Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Cyclo, There are many/several PBS programs on Darwin; can you identify which one from this group? http://www.google.com/search?q=PBS%2C+evolution+past+darwin&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS310US311

Here's the full series at Amazon -- it's $ 99.00:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Boxed-Liam-Neeson-narrator/dp/B00005RG6J

Crikey LW. "Social implications" !!!??? On here? Good grief.

The social implications have never been allowed to disturb the calm surface of the equanimity of the these particular anti-IDers on here. Social implications are on Ignore. That's why I'm on Ignore. I keep mentioning them. From the beginning too.

It's the same with theology. It's declared "rubbish". Just like that. A wave of the hand. A flick of the wrist. Consigned to oblivion.

In the name of Science. Nobody would ever have thought of calling Galileo to account if his ideas, at that time had had no social implications.

A very good blog with the first part available to watch on line:

http://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/pbs-evolution-boxed-set/

Of course, upon the airing of Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Discovery Institute promptly published a page of 100 scientists who supposedly are against Darwinism and natural selection (when, in fact, most of them have stated that it needs to be studied further based on every new finding), and none of them are evolution scientists, paleontologists, or educated nor involved in any profession vaguely related to genetics, evolution or any other appropriate science. That list has shrunk dramatically since 2002. I wonder why.

We don't need to wonder why, do we? LOL However, I'm here to say that many of those remaining so-called "scientists" will never accept Darwin or the concept of evolution. It would destroy their life's belief in god, because for them it's either or.

Spendius...a question (several, actually), if I may:

Are you saying that Intelligent Design is the only way to explain existence...

...or are you saying that Intelligent Design is one possible explanation of existence...

...and if the latter, are you saying that Intelligent Design seems more probable to you...

...and also if the latter, are you saying that the Intelligent Designer (whatever that might be) did not use the methods Darwin suggested for the development of species?

Galileo who was charged with heresey by the Inquisition of Pope Urban VIII and imprisoned by the church? That Galileo? Well, that certainly is a "social implication." LOL

The church's purpose was to cover up, not unlike the Watergate crooks, so it was political implications as well as social.

The church is still covering up and I can't find any comment here that the church should be thrown into the fires of Hell. LOL

Frank, he'll never deliver specific answers to specific questions -- he's the Artful Dodger. Just watch out for your valuables, like sanity.

You're at it again LW. It is a fundie dogma of our anti-IDers that all science will be wrecked, tank and go off a cliff if evolution isn't taught to the kids. They don't recognise "inappropriate" sciences. They have on Ignore that evolution was never taught to all the great scientists of the past. Most of whom were devout religionists.

Evolution can hardly rank in the same league scientifically. It has no mathematics, no physics, no chemistry, no sociology and no psychology.

I just opened Origins at random (p 143) and here we go-- "as far as I can make out", "I have met with striking instances", (haven't we all?), "well marked", "and it would appear from information given me", "generally", "much rarer numerically", "if we may trust these facts", " and therefore conclude", "generally", "I think", --I've got fed up. 17 lines is sufficient.

I'm not saying that makes it rubbish but it's hardly scientific. It's interesting. I can make out a scientific case for astrology. No ifs or buts or thinks. Not the astrology in the Jacksonville Times-Union. That is rubbish. A bit like some of the rubbish derived from Darwin. One does need to beware of the udder milkers.

When our anti-IDers read Darwin, if we grant that they have done, which is unlikely in some cases, and maybe all, those words are on Ignore. Like when the TV squawks that " stem cell research may possibly lead to a cure for X" there's a tendency for people, particularly those with X or fearful of X, to ignore the "may possibly lead to" bit. It's understandable. Hope being what it is. The statement still doesn't mean anything.



They could have been got at. It might have been explained to them that it would help their careers to be a shrinker. Surely men of that education and position didn't suddenly have some new insight after a long education in science and years of practicing it.

No.



Yes with emphasis on "explanation". Obviously.



I've no idea Frank. Like you. More useful I would prefer to say. More congruent to our present needs. For those YEC is better than atheism which I consider useless in 7 no trumps. I believe in congruence to our needs.



I think I've answered that but I will say that I incline, for selfish reasons I'll admit, to the Aphrodite emerging, surfing the foam, in a seashell explanation to the chimpanzee explanation despite much evidence to the contrary in the pub. It seems more dignified don't you think?

Darwin himself said about the struggle for existence--" How low in the scale of nature this law of battle descends, I know not." So the alternative to the Aphrodite goes as far as worms. And Sir James Frazer stopped short of that.

Yeah, it's been clear that you prefer comfortable delusion for quite some time now...

How is it that you manage to type so much while saying so little?

It's better than typing meaningless circularities.

I think you are out of line here, Shirak.

I think Spendius said a lot...and was very forthcoming. He answered every question I asked...and he was clear about his position.

I'm not sure I agree with the "congruent to our present needs" comment...but that certainly is a valid and logical position to take.

Spendius...thanks for answering.

Yes, for one small span of time, Spend actually answered specific questions with pungent clarity. Could be I chided him into it, but I wouldn't give myself that much credit. As anyone who has been on A2K or Abuzz long enough, they know I am somewhere in the neighborhood of an agnostic or a theist. I just don't believe that any higher power can be made any more tangible than infinity, other dimensions or time travel.

Carl Sagan often commented that were are made of the stuff of stars -- that's enough shock and awe for me to believe I'm not being audited by some beared father figure in the sky.

As to scientists "being got at," that's a hairbrained, conspiracy theory, nutty idea.

The thing was that Frank asked clear questions.



It has been mentioned on here. And not by me. People not getting certain jobs because of their beliefs. Or holding back promotions.

And it was full blown in the Soviet era.

And not being on a list doesn't say much. It probably means no longer going public rather than having altered their views which is what I think the comment was intended to imply.

It's obvious -- it was the direct result of being laughed at by the court in Dover and now in plain black-and-white by the judge that ID is in no way, in any shape or form, a science.

Escuse me laughing LW. Get your Mom to dry behind your ears.

LW...I always enjoy your comments.

Fact is, we all get wrapped up in our positions...and sometimes things heat up.

In this case, I find myself agreeing with several of the answers Spendius gave.

I think I will use this opportunity to go over them...and give my responses to my own questions. Spendius in black...my responses in red.

No. No.




Yes with emphasis on "explanation". Obviously. Yes...with emphasis on “one possible explanation.” I do not know if there is a GOD or not...so I cannot say definitively that Intelligent Design is an impossibility...so it IS one possible explanation.




I've no idea Frank. Like you. More useful I would prefer to say. More congruent to our present needs. For those YEC is better than atheism which I consider useless in 7 no trumps. I believe in congruence to our needs. I don't have the foggiest! There is absolutely no way I can assign probability to any of this.





I think I've answered that but I will say that I incline, for selfish reasons I'll admit, to the Aphrodite emerging, surfing the foam, in a seashell explanation to the chimpanzee explanation despite much evidence to the contrary in the pub. It seems more dignified don't you think?

Darwin himself said about the struggle for existence--" How low in the scale of nature this law of battle descends, I know not." So the alternative to the Aphrodite goes as far as worms. And Sir James Frazer stopped short of that.


My Guess: If there is an Intelligent Designer...the ID used the method that Darwin discovered. I think there is absolutely zero chance of the ID making humans as completed beings...mostly (also for selfish reasons) because I have trust in the fossil evidence and the scientific arguments.

So as you can see...on these questions...Spendius and I respond similarly...although not identically.

Here is a part of my position where he and I may diverge:


Way back...I suggested that the we should allow all the states that wanted their schools to teach creationism...to teach creationism as one of the alternatives to disciplines such as Darwinism.

You could plan a course that would last about two minutes.

“Some people “believe” that there is a GOD...and that the GOD created humans in its own image.”

End of course.

Then the schools would have taught the alternative...what we call “the scientific” theory...the long drawn out trip from what we were...to what we are now.

Unfortunately, the creationists lost their battles...and now...Intelligent Design is raising its head. And we have what many deem to be pseudo-science intruding itself into the science curriculum.

I would have prefered Creationism.

In effect, the non-creationists won a battle but may very well lose a war.

SCience can. Its not a matter like religion, where an agnostic can hold his head up and declare that he doesnt know. As far as ID is concerned, the keymarks that define it ARE debunkable.

There are only 2 points that ID'SCientists" claim credibility and equivalence with standard science. (AND BTW, thius is only a matter of science , not philosophy, religion, sociology or whatever several folks have erroneously claimed).These points are as follows

1LIFE IS TOO "ORDERED" TO HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT BY RANDOM MEANS. -EVolutionary theory (including nat selection, PE, epigenetic transfer, etc) does NOT evidence randomness. Quite the contrary, once a genetic pathway is "blundered " into, its future manifestation is controlled by its already existing genetic complement. This is evidenced by compairing genomes , and has given rise to a whole new "circle of life" (System of classification of all things living)

2ID IS EVIDENCED BY IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY-This is dead on arrival. EVerything so far claimed by IDers has shown to have precursors in simpler life forms. From Behes flagella to blood clotting to the development of the eye, all attempts at Irreducible complexity have been debunked by science.

NOT "believing" in ID is merely a matter of reading the evidence. While coffee shop discourse is good, it shouldnt end in a statement of some sgnostic maintenance program that favors ID by "intellectual exhaustion".

I suggest that you read Sean Carroll's MAKING OF THE FITTEST. It will, as well as any other single popularly written text, get you "up to speed" to show how the ID position is totally bamkrupt and that the only way they can keep their hokum going is to keep guys like us from not reading further.

Farmerman...you are not taking into account all I wrote.

I specifically limited the ID I was talking about to an ID that worked through the means that Darwin discovered.

There is nothing wrong with being agnostic about that.

I am not buying into any of the ID arguments.

If there is an Intelligent Designer...and if the ID had humans evolve in the manner they actually evolved...how could you tell if the evolution occurred with an ID or without one???

All the evidence would be exactly the same.

Said another way:

Unless you can establish that science has established that there are no gods...

...there is the possibility of an Intelligent Designer. If there is the possibility of an Intelligent Designer...then Intelligent Design is a possibility.