Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

ghostofgauss, I would also recommend that you get a copy of the current National Geographic Magazine that includes a section on the Caves of Tennessee. It'll explain evolution in current terms that most will understand, because it compares its surface cousins to the insects and animals that live in total darkness, and don't miss the section on the crab without eyes.

ghostie-

You might have mentioned The Physiology of Excitable Cells by D.J.Aidley which contains 400+ pages of similar stuff to that you quote above and about 500 references to other researchers in the field.And that was 30 odd years ago.

Whether or not it strains credibility in evolution is not a matter I feel qualified to pronounce on.I'm more interested in the social effects of the two beliefs as I think any court will be.I don't care whether there is a God or not but it is of interest what a society might look like which becomes totally scientific and Godless.I think the SDers on here are trying to have it both ways.They want to be SDers i.e.superior intelligences and at the same time live in a world in which God does play a part in society.I think most of them are half-baked and some of them are trouble makers.Lawyers etc can make money out of trouble.Rabelais explained that 100s of years ago. The evolution of law is an exceedingly simple thing when compared to the happenings in a body when a brick is thrown at it and which take place in so short a time as to asymptote with instantaneous.Probably billions of synchronised happenings too.And monkeys and cats behave similarly.And what happens when gigantic shoals of fish react as one organism as they do.It is mind blowing and anybody who thinks they have an answer is booloo.

It's the economy, Stupid.

National Geographic Magazine is in business to provide easy answers for people who need that sort of thing for one reason or another.It's a part of the Entertainment business.

HMMM. spendius, Now whos the elitist? National Geographic funds more basic research in the natural sciences than does the USGS and THE US Biological Survey Division of the USGS. Articles appear in juried journals but are also presented in easily digestable forms with pictures in NAt Geo. Im an avid Nat Geo subscriber and I find it one of the best ways to become introduced to a topic that one can then follow into the the world of the arcane.

Do you consider museums part of the "entertainment business"?

"Inside the museums infinity goes up on trial,

Voices echo "is this what salvation looks like after a while."

And although I know Visions of Johanna backwards I can't be sure what follows at this time of night but yes I do consider museums to be part of the EB.They select for the usual reasons.Bums on seats.And then the town has no need to be nervous.

"Easily digestable"eh?And with pics.

problem with that? or do you maintain that we must maintain "priesthoods"?

Yes fm-I do think priesthoods are important.They are,when genuine,outside the nepotism normally associated with elites.That is why they are celibate using that word at the widest possible stretch.

Statement on Evolution (National Academy of Sciences):

wand, Good post, but I doubt creationist will agree with the statement on evolution.

Wande-

That's all pretty vague.A glib way with words "helps
to explain" things as well.Can evolution explain a glib way with words or why some ladies like performing the can-can,say,and others would be mortified.Does evolution say that women are naturally immodest or modest.

How would evolution have taken us from the neolithic to here without intelligent design mitigating its chthonian tendencies?

Spendius

I would think a glib way of explaining something or a womans preference for performing the 'can-can' or 'modesty vs immodesty', are individual abilities/preferences which may be addressed in terms of branches of science that deal with individuals ( eg. psychology) or groups of individuals (psychology/sociology).

I am interested in knowing your opinion on whether (biological) Evolution applies at an individual level or at the level of a species.

That sounds a bit like the "have you stopped beating your wife?"question.

In the case of biological evolution it would apply to species of course.Darwin is at pains to point out in Origin,and no doubt elsewhere,that the periods of time involved are unimaginable.

He did go to extreme lengths in the process of measuring various bones in boiled pigeons to support his theory and though it wasn't very convincing it does explain quite well what he was getting at.One can see fairly well that certain mutations could be bred into lines of descent and thus come to establish not only a foothold but to come to dominate.

I don't think ID or SD is scientifically proveable in the same way that light bending under gravity is.These two notions are actually political as I keep trying to remind everybody.They concern ways of life of certain groupings.That is how I see the argument as it will come down to in the Supreme Court.A pragmatic decision will result which hopefully will keep the peace.

I do not see how evolutionary science can have any moral positions.It can only control through terror and mind control.The debate seems to me to be entirely sociological.Stalin locked the churches but he didn't dare demolish them.In ancient Rome new Emperors opened temples which their predecessors had locked and locked some previously in full swing.There would look to be a human need for the idea of ID in some form.Also it is of interest how one distinguishes science from technology and its association with business.

I'm running late-sorry.I'll have a skim through Origin shortly.

Sorry also for jesting about can-can girls although there might be something in it.

Thank you for your opinion Spendius.

Assuming you imply Darwinism by SD, I think it is provable or disprovable just like any other notion in science. I recall reading about some experimental research group working on demonstrating 'biological evolution'. Unfortunately I dont have a reference to it right now. Perhaps later... Feel free to ignore that expt. ref. till then. I.D on the other hand doesnt make any predictions that can be verified or pass the rigours of the scientific process(so far). So I would hope any Court would keep the verifiability of I.D in mind before deciding.

If it is experimentally provable in a lab that evolution does occur, would I.D proponents accept it ?

Science is not supposed to have a moral position, that is left for the humans practicing it. I dont believe Evolutionary or any science tries to control anything
although many might fear the scientific approach and its consequences/conclusions.

There is a human need for answers and explanations. One can search for them using the methods of science or one can invoke an ID'er or God. Only the latter needs an ID'er in some form but not all humans need that.

crash wrote-



One would like to think so but I would doubt it and it is likely there were be enough ambiguities in the proof to enable them to carry on as they are.

I understood that experiments involving species with rapid reproduction rates,such as fruit flies,have been going on for years and as far as I know nothing definitive has resulted yet.

There is the case of a species of butterfly which changed colour from white to black when the trees changed to black with smoke in industrial areas.But white ones still appeared and one presumes that they would replace the black ones if the pollution was stopped and the trees returned to their natural colour.This effect is obviously of interest to the ladies' fashion industry and male ambition coefficients although birth control techniques will distort the picture which they wouldn't with butterflies.

crash went on-



This is really what it is all about.If the consequences of exclusive scientific design were properly understood I don't think many people would reject ID as easily as some do.The consensus as it stands is probably as good as we can get and only very slight shifts can be expected.

Geographical,economic and traditional factors will be the principle determinants and not things which happen in labs.

spendius,

People are rejecting ID as science. ID can be discussed as philosophy or theology.

Also, evolution is being observed in laboratories everyday. Epidemiologists study viruses and bacteria in how they evolve and become resistant to antibiotics. Evolutionary theory has become a very important applied science.

That depends on how you define "evolution." Scientists do see natural selection at work, in that those bacteria that have natural resistances are more likely to survive and therefore become more prevalent. However scientists have never seen the arrival of a new kind of animal from an old one. Sure, scientists can play around with genes and breed organisms to have specific traits, but they never end up with NEW genetic information. It's simply a rehashing of the old.

wande-

You just won't have it.

ID cannot be discussed at all except sociologically and psychologically.There is no possible intellectual position on it either theologically or philosophically.
The effects of people believing it and the process by which that belief exists in people are scientifically relevant in the management of a cultural entity.

In one of the most famous books of the last century
there is this-

"My unbelief made me feel immeasurably superior to him."

Him being Harris's father who had written to him with "Biblical exhortations that sickened me with contempt for his brainless credulity."

Harris was 14 and his father was a ship's captain.

I made this precise point a few days ago.

You can reject ID as science all you want but you can't reject its unifying function in those areas where it manifests itself.The two sides simply talk past each other for ever otherwise.

But to what extent is this feeling of superiority at the back of the SD position.The states where ID is strong may need it to be and similarly for the SD states.

You have no idea whether children will benefit from either emphasis in their lessons.It is simply a prejudiced guess.What they won't benefit from is this stupid row raging round their ears which is essentially patronising nannying and betrays a lack of confidence in them which I think to be completely unjustified.

I dont think there is a Scientific Design in biological evolution. A Scientific explanation of natural phenomena and evolution definitely exists when possible. There is no superiority inherent to the scientific approach. It is just a matter of chosing between what can be theorized/tested/reproduced/verified independently vs that which cannot be. If selecting the former (which belongs in a science class) implies superiority to those who select the latter(which belongs in a philosophy/theology class, just a Wandeljw pointed out), thats a personal judgement.

If implications of science were fully comprehended, the number of people needing ID/God for explaining nature might actually decrease. Unfortunately the concept of God has a head start over modern science by a few thousand years, so inertia and notions like I.D are to be expected.

It's nice to have an ET's perspective on all this

lol greetings Earthling.... we come in peace....now hand us your women in the name of interstellar evolution..yep thats it ! :wink: