Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Of course I can. I can find my ass in the pitch dark.

Where did you discover that anybody couldn't?

Not from personal experience I hope.

my first post
hi there i hope to visit this site often and get to know you all.
im not a religious person but have always considered my self to be objective in debates.
my field of study is engineering and i have always tried to look for the answers to questions in an informed and logical manner.

in this case i see two mains sides, both at there basis unprovable or solid.
science vs religion an age old classic with fanatics on either side determined to prove there point and unable to waver in there personal take on the subject.

by basis in these two cases i refer to (science) the first stage of life ,proteins cells forming naturally for the first time. and in the case if id a creator of life and cells and designer of all we see.

a first glance it would seem the scientists have there work cut out as usual to meet there own rules of proving there own assumptions and that the religious or spiritual side has the easier approach of faith needs no evidence.

but id is now trying to become a science and therefore must also be made accountable for its claims.


evolution has been around for a long time now and a such has been tested and experimented with under scrutiny for going against the consensis of god made the world in 7 days (six and a rest) and held its own drawing from many scientific realms to form a strong foundation , fossil historys genetics natural selection etc. id simply says we are the way we are because we where supposed to be this way, and designed specifically.

this much im sure you know.

and my answer has to be evolution offers the best explanation of a process we do not fully understand.
we started off small and developed over time to aid the reproduction process which is in essence of life its self.
faster stronger more intelligent more efficient (more likely to reproduce or at least to produce more offspring which inturn will try to produce a large amount of offspring.

id says we started of the way we are and do not change and that a specieses simply starts and stops.

but if thats true then this is all we will ever be no more.and we are stuck with all the flaws we where created with e.g( just to name a few) an appendix for the grass we don't eat, jaws that don't hold all the teeth we are given , cancer cells throughout our bodies from birth, latent flaws in dna ready to pop out into the next generation or at any point.

the list goes on. but it seems that the intelligent aspect is not so easy to see. if it was a supernatural being or god then they kinda suck at it.and we will never rid ourselves of these problems or any other not mentioned .

evolution says we started of small( admittedly some how?) and began the process of determining witch configuration worked best by method of who could reproduce most successfully (very simply put) if it didn't work it died out without offspring and if it did work it lived on to reproduce more each cycle producing slight varyations as this allowed for progression and expansion .
i can imagine a species with exact copies working well to exist in the same area as parent but if surroundings changed and they could not they would die out or overpopulation of a single environment capable of sustaining them. (but i digress)

the world has changed allot in its life and i would assume that life had to follow suit or it would have stoped. if we have been in this form all along then how did we survive during those periods in history or any animal for that matter.
some changes have been small others have been hugh and fast and all based on the principle of evolving to meet the needs of the environment to increase chances of continuing the species.

if i had to decide wich was best for man kind or any other creature id say evolution as this is the only way we will survive .

but if im wrong and it was god or another supreme being of some description then thanks and all but you should have put a but more thought into a few of the design aspects before going into production.
cause we are stuck this way forever and that kinda sucks.


I would really love to here a few responses to my opinions (and they are just that) .

thanks for reading

. Welcome Dilbert. This thread has been going on fo a long time and has the advantage of having repeated its points from both sides for about years. Its original purpose was to try to determine (in debate format) whether ID was a religion or was it truly science. The debate surrounded the events and the judges ruling from Dover Pa where it was adjudicated that ID was, indeed religion, and was, according to the US Constitution, not entitled to be presented as a valid interpretation in science classes.

Now, your above statement is not how the standard IDer will accept their "theory" On page 6 of Behes workDARWINS BLACK BOX, the author states emphatically that ID does accept most of the concepts of evolution acting over a long earth history. WHere ID departs markedly , is that it defaults to an intelligent agent that got it all STARTED.
Many who dont fully get the nuanced position of ID often confuse ID with strict Cretionism , when it is merely a derivative of Creationism , a sort of "evolutionary next step". However, its just as scientifically untenable because its untestable using the scientific method and is, more or less, a "cop out". Darwin had, himself had argued against the Paley concept of an intelligent designer. Darwin had been one of the first to explain in print that Paleys intelligent force was rather incompetent because of all the mistakes in the biological world.

Since ID is "Creationism light" its tried to busy itself with diverting arguments or trying to legitimize itself with actual research programs. So far nothings stuck to the wall. Their entire reserch program starts and ends with a hard premise that the world is too complex to have merely begun from non-life, or its also too complex to have evolved sub structures of derived forms. These premises will never do for establishing research because they have no way of determining the outcome of"if we are wrong in this premise" . EVolution, on the other side, is fully falsifiable in all its component sciences, so it, at least , has stood the test of peer criticism.

Also , evolution has never included the "origins of life" as one of its prime areas of reserch. Research into the chemistry of lifes origins is indeed going on. However, even when a suitable chemical reaction that can be defined as life , is discovered, it still will not be evidenced as having occured at the time zero of lifes first occurence.

This thred has gone over these and other points many times over yet we still have room for more debate so youll soon see who adopts what mode of thinking and where they stand. Its amusing that, on this thread, no one person has accepted a standard definition of ID, as preached by the main ID organizations of the US. This is amusing because weve gotten about different ID propositions , all uniquely individual. Thus, by example, ID isnt agreed upon by its believers.

If I were to step back and try to encapsulate what I think is ID, Id say that ID is nothing more than "thesitic evolution". The IDers would have to agree , but theyd argue that the word "theistic" is merely a lightning rod, sure to attract Constitutional thunderbolts. So they will argue , with strait faces, that the "designer" is not a God of the Bible. However, if you read their secret e-mails sent only to each other (and easily hacked by the rest of the grits eating world), youd see that they merely wish to restore the US culture to its God centered (In their belief) , origins.


All these articles that wandel posts, are continual reminders that the US is not a monolithic culture by any means. Many of the IDers are insistent unto their last breaths that they will prevail and will ultimately restore the theocracy. The legislatures of many states are still locked in the culture wars that began in the early 20th century, even though science has passed their worldview about 60 years ago.

Oh well, Im just here for the newsclips and the barbecue.

I disagree, FM.

People who believe in theistic evolution have no problems at all with evolution. The concept of irreducible complexity wasn't even an issue with theistic evolution supporters.

ID is different in that it its main premise posits the existence of irreducible complex adaptations and then claims God did it.

People who believe in theistic evolution and I'd count Ken Miller as one of them, would see ID for exactly what it is.

KEn Miller would agree with my statement
Hes really not a fan of theistic evolution because he has stated himself that such a position (theistic evolution)would shortchange his own God. Anyway, Im saying what I believe ID has gone and done, it, by its carefully worded foundation material brought out by Dembski and Johnson, merely tried to, by liguistics , dodge the Constitution .
AS ID gets transferred to other countries (such as UK) it becomes more a defendant for suits brought that claim that ID is an "unreasonable political indoctrination",


PS Wolf, you must read page 6 of Behes "Darwins Black Box". I think he summarizes nicely what IDers accept and if you substitute God for his term "intelligent agent" , you have theistic evolution.
Irreducible complexity doesnt challenge IDers in their acceptance of "common ancestry" and evolution in general.

Well, perhaps then theistic evolution is a very broad term which encompasses ID and Ken Miller's view of evolution. Because I've met theistic evolution supporters and they don't believe a word of ID.

Thats the irony. The old addage is that

"if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and hangs around with other ducks, chances are it's a duck".

IDers have been so busy trying to split their views from thesitic evolution tht they cringe at the mention of a God,(until they are in the cloak room)

Miller has said many times that "methodological naturalism" is imposed upon science as a going- in assumption. Against this assumed naturalism, everything must be tested. Thats what ID misses, nothing against , within which its findings can be tested.

I suggest to you that that is no accident. It's like talking to "real life"--it's hard to hit a moving target.

I never noticed that in him

fm's summary of the plot so far betrays distinct signs of partiality unusual in scientific discussion and it's crude transfer of the ID position on this thread, as presented mainly by me, to that of a cast of characters of fm's own choosing, as one might choose to place a duck near the end of a shotgun with wide shot spread if one was in need of retinal surgery, would be unforgiveable normally but we have become so habituated to the procedure that we have realised that it is an ingrained habit which fm is unable to fix and thus not something to which any blame can be attached. fm prefers to debate with third parties who have probably never heard of A2K.

However--dilbert, what is wrong with evolution theory is not that it is incorrect. Nowhere on this thread, which I urge you to read, if only out of respect for the regulars who have moved beyond the sort of simplicities you have indulged in, will you find me claiming that evolution theory is wrong or unscientific.

What is wrong with evolution theory is that it is inapplicable in civilised societies such as the one we live in and in which the schoolroom is an important institution. The shelf yardage of the books of law contain nothing except inhibitions of correct evolutionary behaviour.

The whole range of non-human species, extinct, living or yet to appear, is, by even the standards of 2 year-old humans, completely and irredemiably stupid. fm's dog, for example, doesn't even know it is ugly. All it knows how to do is to train fm to feed it.

Even given the stupidity of brute creation it is still worth study but only by lesser minds which presumably have found the study of man somewhat bemusing. And in the study of man religion plays a vital role. No society has ever been without religion. Religion has moulded the very language we speak and our religion has given us our science which is a new science in the world, for better or for worse. Even those who think it is for the worse engage from time to time, depending upon their devotedness, in chanting at the skies wearing long flowing robes, usually in pastel shades, and calling on the Great Mother to straighten things out.

You will soon see dilbert, if you interest yourself further with this thread, which I don't advise by the way, that the proponents of AIDs-ing, a familiar term to us all, do not practice what they preach within the confines of their domestic and economic arrangements. They say we are just animals and then they behave like good Christian gentlemen and ladies.

Some of them are actually married for a start. Some of them "own" dogs and practice or have practiced or helped promote such things as birth control, abortion, incest taboos, ages of consent, artistic appreciation in its naive forms and lingerie shops, all of which are directly contradictory to evolution theory. They condemn, often in strident terms, price gouging, highway robbery, rape, pillage and many other activities all of which are advantageous to non-human organisms according to evolution theory. And it is religion which has taught them these things.

They have tapped their feet to syncopated rhythms pounded out on instruments intelligently designed by Christian European science to the glory of God and are left unmoved by the music of other cultures unless they can squeeze some invidious comparisons out of it for social cachet purposes. And they are in denial that Gutenberg invented their whole lifestyle from scratch in a deeply Christian albumen.

They hide themselves from view, when nature calls, and their spoor is not easy to find.

There is no way the most avid proponents of evolution theory would go anywhere near putting into practice even the most elementary principles of it. Even copulation, a vital matter in the theory, is surrounded by the most elaborate rituals and ceremonies and equipment and those falling short in that respect are quickly ostracised from polite society.

They wish to teach this theory to kids in classrooms and at the same time insisting that the kids, indeed the teachers, are just animals. Kids could well be forgiven for then behaving like animals, as they increasingly are doing under the pressure of secularism.

Evolution Theory is an abstract subject suitable for those both capable and tempermentally amenable to its severe strictures and who are, presumably, mature enough to put aside, temporarily, the traditions and customs of their upbringing whether it be Scandanavian in the far north-east, German in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Illinois, Irish in Massachusetts, Mexican in Texas, French in Louisiana and goodness knows what else coming from all corners of the earth.

It requires us to put aside all these differences and put our faith in one deterministic idea and it's proponents are unable to offer any vision of a future which will result from us all agreeing to do so and where 300 million Americans will be deeply imbued with the pure scientific method.

Keep sending the high-tech industry to Silicon Valley in California; FL is not capable of handling science.

See what I mean dilbert.

AIDs-ers simply ignore posters they cannot answer and trot out another version of what they have been trotting out for three years. So if you do read the thread you only need bother with a few AIDs-er's posts because you'll quickly pick up the general drift and it doesn't change.

What they do is at odds with all known debating etiquette and shows what closed off minds AIDs-ers have. It is verging on speaking in tongues. It just puts its head down and ploughs on as if no-one else is there. I think it comes from years of thinking that there are no other arguments, despite the evidence of one going on all around them, and that it has got it all straight in its head and all those who can't see it, from the President down, are deluded nit-wits.

It can never see that there is a science of the successful management of a culture and that cultures have a will to live as well. It cannot see it because it cannot look at it as it might entail the discovery that they hadn't got it straight in their head after all but only if they look at things from one side and that the side they've been looking at it from. They maybe think a culture isn't managed in order pretend that they not knowing how it is done is unimportant. As I said "man" bemuses them so what better than stupid creatures which can't answer back to hang their dreams of glory on.

They have no wish to be peer-reviewed despite trumpteting peer-reviewing all down the thread as the one final truth. By simply riding roughshod over any inconvenient questions, a bit like Dom Quixote, they escape back into their blinkers and you just saw a demonstration of them doing it. Their vaunted scientific method does not apply to themselves you see. Only others.

As Bertie Russell said- "Logic is just a ruse to get your own way" .

Welcome to the thread dilbert.

Went to the ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) today for the "Charles Darwin: Evolution Revolution" exhibit today. It was a pip. They had a pair of tortoises and an iguana for the kiddies. The exhibits were many and varied. There were a lot of autograph manuscripts--letters to and from Darwin while aboard HMS Beagle (and including the letter which Josiah Wedgewood sent to Chuck's daddy to urge him to let the boy sign up for the package cruise), one of Captain Fitzroy's logs, and many of Chuck's notes. There were a great many botanical, entomological and geological samples which Chuckie collected himself, and many of the botanical samples were exhibited on the papers on which he had originally mounted them, with his autograph labels and comments. There were quite a few taxidermy exhibits, and throughout, the entire historical sequence, and the implications of his work was well laid out in clear and simple terms. They had several samples of autograph manuscripts of correspondence between Darwin and Huxley and Hooker after the thesis had been published.

It was quite a show, i greatly enjoyed it.

You know what is ROM's website? I wanna see how long the exhibit is in town and if its moving elsewhere in the HAppy Birthday year.

wandel-what's the authors name who penned that article ? It seems that the science reporters are getting tired of the anti-science crowd in FLA. The article was a lot more shrill than previous ones or am I just reading too loudly?

Here ya go, FM, clickity-click!

I have been told that the collection exhibited is unique.

Looks like this will be the offical Canadian event for Charles 200th birthday and the 150th of "Origins..." I guess Ill have to go and see it, now to convince Mrs Fm to accompany me.
Tranna right?

Ed wrote-



What do you mean "even" Ed? That's the only thing of interest. The original recipe for Viagra.