Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

My point Foxfyre was that anyone that has spent even a little time on the ID threads would have seen the Discovery Institute mentioned more than once. Since I found it in 2 of your posts I don't see how you could not know what it was. It certainly has been discussed at length here and you have spent quite a bit of time here. Blissful ignorance has its own rewards I guess. It certainly wasn't to make you seem dishonest but it is a pattern that seems to run in those that want to support ID. I recall a rather lengthy part of this thread where the connections between ID and creationism were pointed out as shown in Dover and the Discovery Institute played a rather large part in that. You may have been gone for that but it was also a 60 minutes piece as well as other media reported on it.

As for my comment to real life, he has spent quite a bit of time and energy trying to argue that a process can no longer be natural if God is at all involved. A stance that he has found no one to agree with. I find his argument that an aethist can believe in ID to be rather specious after he has argued that a theist can not believe in evolution.

0 Replies

fm-

I meant in general.

I knew about your difficulties and they present no problem for me as you must surely know by now.

It has come up a good few times in other places.

If someone quotes me and retains my obvious errors, I feel they might have made the adjustment.

0 Replies

fm-

I only type with the first finger of my right hand. I also use the first finger of my left hand for the shift key.

I once saw a World Championship Fastest Typist thing on the News. Years ago. An American legal secretary won if I remember correctly and it was something of the order of 230 words a minute. (I think) Her fingers were a blur. Afterwards she admitted to having no clue what the test piece was about.

It made me think that women are different from us men in a strange and inexplicable way. I always make allowance for that. I might make jokes about it but that doesn't mean I don't respect it. I think that men who don't make jokes about it are showing disrespect.

0 Replies

Part of my problem is that I dont have any feeling in my right lower arm. Im always cooking and cutting veggies and seeing some blood in the celery. I waste more celery that way. Ya never want me to chop anything if your squeemish. Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

after he has argued that a theist can not believe in evolution.

What a load of garbage. You and I have spent many pages discussing theistic evolutionists, and I have never denied that they exist.

On the contrary, I have pointed out to you repeatedly that the scientific profession has quite a large number of them.

Do you read what you write?

0 Replies

fm-

It will keep your blood iron levels down a bit and save on leeches.

I have often though that giving blood is beneficial to the doner because the replacement blood is pure and thus dilutes the cholesterol. There's a possibilty, I suppose, that you can eat what you want if you give blood once a month. But vascular systems must vary as do facial features so hence the heredity link with heart disease.

That's why ladies don't have blood problems until after the menopause.

I read that these healthy diets are unsuitable for growing kids.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I find his argument that an aethist can believe in ID to be rather specious

Ever heard of Francis Crick?

Quote:

"It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite."

"As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

I think Foxfyre's point is that just because some IDers are religious doesn't mean that all are.

There are IDers who are atheist, agnostic, etc

Not that that should make any difference to you, because you've conceded that it wasn't important to you to exclude the concept of God from the definition of 'natural process'.

Since the time of Thomas Aquinas the definition of what is "natural" has included God. Why do you suddenly think that 500 years of Christian teachings should be wrong and God can not have anything to do with nature?

Where have I made any such statement?

0 Replies

Francis Crick, got caught in his own circular argument
If we discount a god or natural abiogenesis, then we are left with panspermia via aliens.

OK then where did these aliens come from?

If no god, no evolution, then they were seeded by a super race of aliens

Ok, where did the super aliens come from

SHort answer, from a race of super duper aliens

If the Universe is finite then where did the super duper aliens come from.

TA DAAA-"Let there be light" ID always comes down to religion.

0 Replies

False logic. The premiss includes an "if".

If the universe is infinite the infinite regression is infinite.

It's a circular argument.

We do not know nor ever will.

Acting "as if" there is a Christian God is a technical device of the first order and does not require there to be a Christian God.

Is that not remembered or has it been repressed? I've put that on here twice I think. If the King decides to appear at Court with no clothes on we act as if he wears clothes. Apart from the little lad I mean.

Acting "as if" there is no Christian God is a kick in the teeth for our culture and a wild, egotistical leap in the dark.

Not that any of the good Christians on here would ever dream of acting that way

0 Replies

Even if scientists did produce life from chemicals it would not prove there is no God.

He might grant them that power so they would forget about Him and stop bothering Him so He could go back to the drawing board to try for a better job than we have turned out.

What reason exists for trying to produce life in labs when it is fraught with danger to humans and would not prove there is no God?

Funds eh?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Francis Crick, got caught in his own circular argument
If we discount a god or natural abiogenesis, then we are left with panspermia via aliens.

OK then where did these aliens come from?

If no god, no evolution, then they were seeded by a super race of aliens

Ok, where did the super aliens come from

SHort answer, from a race of super duper aliens

If the Universe is finite then where did the super duper aliens come from.

TA DAAA-"Let there be light" ID always comes down to religion.

My point was that Crick was an atheist and he believed that life on earth had got it's start from intelligent beings who were NOT supernatural.

Fred Hoyle had a similar belief.

He recognized that the 'short' period of Earth's existence (a few billion years) was insufficient to account for the evolutionary changes required to move from dead chemicals to man.

He postulated that life HAD spontaneously generated elsewhere in the universe at a much earlier point in the universe's history, and it had evolved, and that the super intelligent beings that had resulted had then 'seeded' the Earth for life.

He did not believe them to be 'gods' or 'supernatural'.

0 Replies

Quote:

If the universe is infinite the infinite regression is infinite.

. Well no, not actually, if an infinite regression , then it limits to a point.
So you believe that the Universe is infinite? Thats worth a topic on its own. Most science doesnt see your point. MAybe you need your scientists to be Bram Stoker or H P LOvecraft.

0 Replies

EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

A delightful vignette from the DOver CAse and how the Creationist 's were sloppy when they tried to "cover their tracks"

RL-Crick, like Wallace, became an "end-of-life" spiritualist. His personal beliefs are irrelevant to the overall topic, except to try to reinforce a fact that some evolution scientists do have religious beliefs. SO WHAT? it doesnt strengthen your argument at all.

0 Replies

It looks infinite fm.

Just like it looks like the earth is flat and that the sun goes round it.

Why does Science want to make everything not like what it looks like.

Define Barbara Stanwyk scientifically. Ot a tit full of tequila.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

RL-Crick, like Wallace, became an "end-of-life" spiritualist. His personal beliefs are irrelevant to the overall topic, except to try to reinforce a fact that some evolution scientists do have religious beliefs. SO WHAT? it doesnt strengthen your argument at all.

I never said it did fm.

I have no views on what "some evolution scientists" think. I don't even know what the expression "evolution scientist" means never mind a carefully selected fraction of their number. Accredited as such I suppose.

You can end up thinking people are scientists for the wrong reasons.

Basically, if they are socially acceptable in company they are not scientists.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

A delightful vignette from the DOver CAse and how the Creationist 's were sloppy when they tried to "cover their tracks"

RL-Crick, like Wallace, became an "end-of-life" spiritualist. His personal beliefs are irrelevant to the overall topic, except to try to reinforce a fact that some evolution scientists do have religious beliefs. SO WHAT? it doesnt strengthen your argument at all.

fm,

The point of bringing up Crick is NOT to show that some evolutionists have religious beliefs, but to show that some IDers do NOT.

Crick was an IDer and an atheist.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:
EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

I watched that. Word games on top money.

Neither here nor there.

If I was a Dover resident who hadn't benefitted from the case I would be calling the cops to tell them my pocket had been picked. And I would offer that bit of film as evidence.

It's as if the concept of intelligent design hinged on the writer of Pandas having been born, an anonymous donor, a file of old student newspapers having a tiny article buried in it and a bunch of folks with their eye on the main chance. "Waiting in ambush" Veblen called it.

What evidence have you fm that the school board itself didn't provoke the case. They had motives.

You haven't answered the literature question yet BTW. Henry Fielding in Tom Jones is scathing about atheists and non-believers. Would you ban that in public schools?

0 Replies

I dont know whether ID call SPiritualism "Atheism" since atheists are seldom spiritual. IMHO. OF course you could be right but I guess my question still stands, SO WHAT?

Acceptance of NAtural Selection is not a "litmus test" for atheism , as you Creationists often preach. The concept of natural selection is so overwhelmingly evidenced that its rather impossible to deny its truth no matter what your Sundays include.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

It's as if the concept of intelligent design hinged on the writer of Pandas having been born, an anonymous donor, a file of old student newspapers having a tiny article buried in it and a bunch of folks with their eye on the main chance. "Waiting in ambush" Veblen called it.

What evidence have you fm that the school board itself didn't provoke the case. They had motives.

You could say all the above about the lightbulb. However, from your last sentence, I believe that youre finally getting it. OF course the School Board (at least the president.r Buckingham) provoked the entire case because of his strictly Evangelical Christian views. HE felt that , screw the Constitution, I want my narrow view taught as science.

Im sorry, I never read Tom Jones so I cant comment on the context of your quote , Ill assume that it was cleverly thought out and was so presented as to make a point. Hows that?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know