97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 01:08 pm
Which might mean that were sexual selection to be organised on anti-ID principles, an aim which is congruent with their logic, and certain types bred for one might easily end up with humans exhibiting exterior characteristics with differences as great as those between Chihuahuas and Great Danes.

Alpha/Beta/Gamma humans with the anti-IDers as the Alphas of course.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 01:08 pm
McGentrix wrote:
real life wrote:
Let's look at the family dog, will your dog (or any other) EVER give birth to something that is NOT a dog?


Is a Chihuahua a Great Dane? Quite a difference there. How would you go about explaining those differences, they are both dogs, right?


I grew up raising Akitas. Akitas a a pedigree breed now, they were created by the Japanese by breeding dogs such as the Chow or Huskie with the St. Bernard when the Dutch arrived in Japan.

http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/breedinformation/working/images/akita.jpg

Man manipulated the enviroment and created a fit along with forcing speciation.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 01:25 pm
VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION

The first chapter of DArwinsOrigin of Species...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 01:28 pm
TKO wrote-

Quote:
Man manipulated the enviroment and created a fit


Don't try telling that to the survivors of natural disasters. If the juice was turned off you would soon see how tight the fit is. Or if any of a number of other things should happen such as global financial meltdown and fears of that are a significant cause of the gold price trebling in recent years.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 01:48 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, I'll play your game for a bit. Please support your argument that ID is not different than 'any other form of magic'. In the process, please explain how Plato was defining 'magic' in his concept of ID.

The idea of Intelligent Design in biology requires an intelligence which is way beyond ours and a capability which is way beyond ours. And that really only leaves two possibilities, magic or super technology. And we already know that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

(And if something is indistinguishable from, then it is equivalent to, for all functional intents and purposes)

So we're back to magic. ID is magic (even the courts have determined it so). And in the realm of magic there really is no limitation to the possibilities. Since we have no functional understanding of magic we can't eliminate any possibilities. Because of that, all magical suppositions are equally valid.

Anyone who posits that a magical gnome did it, is on just as firm a footing as someone who posits that a God (pick one) did it. Likewise, anyone who says that the super aliens did it, is simply proposing another unknown without limitations (indistinguishable from magic). None of these suppositions can be disproved, so they are all equivalent.

This is pretty straight forward stuff.

If you think I'm missing another option for ID besides super technology or magic, then just tell me what you have in mind.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 01:50 pm
maporsche wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
spendius wrote:
wande wrote-

Quote:
Philosophical inquiries into beauty and symmetry can and are being taught in philosophy classes. No need for science teachers to get involved.


There is every reason for science teachers to be involved with the qualities Foxy described so well.

Having a bunch of science teachers who are unappreciative of such matters is the road to ruin IMO. And science teachers who are appreciative don't "teach" it. They teach the science in a way that people who are the sort of IDers Foxy has in mind would naturally do.[/[/b]quote]

You think? I hadn't really thought about it that way before, but since you bring it up, I look back to a couple of really great biology teachers that I had. Both taught Darwin passionately and I think probably helped instill a love of science in most of us that has never abated. They also pushed us to examine the wonders of nature that defy explanation--the amazing structure of a bee's eye, the replication of biological features found among some species around the world when other species have significant differences, the symmetry in the microscopic world, the mysteries of mutation, etc. etc. etc.

They never once mentioned intelligent design but neither did they attribute everything to Darwin that has already been identified and/or is 'yet to be discovered'. They did leave us with an understanding that in the grand scheme of things, we and our knowledge is limited, and there are no barriers to what we may someday know. And any of us who held a concept of some form of ID were not disappointed or frustrated when we focused on the science. In other words science and ID co-existed quite peacefully in these classes.


Does anyone have any proof that science teachers are out there saying "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection means that God did not create man, the heavens, or the earth".

I'm 10 years out of high school, but my biology teachers taught evolution, never mentioned ID, and we got along fine too.

It seems the ONLY controversy here is in the school board and on web forums. This is a controversy CAUSED by CHRISTIANS.


Yes, I have heard professors of science, as well as in other disciplines, explicitly state that intelligent design is a religious myth unworthy of discussion. Not to mention those who advise their students that they do not believe in God and there is no basis for a belief in God. Students who ask difficult questions about any of that can be treated quite harshly. It is their students who are now teaching science in the public schools all over the country.

But what difference does it make whether one has 'proof' or not? There are enough who feel their children's beliefs/values are being sufficiently undermined and/or attacked in the public schools to trigger quite a few cases where they are attempting to include ID and/or Creationism into the school curriculum. That was NOT happening in my day even though ID and/or Creationism was widely believed.

I don't know what Ros's occupation is, but in a post just today he equated ID with 'magic'. Read some of FM's posts to see the degree to which he is unable to equate ID with anything other than religious fanaticism. How much do they reflect the mentality of other scientifically inclined people who happen to be teachers?

A controversy created by Christians? There were far more Christians when I was in school than what is reported today. There were far more Christians when my children were in school than what is reported today. And yet there was no intermingling of Creationism and Science and no protests were being filed.

So what has changed? Could it be that those Christians are protesting specifically because Creationism IS being addressed in science classes, but in a way denying Creationism? I don't know that for certain, nor do you, but it certainly bears consideration. It doesn't have to happen a lot in order to attract attention.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 01:57 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:


If you think I'm missing another option for ID besides super technology or magic, then just tell me what you have in mind.


What about Plato's theory? Do you equate THAT with magic too? Do the courts? And yet it is definitely ID.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:00 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
real life wrote:
Let's look at the family dog, will your dog (or any other) EVER give birth to something that is NOT a dog?


Is a Chihuahua a Great Dane? Quite a difference there. How would you go about explaining those differences, they are both dogs, right?


I grew up raising Akitas. Akitas a a pedigree breed now, they were created by the Japanese by breeding dogs such as the Chow or Huskie with the St. Bernard when the Dutch arrived in Japan.

http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/breedinformation/working/images/akita.jpg

Man manipulated the enviroment and created a fit along with forcing speciation.

T
K
O


All domestic dogs belong to the same species. There is no 'speciation' in the breeding of dogs.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:04 pm
McGentrix wrote:
real life wrote:
Let's look at the family dog, will your dog (or any other) EVER give birth to something that is NOT a dog?


Is a Chihuahua a Great Dane? Quite a difference there. How would you go about explaining those differences, they are both dogs, right?


Yup. Both are dogs.

Just as Yao Ming and the actors who played 'Munchkins' in the Wizard of Oz are all humans.

Same species, lots of variation within it.

How does that prove evolution?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:15 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
If you think I'm missing another option for ID besides super technology or magic, then just tell me what you have in mind.


What about Plato's theory? Do you equate THAT with magic too? Do the courts? And yet it is definitely ID.

I'm not familiar with it. Can you summarize it?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:16 pm
Were there always dogs?


Joe(Was there ever something with canine-ish bearing lurking?)Nation
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:22 pm
real life wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
real life wrote:
Let's look at the family dog, will your dog (or any other) EVER give birth to something that is NOT a dog?


Is a Chihuahua a Great Dane? Quite a difference there. How would you go about explaining those differences, they are both dogs, right?


Yup. Both are dogs.

Just as Yao Ming and the actors who played 'Munchkins' in the Wizard of Oz are all humans.

Same species, lots of variation within it.

How does that prove evolution?

None the less, a wolf will never give birth to a chihuahua, and yet we know that all dogs evolved from wolves.

That pretty much trashes the logic of your "one thing will never give birth to another thing" argument, regardless of whether we're talking about species or breeds.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

So what has changed? Could it be that those Christians are protesting specifically because Creationism IS being addressed in science classes, but in a way denying Creationism? I don't know that for certain, nor do you, but it certainly bears consideration. It doesn't have to happen a lot in order to attract attention.



What has changed is the apparent goal of Neo-Christianity. There are concerted efforts to push the Hypothesis of Christianity into every aspect of our lives (if you really need examples of this I can provide them, but I'm sure it's as apparent to you as it is to the rest of us). I believe this is happening because of advances in science, but moreso because people are starting to reject the mysticism and 'magic' in religion. I feel that this is happening in large part because of the influx of immigrants to the US and the globalization of our culture; our culture being influenced by religions OTHER than Christianity.

You see, when a rational person takes an objective view at all the religions in the world they see over 100 different religions all claiming to hold the ONE truth about salvation. A rational person seeing this first hand (due to globalization and immigration) eventually comes to the conclusion that since NONE can be proven to the the correct religion, it's safer to assume that they are all wrong. If there is a god, it would have to forgive someone for coming to that conclusion.

I do not believe that there is a concerted effort among science teachers to disprove god's existence.

I do believe that there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate the youth of our nation to Christiandom, and one of the ways that Christian groups ADMIT to try to do that is through our schools.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:29 pm
ros wrote-

Quote:
If you think I'm missing another option for ID besides super technology or magic, then just tell me what you have in mind.


Agreed consensus. Like people believe in monogamy, an age of consent, that a foetus is nothing at 1 sec to midnight and an official life 1 second later, dress codes, dining etiquette, no interaction between psychic and biological activity and adultery all of which are directly contary to evolution theory.

Further, as a scientific person, you should know that the Materialist Theory of Mind states that all thoughts are physical objects made up of atoms in motion with electrical charge and so if the thought that God exists is an object then if millions of people, or just one, have that thought, there it is.

And it is in a conditioned form to provide a successful consensus which it may or may not do.

Are you scared at the thought of having been conditioned ros?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:31 pm
spendi, All animals are "conditioned."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:36 pm
maporsche wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

So what has changed? Could it be that those Christians are protesting specifically because Creationism IS being addressed in science classes, but in a way denying Creationism? I don't know that for certain, nor do you, but it certainly bears consideration. It doesn't have to happen a lot in order to attract attention.



What has changed is the apparent goal of Neo-Christianity. There are concerted efforts to push the Hypothesis of Christianity into every aspect of our lives (if you really need examples of this I can provide them, but I'm sure it's as apparent to you as it is to the rest of us). I believe this is happening because of advances in science, but moreso because people are starting to reject the mysticism and 'magic' in religion. I feel that this is happening in large part because of the influx of immigrants to the US and the globalization of our culture; our culture being influenced by religions OTHER than Christianity.

You see, when a rational person takes an objective view at all the religions in the world they see over 100 different religions all claiming to hold the ONE truth about salvation. A rational person seeing this first hand (due to globalization and immigration) eventually comes to the conclusion that since NONE can be proven to the the correct religion, it's safer to assume that they are all wrong. If there is a god, it would have to forgive someone for coming to that conclusion.

I do not believe that there is a concerted effort among science teachers to disprove god's existence.

I do believe that there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate the youth of our nation to Christiandom, and one of the ways that Christian groups ADMIT to try to do that is through our schools.


And the antithecal argument is that there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate the youth of our nation in Atheism. Better for us is that one group who admits their purpose rather than the one who does so more deviously. Can you say for certain this is not true? Many Christians (and people of other faiths) believe it to be so.

So is the change what you say? Or is the change more likely to be my hypothesis that it was the pushing of anti-relgious/faith concepts in the school that triggered a backlash from people of faith? Chicken or egg?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:38 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
real life wrote:
Let's look at the family dog, will your dog (or any other) EVER give birth to something that is NOT a dog?


Is a Chihuahua a Great Dane? Quite a difference there. How would you go about explaining those differences, they are both dogs, right?


Yup. Both are dogs.

Just as Yao Ming and the actors who played 'Munchkins' in the Wizard of Oz are all humans.

Same species, lots of variation within it.

How does that prove evolution?

None the less, a wolf will never give birth to a chihuahua, and yet we know that all dogs evolved from wolves.

That pretty much trashes the logic of your "one thing will never give birth to another thing" argument, regardless of whether we're talking about species or breeds.


Right, a wolf will birth not a chihuahua.

Now, bears and dogs have very similar morphology. I am sure everyone would agree that a bear is not a dog and a dog is not a bear, right?

Now, how about a hyena? Very dog like, but a different species then dog. Evolution suggests that these species may have had a common ancestor. Remember that evolution doesn't try to tell you you dogs evolved from bears, but that both had a common ancestor.

Evolutionary Roots and the Miacids


Most of what truly happened during the evolution of bears will remain forever shrouded in the mists of the distant past .....

From what we do know, however, we have been able to piece together that approximately 30 to 40 million years ago during the Oligocene period, a family of small, tree-climbing carnivorous mammals came into being. (Not ID, just from something else most likely.)

These animals, now referred to as miacids, had developed special canine teeth which enabled them to pierce and tear the flesh of their prey. Additionally, the miacids had developed sharp-edged carnassial teeth (i.e., the last premolar in the upper jaw) and the first molar in the lower jaw. This development allowed the miacids to easily shear meat from a carcass into easily eaten smaller chunks of meat.

From an evolutionary perspective, these two developments led to the miacids becoming the precursor to all seven present carnivore families. Today, of the approximately 4500 mammals known to exist, 231 are classed as carnivores. All would become successful groups of predators. Included in the carnivore families are the following:

the Canidae (dog) family - 35 species including the fox, wolf, coyote and jackal;

the Procyonidae (raccoon) family - 16 species including the ringtail, kinkajou and raccoon;

the Mustelidae (weasel) family - 67 species including badger, otter and skunk;

the Viverridae (mongoose) family - 66 species including mongoose, genet and meercat;

the Hyaenidae (hyena) family - 4 species including spotted hyena, striped hyena, brown hyena and aardwolf;

the Felidae (cat) family - 35 species including leopard, cheetah and mountain lion;

and

the Ursidae (bear) family - eight species including the brown bear, the American black bear, the polar bear, the giant panda bear, the Asiatic black bear, the spectacled bear, the sloth bear and the sun bear.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:48 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

So is the change what you say? Or is the change more likely to be my hypothesis that it was the pushing of anti-relgious/faith concepts in the school that triggered a backlash from people of faith? Chicken or egg?


This is where the concept of "proof" comes in Foxfyre.

The difference between you and I is best demonstrated by your quote below.

Quote:
But what difference does it make whether one has 'proof' or not?


I feel it makes ALL the difference when coming to an objective conclusion.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 03:01 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
spendi, All animals are "conditioned."


I know c.i. That's why it's daft to be scared of the idea.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jan, 2008 03:15 pm
maporsche wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

So is the change what you say? Or is the change more likely to be my hypothesis that it was the pushing of anti-relgious/faith concepts in the school that triggered a backlash from people of faith? Chicken or egg?


This is where the concept of "proof" comes in Foxfyre.

The difference between you and I is best demonstrated by your quote below.

Quote:
But what difference does it make whether one has 'proof' or not?


I feel it makes ALL the difference when coming to an objective conclusion.


No, 'proof' too often is overridden by perception which I perceive to be the primary problem in this whole debate. For example, it can be the 'perception' of liberals that conservatives are hard hearted, hate mongering, greedy opportunists running roughshod over the needs and best interests of others. It can be the 'perception' of conservatives that liberals are mushy minded, sanctimonious, judgmental sheep who are blind to the evils perpetuated on humanity through liberal policies. Neither are likely to be persuaded by verifiable facts and figures that contradict either point of view.

In the case of public education messing with their kids, the parents' perception is going to override anecdotal evidence or unproved assertions every single time. If little Johnny comes home telling Mom and Dad that teacher says the Bible is wrong or that the universe or Evolution didn't need any god or gods, and Mom and Dad feel strongly about such things, you can bet the farm that Mom and Dad are going to react. And as is evident in all those articles Wandel has been posting ad nauseum, the schools react as strongly when Mom and Dad attempt to push their point of view on the curriculum.

So what came first? The school 'messing with little Johnny's faith that prompted a reaction from Mom and Dad? Or was it Mom and Dad 'messing with the school' that created the problem? "Proof" is irrelevent in considering that question.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 01/15/2026 at 09:32:30