Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Grr, tried to edsit and the time slot for editing is measured in nano seconds.
I dont mean to be critical but your position on religion is one I share by simply not knowing (and consequently not really caring). HOWEVER, evolution is not like that at all. Its a rigorous discipline complete with the mathematical, biochemical, and physical subroutines that define its structure within science. Its evidenced, and is testable and falsifiable, whereas ID is not.
ALL the subroutines of ID have , been tested and falsified and havecome up empty and completely falsified.

The ID folks have claimed that they accept common ancestry, while at the same time espousing irreducible complexity. Thats because they cannot deny these huge examples of intermediate fossils that inconveniently do exist , yet, at the same time, they lean upon the concept of irreducible complexity for the most minute of biochemical systems (in which they feels safe that no precursors would ever be found). Unfortunately, it really didnt take long to actually find the biochemical precursors and render their stance completely falsified.

So, in essence, you do know that ID is bogus non-science, whether youve taken the time to catch up on the literature or not. WHen(and hopefully you will by the interest you seem to display herein)
you do read the CArroll book Ive recommended, you can see that biology is waay ahgead of theses shysters who are merely looking for a way to push their "Trojan Horse" into the schoolyard and deliver their crap to the crowd of blank minded kiddies.

ALSO, a really good story of the Dover case, and an insite into the mind of the trier, read MONKEY GIRL by E Humes. ITs almost like an "Inheret the WInd" for this century.

Let me try it this way, Farmerman.

Maybe there is an Intelligent Designer...and the design that Intelligent Designer thought was best...is what we got.

In other words...the way humans evolved...is the way the Intelligent Designer designed our evolution.

Bear with me here: Even if EVERY guess EVERY human has ever made about a GOD is 100% wrong...that does not mean there are no gods. All it means is that humans just cannot get the nature of “gods” right.

So...even if EVERY guess made by EVERY Intelligent Design advocate is completely off the mark...that does not mean there is no Intelligent Designer.

The ONLY way you can be correct, Farmerman...is if there are no gods. Unless you are prepared to assert THERE ARE NO GODS...you simply cannot rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Come to think about it, a really competent Intelligent Designer would do things just the way things actually appear to have happened here on planet Earth.

COPOUT.

1ALL the evidence posted by IDers is fraudulent. So their "metric" is therefore incorrect. If you wish to substitute a worldview that adheres to their conclusions, but without any of the evidence they wish to push, youre coming up short. In other words, you choose to acknowledge the "possibility" that evolution is ID driven, but without any of the proof that ID relies upon.
That may be good enough for you, Im not as easily impressed by the ID arm waving.

2IDers acknlowledge that "certain" of the premises upon which natural selection has been built are valid ( they say this Because the evidence in their favor is overwhelming), yet the smallest of the components of lifes systems dont follow . IDers say that irreducible complexity prooves this. (THATS THEIR ONLY BIT OF "PROOF" THAT THEYVE GOT TO DATE) However all the irreducible complexity stories have been debunked.
Again, if you wish to acknowledge a worldview ( or a minor part of a worldview) as being possible, Id thisnk that youd demnad the same level of "reasonable doubt" in favor of your acknowledgement. In the case of ID, its all been debunked, so the basis upon which its built is smoke and mirrors.


You may not fully accept natural selection or evolution, thats another story entirely. But dont say that you can acknowledge that ID is possible, because its not. It has failed the "red face " test entirely . Id think that you were a harder ass than that.Do you then, accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Because it has as much evidence in favor as does ID(that was the original point that the wag who came up with the FSM ws trying to show) .

Gods are untestable, ID components are not. I dont wish to play whackamole with dueling worldviews because my point has been made. Youve been caught acknowledging ID by what I called "intellectual fatigue" Youve overloaded on some of the concepts that IDers preach. In science, all we can say is that one thing seems more credible than another because the evidence favors that one explanation and that no evidence REFUTES it. As far as ID is concerned, several branches of evidence do refute it entirely. Thats all. If you wish to xtend agnosticism to include evolution, I cant stop you. I can only remind you that you are being very inconsistent in how you accept data and the lack of it.

You say that you deny Creationism because you know that its strict presentation is in scientifc error.Its the SAme thing with ID. I dont need to default to a "no gods" position at all, all I have to do is show that the alternative position is dead wrong. I have. (Actually the vast amount of scientific data has, I merely read and interpret). ID was a component of Creationist thinking for several centuries (although it was never called that). In 1989, it was suddenly re-constructed by Phil Johnson after the State of Louisiana lost its Supreme Court case. Several Creationist texts (includng OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE had suddenly, and cynically, morphed from strict Creationism into Intelligent Design . As you may know, in the Dover Case, it became a cause celebre when the earlier versions of "Pandas" was found and the word Creationism was shown to ahve been changed to Intelleigent Design just by an editors pen (they even found one word where the two concepts got overprinted to show an"intermediate fossil word").
The concept of Intelligent Design , in my mind,has nothing to do with a belief or non belief in gods. That would be assigning more credibility than it deserves. Its a fraudelent construct by a manipulative minority of Christians who had their philosophical roots in "Scientific Creationism".

I am not being inconsistent...I am being consistent.

You are being pig-headed.

I explained my position completely...and you are simply dismissing it because you are wedded to your pig-headedness.

I do not give a **** what IDers preach...any more than I give a rat's ass what theists preach. The possible existence of a GOD is not contingent upon what any theist guesses about the nature of gods...and the possible existence of a GOD (READ THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGNER) is not contingent upon what any Ider guesses about Intelligent Designers.

But, if you are going to be pig-headed...nothing can stop you.

Pig-headedness!

Puhlese, Ive made common sense and youve been caught making a convenient copout statement from pure convenience,. I merely request that you read a bit more befoire you include ID into you kraal of agnosticism and , by doing so, give it undeserved credibility.

Im not going to get your blood pressure up any higher but youve gotta work on consistency there Frank.

Nothing wrong with my consistency, Farmerman. And nothing wrong with my common sense.

Your argument is a carbon copy of a frequent atheistic argument:

There cannot possibly be a god like the the one in the Bible...therefore there are no gods.

Wake up!

If there is a GOD...one of the possibilities in an agnostic world...THEN THERE IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

Just because the airheads who want to pass off this creationism as Intelligent Design get the specifics wrong...or even if they are completely absurd...THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT LIFE WAS NOT INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED.

The Intelligent Design may have been the exact evolution that occurred on the planet.

The only reason you are not able to grasp and acknowledge that...is because you are being pig-headed, Farmerman.

Stop doing it!

Life almost certain developed on this planet exactly the way you suspect it has...AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO KNOW IF THAT IS A FUNCTION OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR NOT!

It makes absolutely no difference. The science doesn't change. The research and conclusions do not change. Nothing changes...except to acknowledge that we do not know if there are gods or not.

Nothing changes...and it makes absolutely no difference....except to someone being pig-headed, for whatever reasons he is being pig-headed.

Frank, please check to see if someone has been putting some rat poison in your smoke bag. Why would Science establish anything about the notion of gods? Have they shone up in any experiment? (Oops, hey look at this miraculous chemical change from lead into gold-en rod!!!) Has any of the thousands of deities pressed a thumb down on the scale of research in any way, form or fashion? (One meteorologist to another: Say, Bill, I think that Cumulus cloud looks just like Jehovah. Watch out for the lighting!!)

Put another way: If gods exists, so what? Science doesn't give a ratass. Science proceeds with or without them.

Intelligent Design is not Science. It's not even close. It's a comic book of hopeful nonesense, fit for no one above the age of six.

Joe(I'm buying the first round on Friday)Nation

Damn ! At last I find myself in agreement with Frank !

If the material world does have a creator, evolution could well have been a part of his design.

The observable universe is either an infinite regreession of cause and effect; one of an infinite manifold of quantum multiverses; the product of something as yet unconceived; or the work of an intelligent designer. Science does not offer us the possibility of rationally discriminating among these possibilities.

PS, also, youre a little bit out of synch with what mainstream IDers even say. They say that they are a valid scientific discipline, functionally unattached to any religious worldview. In other words, they (themselves) do not wish to be associated with any "gods".

You will lose more ground on your basis of acceptance of whether ID is a rudder for natural selection.

One argument I had always made against ID 's credibilityu w from the geologic record. Follow me here.

The earth goes through periodic tectonic extra planetary events. LIFE seems to evolve in response to these events . If this means that ID is the bauplan for life, then we have to admit that ID is quite capricious in its unfolding, either that or the intelligent designer was also in charge of the planetary plumbing and heating.

Im sorry, this is too laughable for me to even acknowledge the possibility.
I believe that the god you are unsure about has been given too many responsibilities in your mind. You assume that, if it exists, it is probably in charge of the mechanics . Your "god" is a tinkrere,and a micromanager. Even though you arent sure about it(a god), you herein define it to your convenient way of thinking. Since Youve established some rules of engagement for this deity you are more leaning to a worldview than I think you confess.

Woah, Im having a lotta trouble following this one.
Even if everything is dead wrong about how the concept was concieved, developed, and proven, that doesnt mean that it couldnt have happened?? Is that what youre saying??

If it is, then I guess we dont have anything to say on thye subject other than to ask you to read my sig line

I can keep quiet as Frank disses atheism. I don't have to argue that one any more. But, his suppositions about ID and creationism, as I read them here, are batty as hell. Sorry, Frank, but your "logic" fails one more time.

I dont mind being called stubbornly married to a point of logic, but thats not pigheadedness. I havent yet resorted to namecalling so please you do the same Frank.
George, your missing the point, If the foundation of a worldview is shown to have been fraudelent by evidence and data, why should that worldview continue to exist? Religion and evolution have have been deemed compatible by several mainstreams. however, notice that the mainstream religions all have shyed away from any commitment to ID. The VAtican has said (despite the protestations of cardinal Schoenbron) That the evidence is waaaay overwhelming. The CAtholics have removed their dogs from the science part of the fight. Frank is arguing something from an early 19th century POV when Rev Paley was making his watchmaker analogy. Too much science has gone under the bridge to still buy the notion of Intelligent design. It can be shown that evolution and development is opportunistic, adaptive, radiating, functionally linked to edaphic factors , and functionally linked to resources availability.

Gentlemen, good evening, I still have a report to edit tonight and its 10:30 and I am gonna be so tired in the morning.

No more namecalling Frank .

Frank,

In your opinion...

1. Is ID equivalent in possibility to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

2. Is ID equivalent in probability to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

“Intelligent Design” is just another way of saying “religion in disguise”.

Farmerman....what if the IDs plan IS FOR THE EVOLUTION TO BE RANDOM...TO BE CAPRICIOUS?

You keep falling back to the fact that the IDers insist that the ID force the evolution to occur in a particular way.

I concede they are just pushing religious nonsense.

BUT...if it happens that the Reality of existence includes a GOD...and if the GOD decided that IT was going to create a universe and then let whatever happens happen...THAT CONSTITUTES A PLAN.

If life developed...it can be said that it was Intelligently Designed...even if the only element of the design is allowing existence to exist.

YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT LISTENING TO MY ARGUMENT...

...because EVERYTHING you have said about how humans developed CAN BE 100% CORRECT...and EVERYTHING you have said about how wrong-headed EVERYTHING EVER SAID BY EVERY IDer CAN BE 100% CORRECT...

...and still life may have been Intelligently Designed.



Yes...they are full of **** here! YES THEY ARE FULL OF **** HERE! But that has no impact on whether or not there is an Intelligent Designer.



Yes...they are full of **** here! The evidence seems just about certain that IF THERE IS AN ID...there is no way the ID is STEERING the selections. YES THEY ARE FULL OF **** HERE! But that has no impact on whether or not there is an Intelligent Designer.

None of it matters!



Not if you live to be 5 million years old...and spend every hour of all that time doing nothing more than analyzing every word I have ever written on this subject will you ever be able to legitimize that bullshit, Farmerman. I HAVE SUGGESTED THE EXACT OPPOSITE EVERY TIME.

Frank,

I do not want to interrupt your dialog with farmerman, but creating your own version of intelligent design is what spendius has been doing for years. It is like making stuff up as you go along. It is not a good explanation of biodiversity.

Wandel...I understand what you are saying.

But sometimes the best way to combat a "perspective" one considers to be a negative for humanity...is to concede elements of the perspective to the people advocating it. You'd be amazed at what kinds of benefits accrue.

As you know, it has been my steadfast contention for years that the best way to combat religion and theism (things I consider to be significant negatives for humanity) is via agnosticism rather than atheism. Essentially agnosticism concedes certain elements of the theistic perspective...but does it to the advantage of the arguments against theistic essentials. And it does it in a way that atheism cannot match.

It is my opinion that in this Intelligent Design controversy, the people arguing against it have, in some areas, been arguing counterproductively.

The bottom line is that THERE MAY BE A GOD! No matter what anybody says...Reality may have a GOD as a component.

IF there is a GOD...then in effect, there was Intelligent Design involved. But since it has become obvious that the essence of the design was to allow random and capricious selection to determine what eventually results from the evolution (from the first sparks of life through to the complexities of organisms in today's theater)...WHAT IN HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE.

Making that concession does not hurt the argument...in fact, I suggest it can help it.

Teaching evolution the way Farmerman and Joe Nation and you think it should rightly be taught, Wandel...MAKES SENSE DESPITE that concession.

I am simply conceding what logic dictates has to be conceded. There may be a GOD involved in the Reality of existence...and once that concession is made...the next (the GOD may have influenced how evolution occurred)...follows. In no way do either of those concessions negate the theories Darwin expounded...because the “influence” the GOD MAY have exerted COULD BE...to allow everything to happen randomly and capriciously.

In effect, you set up a situation where the other side MAY say, “Okay, if you are willing to concede there may be a GOD...and that the GOD may have had a hand in how we got to become what we are...I am willing to concede that the GOD may very well have allowed natural selection to be the means to ITS ends.”

I think being "wet behind the ears" is far better than trying to operate with a wet brain.

As to science dis-prooving God or Gods, BTW, they are looking for the particle that is the seed of the Universe. Whether they find it in our lifetime, either by the super atom smasher or some other way, doesn't mean anything as of now. I can't state reasonably that I know there is no God in any form or, again, Gods -- as an example, the Hindu Gods. Every religion has an egotistical center that there God is real and their are not other Gods. Christians go by the statement in the Bible that there are no other Gods, but also not to worship false idols. The Pope has become an idol -- winner of the Vatican Idol reality show which is, after all, televised.

I mentioned Akbar the Great because in the oldest civilization on the plan et, he became tired of all the war and bickering between the religions and stated that all religions have something to offer that is truth. I cannot state there is no Shiva. Neither can anyone else, especially Christians. There was no "fall of the Roman Empire" -- it was dissolved by the Christians and led to the Early Middle Ages (again, The Dark Ages). If Christian theologians and clerics continue to ridicule all the other religions and go so far as to state they aren't going to "Heaven," are they then going to "Hell?' Poppycock.