible complexity exists even at the level of a single cell.

But time has not been kind to Darwinism. Paleontologists have certainly found more fossils, but these fossils have only deepened the problem. As the fossils piled up, what paleontologists discovered was not gradual change, but stability and sudden appearance. It seems that most fossil species appear all at once, fully formed, and change very little throughout their stay in the fossil evidence.