The Complete Idiot's Guide to Intelligent Design

[Viking12]

Q: What's Intelligent Design?
A: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion."

Q: Oh. Like God?
A: Not necessarily. Just an "intelligence." A lot of ID people are very careful to point out that they are scientists, and positing an "intelligence" that created life doesn't mean "God." Could be anything.

Q: Like a giant lobster.
A: Sure. Like a giant lobster.

Q: So what is ID doing to research the identity and characteristics of this "intelligence" that it posits?
A: Well, nothing that I've found yet...

(continued....)

http://www.felbers.net/mt/archives/000986.html

[baba]

1. My formerly rational sister.

My sister, who I always thought of as intelligent and rational, believes this theory. We got into a discussion about it over the holidays. She's a conservative Christian now. One of her kids said somehing to me about not believing in evolution, and I confronted my sister, wondering when she had completely crossed over into the land of the right wing nutjobs. She said she believed in intelligent design. My point to her was that you can believe the theory of evolution, and STILL believe in a higher power. It is ridiculous to me that the intelligent design theorists maintain that the theory of evolution and belief in a higher power are mutually exclusive!

[jdj]

2. that's because they really don't believe it themselves.

it's PR, it's right wing spin, a theory name to duel with instead of having to say "God done it, because I said so."

[mutus_frutex]

27. It all depends on the characteristics of the "higher power"

Evolution is amoral and is very difficult to reconcile with the absolute morality that most believers think emanates from the higher power.

[baba]

35. True.

My "higher power" is more of a vague, new age-y "spirit of the universe" rather than a moral, patriarchal God with lightening bolts. I would hink the former would be easier to reconcile than the latter.

[Nadienne]

67. Same here.

But I don't think RWers are trying to reconcile anything. I think they're trying to make this into an "Us vs Them" disagreement.

[mutus_frutex]

176. That seems to be what many liberals think..

Yet, this concept it is so vague that I don't quite understand why they hold to it. Regardless of that I personally think that it is a position deserving a lot more respect than the one held by so many religious people.

Cheers..

[dansolo]

201. Also evolution suggests that humans are not the pinnacle

With evolution, it is possible that humans may continue to evolve beyond what they are now.

[mutus_frutex]

212. Yeah..

But since especiation seems to require isolation, I don't think we will see a jump until we start traveling to other stars..

Cheers...

[On the Road]

3. That is Wonderful

The best smackdown of ID I've ever seen.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

215. This should be prtinted and handed out at schools!

Could a student do that? Hand copies to his/her classmates?

[Inland]

4. ID is a theory whereby christians make ignorance work for them.

Golly, DNA is complicated. I don't understand it. And nobody can explain to me what a quark is, how it works or where they came from.

I don't understand it, ergo, God did it. No, not God, boys and girls, but an omnipotent being with omniscient planning capabilities.

The example for ID that I liked a lot was Mount Rushmore. Hey, if you saw Mount Rushmore, you would conclude that the processes that created it were intelligent and with a purpose. I suppose, but IDs also say that you should reach the same conclusion by seeing a mountain without faces. Since I don't have any explanation in my pin head on how mountains are made, and believe me I don't, that means God did it. Not God. The omnipotent omniscient thingy. And don't even get me started with the face of Jesus on a tortilla.

Nor are you allowed to bring up that the ignorance means God argument is as old as religion itself. Nobody knows what makes the volcano erupt, so we assume that there is an angry god. Now, advanced scientific christians see a volcano erupt, which they know to be a result of complicated geological processes----that were created by an angry god. When a god directly makes fire, it's supersitition. But as long as we say god is indirectly making fire, it is science. Ah, progress.

[GumboYaYa]

5. How does intelligent design explain the extinction of species?

If the design is intelligent, should not all species be succesful and therefore not subject to extinction?

[Inland]

7. But that's the beauty of ID. It explains everything, and nothing.

Everything happens by design, including extinction, tsunamis, and 9/11.

It explains everything by asserting that no explanation is needed. It just is. As the original posted article states, more or less, that's about the end of the inquiry.

If that sounds like the end of the inquiry is at a religious tenet, it is.

[mcg]

40. It doesn't need to, why this assumption?

Why the assumption that a species, in order to be designed, must be designed to be permanent?

[GumboYaYa]

45. It seems that extinction is a great example of "non-Intelligent" design.

Extinction results because a species is not capable of surviving in its ecosystem. Quite obviously, something is wrong with the design that put the species in that ecosystem.

Other examples of non-intelligent design include the vast and many characteristics of various species that are evolutionary relics with no current survival application. The vestigial prehensile tail all us humans possess is one example.

[mcg]

73. It 'seems'? 'wrong'? Those are value judgements.

There are plenty of models of cars that cannot compete any more. Does that mean they were not designed?

Vestigial characteristics are evidence of evolution, not that there is no design involved.

[DrWeird]

92. So is "it seems implausible"

Yet you use that one.

[dummy-du1]

133. I am sure it's an intelligent destroyer's fault... n/t

[ClassicDem]

6. I am not Christian

But I do believe in a combination of Intelligent Design and Evolution.

[baba]

8. I do too.

I'm looking for an article or a book or something to send my aforementioned sister that has a synthesis of theories, or a new theory for people who are rational and spiritual.

[ClassicDem]

10. Just do a search on

Antony Flew, he is a long time Athiest who now believes that there is some sort of intelligent being who started all of this.

[Viking12]

13. That doesn't make it science

Flew's religious philosophy is not relevant in any conversation about the (lack of) scientific merits of ID.

[ClassicDem]

25. lack of scientific merit?

I have yet to see anything that either proves or disproves ID, and there are just as many Scientists/Physicists who believe in ID as there are who do not.

ID is a theory, it may be true it may be false.

[DrWeird]

26. No, there aren't any scientists (or physicists? wtf?) who believe ID.

They recognize it as a trojan horse for biblical literalism.

Now, there's plenty of agnostic, and christian, and hindu, and muslim, and buddhists scientists around the world, but they're not really Creationists.

[ClassicDem]

31. Wait your telling me that there are

no scientists who believe in ID. This blows me away, even Einstein recognized the possibility of ID.

[DrWeird]

42. No, Einstein recognized the possibility of a Creator.

He would have blown a gasket with all this Creationism bullshit.

[mcg]

75. Yes, there are.

In fact, there are a lot of scientists who believe in theistic evolution etc., even some who believe in Creationism. This has been shown by surveys. And ID is not necessarily Creationism, for some it is, but for many it isn't. Let's be honest here, ok?

'Darwin's Black Box' - written by a professional microbiologist.

Francis Crick - co-discoverer of DNA (I think that qualifies him as a scientist) - believes in directed panspermy.

So stop with your propaganda.

[immoderate]

86. There are lots of scientists who won't walk under a ladder.

Human beings are complex psychologically. They can be scientifically aware and yet hold on to their myths and superstitions. It should be obvious from the smorgasbord of beliefs here, that they pop up out of nowhere.

Scientists who believe in theistic evolution are "off duty."

--IMM

[mcg]

89. That is simply an ad hominem attack, sorry, no go.

[immoderate]

108. Intelligent Design is an ad hominem theory.

I did not mean to attack those scientists who hold irrational beliefs. No offense, fellas!

--IMM

[DrWeird]

95. Behe's a quack.

His "Darwin's Black Box" has been debunked numerous times over numerous years.

As for Crick, panspermia has nothing to do with ID, and I'm sure he'd admit as much and that his opinions on panspermia are simply opinions, not science.

[wabeewoman]

183. Being a scientist does not make

everything you believe correct. If you are a scientist you understand and use the hypothesis theory. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of intelligent design. Listing specific scientists who believe in it is quite irrelevant-look at Elizabeth Kubler Ross. She did great work but was off the deep end later in life. The same can be said for others-some of whom were great scientists. IMHO the biggest problem with the whole counter evolution movement is that it show a failure of education and much of it stems from private schoolers and home schoolers who don't know or understand scientific theory. Without it, all is based on 'faith'.

[Liberal Veteran]

224. Or Peter Duesberg who is an accomplished microbiologist.

Who has spent the last 20 years or so telling the world that HIV doesn't really cause AIDS despite a damned mountain of evidence to the contrary including effective therapy.

[Liberal Veteran]

29. ID is a non-scientific theory or "speculation" if you will.

And until it can make predictions that can be tested or disproven, then it will never go beyond speculation and be regarded as science.

[mutus_frutex]

44. ID is not a theory

It is a hypothesis, and one that has so little foundation as to pretty much be wishful thinking.

Besides that, the number of scientists that "believe" in something doesn't make that something true. Science doesn't work by opinion polls.

[Inland]

61. ID isn't proven or disproven because it can't be proven or disproven

and that's what makes it religion and not science.

Science, by definition, has to be things that are knowable. All ID does is state, we'll never know for sure why things are the way they are and therefore God is as good an answer as any.

Dressing up that position as science is bad science, since it pretends that one can come to a conclusion from a lack of data. But it is also bad religion, since it pretends that religion NEEDS to be proven by science, and if we can't prove religion by science, then we have failed. Not true.

[ClassicDem]

77. If man becomes capable

of creating a new life form where none existed would you accept that as proof of ID?

[Inland]

79. Not beyond the new life form.

After all, we have something much like that now, with attaching genes and such.

The reason we know the new life form is a subject of design is because someone witnessed it.

But the premise of ID is that we know something is a subject of design simply because we don't understand it.. It doesn't make any sense. All it does is set a standard of proof whereby if I can't get my mind around how water erosion can create a Grand Canyon, then it was a scrape made by the finger of God. That's not science. That's not even half way decent religion. It's superstition.

[ClassicDem]

97. But it's possible

and since it's possible there is no reason to exclude it as a theory to our existence. I do not think that Genesis should be taught to our children because it's most definitely a primitive attempt to explain the origin of man.

If someone wants to raise their child by the Bible that is fine it's their choice I don't agree but we live in a free society. I on the other hand will give my children the benefit of having a rounded education by explaining all of the possibilities of how we came to existence, it will be up to them to decide on which angle is the correct one.

[Inland]

102. Sure it's possible. But it isn't part of a rounded education.

It is entirely possible that God created the world five minutes ago, implanted memories in each of us, and arranged the world so that it SEEMED old to us, put dinosaur bones in the ground in the knowledge it would fool us.

It is also entirely possible that God set up evolution as the means to his ends.

Whether God would do so is a question for theologians, not scientists. Not because they are impossible, but because they are not possible of proof. How do you prove or disprove that God didn't create the world five minutes ago with all the physical attributes of a world tens of billions of years old? You can't, not with science. But to teach it as if it happened because it could have happened--please.

Save the fun and crazy problems for philosophy or religion class. Leave science for the mundane little tasks its good for.

[Liberal Veteran]

131. Exactly...or to put it another way.

Let's say there is a tree which produces a substance we use to cure headaches. Just for argument's sake, let's call it a willow tree.

One day, along comes a scientist and isolates the analgesic substance.

The business of science is determine that it does indeed do what it does and how it does what does to cure headaches.

The business of theology is ask if God put the tree there to cure headaches.

Only one of those is really science. The other is pure speculation that cannot be proven.

[fujiyama]

155. ID

is no "theory".

It cannot be verified whether or not a "higher power" or "creator" exists.

ID is a cop out and is a trojan horse to get God mentioned in schools.

Sorry, science relies on what can be verified. As the OP's article states, it could just as well be a giant magical invisible lobster that's responsible for everything. I can say that's what I believe, but science itself can never prove or disprove my belief...and that's why it has no scientific basis.

Religion and God have no place in a science class. I'm sorry. Now if a person wishes to hear of ID, they can do so in a religion class (assuming it discussed non western/non Christian myths of creationism as well).

[mutus_frutex]

38. Regretfully, you won't find much..

Since pretty much everything besides Darwinian evolution is pseudoscience.

Besides that, since to me the "spiritual" is pretty much the irrational, what you are saying sounds like "people who are rational and irrational" :-)

I understand your desire to attach to your beliefs. Their were probably ingrained since you were a kid and they are not your fault.. :-)

Cheers...

[baba]

100. Whatever.

I'm a spiritual agnostic. Too bad you can't see that 2 belief states can be simultaneously held without contradicting each other. Dualistic, dichotomous thinking is what we need to get past.

[mutus_frutex]

105. Well, some people would call that "being crazy"

Besides that, I am interested on how you define "spiritual" since it means many different things to many people..

Cheers...

[mcg]

114. Stop the insults. Not thinking in black and white terms is not 'crazy'.

[Liberal Veteran]

121. Okay...let's go there.

I believe in the Greek Pantheon. Do you think I am crazy or do you think I am rational?

What, you want me to prove it?

[mcg]

123. No, you don't, and your argument is invalid.

[Liberal Veteran]

128. Why is it invalid? I look at creation at I see the end result of

...of the union of Uranus and Gaia.

Now prove I am wrong. I am proposing the theory...it's up to you to disprove it.

[Zenlitened]

130. LOL!

:hi:

[Zenlitened]

149. Hmmmm... this question seems to have gone unanswered, for some reason.

;)

[mcg]

153. Because it's not worth answering.

After a while I give up on trying to have a rational discussion with some of you, it's impossible, since you are so entrenched in your viewpoint. When I get a response that makes no sense, I don't know what to say.

I said that not thinking in black and white is not crazy, which is true. Then there's that response. It really doesn't deserve an answer.

[Zenlitened]

163. "you are so entrenched in your viewpoint"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Good luck to you.

[Boosterman]

166. Ah but I have no desire to prove or disprove your theory.

I will however defend your right to believe it though. Its that pesky Constitution thing.

[demwing]

159. Ok, lets do - I'll wait for your response

To begin, lets say you aren't fibbin' when you claim to believe in the Greek Pantheon. Lets pretend you have absooute faith in your chosen dieties.

I think you're rational. Wrong, but rational.

What next?

[Zenlitened]

172. Prove him wrong.

That's what the "i think evolution is guided" side is saying.

Go ahead, prove a negative.

I'll wait for your response.

[demwing]

184. First of all...

Let's let Liberal Veteran either "go there" or not. In other words, if LV doesn't want to play, then so be it.

Second, what makes you think that I want to prove LV wrong? The original question was whether we think LV is rational, and I think so.

Being wrong does not make you irrational. It just makes you wrong. you could have a perfectly rational reason for holding an incorrect assumption. For instance, you could believe your assumption to be true because you are not aware that you don't have all the facts. Easy.

Conversely, just because a person is irrational does not make them incorrect.

Finally, I do believe in both intelligent design, and evolution, and regardless of what the "they" say, I personally do not believe that evolution is guided. If that is some group's point, let them defend it. It isn't mine.

[Zenlitened]

185. Huh? What kind of cop-out is this?

If you want to claim your post was written in a half-asleep state, that's fine.

But why venture in with the ID line if you're not prepared to defend it.

Makes no sense to me.

[demwing]

187. lol

I'm not surprised that it doesn't make sense to you....

BTW - the sleepy part was all about my horrid spelling, don't be disingenous.

Let me go over this again, one more time...

LV proposed a debate of sorts. I responded, because at that time, no one else did.

You wrote back with an unrelated challenge - that I should attempt to prove him wrong.

Why? That wasn't the point. The point was whether holding an unusual opinion made one less rational. If believing in a deity made one irrational.

LV's assumption was that he would be challenged based upon the type of religious belief he promoted. I called that bluff.

What don't you understand?

[Zenlitened]

190. Nice spin. Desperate, but clever.

I believe in the Greek Pantheon. Do you think I am crazy or do you think I am rational?

What, you want me to prove it?

Can't imagine where I got the idea of proving or disproving from.

Sadly, I think I understand you all too well, now.

[demwing]

193. Sadly, I think you understand nothing

"Do you think I am crazy or do you think I am rational?"

Again, what DON"T you understand?

[Zenlitened]

198. G'night, Demwing.

At best, we're talking past each other.

[demwing]

182. boy, was I asleep when I wrote this?

Let me try again...

"To begin, lets say you aren't fibbin' when you claim to believe in the Greek Pantheon. Lets pretend you have absolute faith in your chosen deities."


I have no idea what asbsooute means, and unless your god is fat, it's deities not dieties.

Sorry. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread postings...

[Liberal Veteran]

194. I want it taught in science class!

Of course I am being totally facetious.

But you sorta jumped into the middle of the argument and are sidetracking the context.

The poster I was taking to task claimed it wasn't incumbent upon them to provide evidence of ID, the idea being that somehow it's EVERYONE ELSE'S job to disprove the theory and usless they do, it's completely valid.

Science doesn't work that way. If I say "I want the origin of the universe as told by the greek mythos taught in science class", I have to provide something that makes it science, rather than just speculation or wishful thinking.

Same thing with ID. You are free to believe that ID is valid as you are to believe that the willow tree was created by God or Zeus or Cthulu to cure headaches and the foxglove plant to treat heart problems. But unless you have some evidence to back it up or a way to test the notion, it's not really science.

That's the point of not teaching ID in science class.

Evolution doesn't speak to the existence or non-existence of a diety (despite what creationists believe).

ID however throws in a completely unprovable and untestable component that really doesn't have much more than a shred of philosophy to back it up. It's certainly not science and therefore has no place in science class as an "alternative theory". It's not in any sense of the word a "scientific theory".

[demwing]

197. OK, and not OK

OK, I agree that ID should not be taught in science class. That's a given (for me, at least)

But the specifics of the post I responded to involved whether it was irrational to believe in God. Look at the context. The person was feeling offended that it was implied (or outright stated) that belief in God was irrational.

You countered with a belief system that I suspect was intended to get the poster to say "That's just crazy, NO ONE believes in Zeus" or something to that affect. (Am I wrong?)

But I'm going to push this point. I DO NOT agree that belief in a deity is irrational, even if your belief involves the Greek Pantheon.

I know MANY people who worship Demigods (Hindu demigods, but demigods nonetheless). If you told these people about the Greek pantheon, they would immediately recognize several of the deities they worship (under different names).

I don't believe those people to be irrational, just wrong. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest otherwise about you.

I think someone owes that other poster an apology.

Disagree, but don't insult. :)

peace

[Liberal Veteran]

203. No, the idea was to get him to think outside of his box.

Now of course, most people consider the notion of greek gods to be nothing more than interesting fairy tales, including people that are theistic on some level.

I wanted him (or her) to move away from that and look at how MY facetious theory looks by removing him from his base faith into one that I KNEW he would find ludicrous. And then the thought was to show him how ID is viewed when you look at it RATIONALLY, instead of philosophically or as trying to defend a matter of faith.

It may not have worked, but it was worth the attempt and I am not going to apologize for trying to get someone to expand their thinking.

[demwing]

205. You need not apologize for thinking

or trying to get someone to expand their thinking.

But baba was called crazy, or irrational, just because he/she believes that the spiritual and the rational can coexist.

That's wrong.

[Liberal Veteran]

196. According to another poster...it is now incumbent on YOU to prove me wrong

That was the context of the argument. The original poster was implying that it was somehow incumbent on the non-ID believers to DISPROVE ID rather than incumbent upon the ID person to provide evidence to raise ID above speculation into the realm of scientific theory.

And of course, I think that is not how rational science works. You make the claim, you have to be able to back it up.

Of course there is absolutely no way I can prove that the universe sprang forth from the union of Uranus and Gaia, but hey, if all it takes to make scientific theory is just make up some wild ass speculation without a shred of evidence to back it up, then it makes me rational.

However, if it takes more than just speculation to make scientific theory and I demand anyway that my theory be taught as science, then that makes me irrational (or the word I used, "crazy").

[Zenlitened]

199. Re the context of the argument. Thank you. - n/t

[demwing]

204. The REAL context

True Context
*********************************************
baba: I do too
I'm looking for an article or a book or something to send my aforementioned sister that has a synthesis of theories, or a new theory for people who are rational and spiritual.

mutus_frutex: Regretfully, you won't find much..
Since pretty much everything besides Darwinian evolution is pseudoscience. Besides that, since to me the "spiritual" is pretty much the irrational, what you are saying sounds like "people who are rational and irrational"
I understand your desire to attach to your beliefs. They were probably ingrained since you were a kid and they are not your fault. Cheers...

baba: Whatever.
I'm a spiritual agnostic. Too bad you can't see that 2 belief states can be simultaneously held without contradicting each other. Dualistic, dichotomous thinking is what we need to get past

mutus_frutex: Well, some people would call that "being crazy"
Besides that, I am interested on how you define "spiritual" since it means many different things to many people. Cheers...

mcg: Stop the insults. Not thinking in black and white terms is not 'crazy'.

liberal veteran: Ok, lets go there
I believe in the Greek Pantheon. Do you think I am crazy or do you think I am rational? What, you want me to prove it?

*********************************************

That's the context--if not of the greater thread, then at least of the conversation which I entered, and to which I responded.

[mutus_frutex]

126. I don't know why you consider that an insult..

Unless you think that crazy people are somewhat less worth than sane ones. I don't. I just made a statement of fact.

Of course people can entertain two opposite ideas while judging them on their merits. That is what rational people do. If they can't come to a conclusion they leave the question open (doubt is an essential part of rationality). What is irrational is to consider two opposing ideas as true since that takes you two a completely erroneous philosophical system...

Man, people here are quite touchy... :-)

Cheers..

[baba]

135. There is doubt involved in any theory.

I believe this leads into an even bigger discussion about "truth."

In addition, "spiritual" and "irrational" are not synonyms for each other. Therefore, "spiritual" is not the opposite of "rational."

[Liberal Veteran]

137. Yes there is, which is why SCIENCE....

...real science requires that theories be testable on some level.

That's the one thing that intelligent design cannot say for itself, which is why it is not SCIENTIFIC THEORY and therefore has no place in a SCIENCE class.

[baba]

139. I don't think it should be in a science class.

I think ID is a load of BS, because it rejects the theory of evolution. But I'm open to the POSSIBILITY that there was some intelligent force behind the universe. I agree-it shouldn't be in a science class because it ISN'T science. However, the discussion of the possibility of intelligent design (smaller case intentional!) is appropriate for Philosophy, Religion, or other such classes.

[mcg]

143. So how do you test the notion of 'unguided'?

Come on, where are your scientific measures of this?

Words like 'unguided' have no place in a science class, it is not a place for sleath atheism.

[Liberal Veteran]

146. That's odd...when I was taught evolution the terms guided and unguided...

...never ONCE came up. I have NEVER read any biology book that mentioned whether or not the process of evolution is guided or unguided. It simply IS. The only guidance in evolution I can possibly think of is the guidance involved in external enviromental changes and how natural selection falls into that.

Where are you getting this notion of "unguided" from?

[mcg]

154. From what people are writing HERE, also

there have been biology books with such wording, but the publishers were pressured to take out such wording, as they should.

"It simply IS." is not neutral wording, nor is the sentence after that, don't try to be slimy about this.

[Zenlitened]

147. Are you still on this "prove a negative" thing?

"No evidence of guidance" is not the same as "not guided." This is basic stuff, and I'm surprised at your unwillingness or inability to acknowledge it. Do you have any understanding of the scientific method at all?

You have an excellent vocabulary, but there's nothing in your posts that suggests to me you have any real knowledge of how science works, despite your posturing about what does and does not belong in a science class.

If you want to maintain that the development of life may have been guided, you need to cite some evidence. And, no, "overwhelming appearance of complexity" is not evidence, its an entirely subjective statement.

[mcg]

156. The appearence of design IS evidence of guidance.

You claim it isn't.

"Do you have any understanding of the scientific method at all?"

That is not a question, that is an insult. Yes, I aced many science classes, in fact all of them, and have enough understanding of it to see that parts of Darwism do not rise to the level of science. The claim is that these complex structures with interdependant parts can be built up by a series of 'gradual' (even sometimes stated as 'undirected') beneficial mutations, where 'gradual' is left quite vague. How is 'gradual' scientifically defined, how can this be scientifically tested? And if were truly testable, then it's negation would be also testable, you can't have it both ways.

It is not enough to show that evolution happens in general to conclude an atheistic version of it.

That there are biological structures with interdependant parts functioning together is not a theory, it is a FACT. It is more than just complexity. As such, it is evidence against parts of Darwinism. When we see a man-made structure with these characteristics, we easily say that these parts are evidence that the structure was designed. Yet, you say that when we see such structures in natures, we "shouldn't" say that that could be evidence of design. Why? only because you don't LIKE what it implies. You approach the situation with a non-philosophically neutral attitude. The purpose of science is to study nature, not to support atheism.

What I am saying is that words like 'unguided' or 'undirected' do not belong in a science class.

[Zenlitened]

162. Very good, trot out the "insult" angle when you're backed into a corner.

Congratulations on acing your science classes. But I suggest you do some additional reading, as many other posters on this thread have suggested.

Your entire framing of the discussion is slanted. Your statements regarding complex structures are simply not true. And your accusation that I and others who've posted on this thread are philosophically biased is a classic case of projecting one's own inadequacies on one's opponent.

But a thousand-and-one people can log on here and point out the flaws in your thinking, yet never make a dent. That tells me that there's no point in discussing this further. Done with you now. I've wasted enough of my time with you.

[Liberal Veteran]

202. The appearance of design is unfortunately unproven in this case as well.

I don't understand the how a complex organism could evolve may scream "appearance of design" to you, but it doesn't to me.

I look at the symmetry of crystalline structures and snowflakes, but I am not going to claim that it's proof of intelligent design because they are so complicated.

[mutus_frutex]

140. Yes, and this relates to my post how? nt

[baba]

148. It relates to your post.

You set up "spirituality" as the opposite of "rationality" in your post.

[Zenlitened]

150. Which post was that? Seriously, where was that argument introduced?

I saw the post about holding two contrasting notions as both true, it that the one you mean?

[baba]

151. My initial statement.

was "2 belief states can be simultaneously held without contradicting each other." His or her post stated "What is irrational is to consider two opposing ideas as true since that takes you two a completely erroneous philosophical system..." I never said I considered two opposing ideas to both be true. (We could get into a discussion about the meaning of "truth" but that is for another day.) What I was stating (and perhaps this didn't come across) is closer to the earlier part of his/her post: "Of course people can entertain two opposite ideas while judging them on their merits."

The poster did, however, equate spirituality with irrationality in another post: "the 'spiritual' is pretty much the irrational." I would say I disagree with that.

[Zenlitened]

152. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

I see what you're saying.

[mutus_frutex]

160. Lets recapitulate:

You were asking for a "theory for people that are rational and spiritual".

There is no reason to accept the concept of "spirit", which, as I understand it, is something beyond what is accessible to the senses, or not part of the physical world. Therefore, being spiritual is being irrational.

Obviously, the fact that no evidence of "spirit" has ever been found is not a reason to reject its existence. I think this is what you refer to when you say that "there is doubt involved in any theory". Nevertheless, to accept it without a reason IS irrational.

[Boosterman]

167. But the two ideas arent mutually exclusive

Science hasnt even tried to disprove God. ID doesnt seem to be trying to destroy science.

Edited to add- I believe in a variant of ID myself I suppose. Never really thought about reading up on it so I am not overly familiar with all of IDs tenets.

[mutus_frutex]

175. Obviously, that is not science's job.

However, science is naturally atheistic (and here I'm using the correct meaning of atheists: without god) and as far as religions make assertions about the nature of the physical world, science will be there to challenge those assertions.

ID doesn't try to destroy science directly, but the acceptance as science of the poor scholarship shown by the ID proponents will damage science in the long run.

You are free to "believe" in whatever you want, it is a right that I respect dearly. It doesn't, however, make it true and it doesn't make it science.

Cheers..

[Boosterman]

179. Didn't say it made it science per se

I was objecting to this. The post I replied to
*quote
Of course people can entertain two opposite ideas while judging them on their merits. That is what rational people do. If they can't come to a conclusion they leave the question open (doubt is an essential part of rationality). What is irrational is to consider two opposing ideas as true since that takes you two a completely erroneous philosophical system...
*quote

Why is it you consider science and religion mutually incompatible? Or rather why is it they are on opposite sides. My words not yours but thats what I got from your posts. Now that I have clarified myself perhaps you can do the same.

BTW I assume you you feel the same about all "junk" science?

[mutus_frutex]

186. Science and religion are not incompatible, per se

What happens is that religion usually steps on the toes of science.. :-)

Every time that a religion makes an assertion regarding the physical world, it enters into the realm of science and must submit to scrutiny. The reason why religion and science appear to be colliding continuously is that so many stupid things have been affirmed in the past.

As long as science keeps bound by its methodological materialism and religion refers to the non-physical world, they shouldn't collide.

And yes, junk science is not science, it's junk.. :-)

Cheers...

[baba]

132. Thank you!

Black and white thinking is the kind of thing we see from the Repukes! I would like to think we are more complex than them.

[Zenlitened]

134. So, are our choices then to be rigid in our thinking...

... or to be so indecisive that we cannot analyze an issue and conclude that it is invalid?

No one is being close-minded by rejecting this "intelligent design" argument. Nor is it illiberal to insist that statements -- no matter how comforting they may seem to some -- be supported by facts.

[baba]

138. I'm not supporting intelligent design!

I don't support the theory as it currently stands. Believing in the theory as it currently stands means rejecting evolution. I think a person can have spiritual beliefs, AND accept evolutionary theory. One does not have to be an atheist to think rationally. I do believe that there are some things that are unproveable, that's why I'm an agnostic. If you have proof that there is no god, or vice versa, please do share! :)

[Liberal Veteran]

136. To which I say: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.

It translates to: Plurality should not be posited without necessity.

More commonly known as Occam's Razor.

[mutus_frutex]

142. So, from now on muddled thinking is to be modus operandi of liberals?

Now wonder liberalism is so fucked up, if being liberal implies being irrational, I don't want to be liberal.. :-)

[mcg]

145. You're welcome,

some people think you either have to believe in the

White-Bearded-Guy-Who-Will-Send-You-To-Hell If-You-Do-Not-Believe-He-Sends-Bad-People-To-Hell

OR

The-Great-Nothingness

otherwise you are crazy.

[Boosterman]

189. Possibly the truest post in this thread n/t

[Zenlitened]

191. If by true you mean deliberately miscasting the terms of the discussion...

... then you're right. Truth: It's What's For Dinner!

[Boosterman]

192. Shouldnt you huury on back and

explain that unguided principle. You seem to be avoiding the topic.

Yeah actually it is the possible truth. i see many of the smae names on all the religous threads. Alicia should be here soon. TC

[Zenlitened]

195. Um, how many times shall I address it for you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2973688&mesg_id=2976289

How many times, and how many dozens of posters making the same point, will it take before you acknowledge that science does not attempt to prove negatives?

"Possible truth." That's the weakest argument of all. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? The rule of parsimony? Why is it necessary for there to be an Intelligent Designer of the universe, but no designer of the Designer? Your premise disintegrates upon examination, and you come back with "it's possible." Sad.

And I don't know what to make of this statement:

i see many of the smae names on all the religous threads. Alicia should be here soon. TC

A threat? A plea for help?

G'night, Boosterman. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.

[Boosterman]

209. Ah another one who dogmatically rejects

any other conclusion than their own. How quaint. Perhaps you would care to peruse the rest of my posts on this thread. I try to keep an open mind about things. I dont claim to know much at all. I do try to fill in the gaps when I can.

As far as the Alicia comment was concerned I was refering to Aliciakeyedup. Its almost a certainty she will post on this. Just like its almost a given that Drweird would post here as well. Sorry for not being more clear about that. (wife was asking me how to fix something on her comp)

As to my knowledge of Occams Razor and the principle of parsimony


Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

ie the simplest explanation is the best one. Cant get much more simple than God did it now can ya? Perhaps you might want to try another point.

As far as your designer of the designer argument...come now thats a lame one. Perhaps you should check the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

I made a sarcastic comment originally about how true his statement was. You chimed in and I made another sarcastic reply. For that I apologize. I try to remain civil on message boards. However, I believe that the whole point of the person who brought up unguided evolution was that there was no proof that it was unguided. I realize you cant prove a negative but perhaps you would care to state unequivocally once and for all whether, in your opinion, that phrase should be used or not.

[Zenlitened]

211. "another one who dogmatically rejects any other conclusion than their own.

Now you're just making things up. Thanks for the libel.

Sarcasm, doublespeak, my-computer-ate-my-homework... I can't figure you out at all.

"perhaps you would care to state unequivocally once and for all whether, in your opinion, that phrase should be used or not."

I marvel at your reading comprehension skills. I do not think that phrase should be used. I do not think science attempts to prove that there is "no guidance," rather that there is no evidence of guidance. Is that clear enough for you? Honestly, what a frustrating encounter. I think we're speaking different languages entirely.

[Boosterman]

216. My reply

*Now you're just making things up. Thanks for the libel.*

Can you honestly say you came into this conversation with an open mind? I can. I dont know whether theres a divine force or not. I believe there is. At no point did I say that ID has all the answers. I am going on faith personally but my beliefs would probably offend 75% of the respondents on this thread.

*Sarcasm, doublespeak, my-computer-ate-my-homework... I can't figure you out at all.*

I assume you mean my hurried reply to your post. I knew better. When engaging in debate its best not to reply at all if you dont think it all through. My reply was sarcastic and poorly typed. I compounded my error by using an excuse. However, I notice you have a hard time comprehending what people mean when they disagree with you.

*I marvel at your reading comprehension skills. I do not think that phrase should be used. I do not think science attempts to prove that there is "no guidance," rather that there is no evidence of guidance. Is that clear enough for you? Honestly, what a frustrating encounter. I think we're speaking different languages entirely*


Well I am glad you answered the question. I dont believe you did so before. Its possible I am wrong but hey. I also dont really care to have a conflict with you. If you notice you replied to me. You seemed to resent the implication that you are somewhat set in your thoughts with regards to religion. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you now. Would you care to tell us your thoughts on religion?

[Zenlitened]

219. Now yer just crackin' me up!

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you now. Would you care to tell us your thoughts on religion?

Yes, by all means, let's make this an interrogation of Zenlitened and her view on life, the universe and everything.

Subtlety, chum. You forgot the subtlety.

:D

[Boosterman]

220. Amazing

I have answered all your questions. I have told you my beliefs. I havent even really disagreed with you yet. I was sarcastic and I apologized. Are you new at this?

You however refuse to answer most of my questions. I would ask why but...

If you dont want to debate thats cool.

TC Zenlite

how apropo

[Zenlitened]

223. Is this the "Poor me, I'm a victim of mean atheists" motif now?

EnliGHten me, please, now that you've cleverly divined the double entendre behind my username: What exactly are your questions, aside from demanding a broad overview of my opinions on religion?

It might be helpful to our discussion if you could outline the areas in which you feel we may (edited to add) disagree, as it seems we are having a difficult time communicating. (Your insistence that I had not adequately explained my view on the notion of "unguided" was quite perplexing to me.)

Also, please explain how "God did it" is the simplest of explanations. I'd suggest that adding a guiding deity of some sort complicates your position, rather than simplifies it.

And, if time permits, perhaps you could also enlighten me about the meanings of omnipotence and omniscience, and how these address the "Who designed the designer?" question. Your previous statement struck me as insufficient.

Thank you. :)

[Boosterman]

225. Oh you wanted to be a lite version of Zen?

I meant that as a slight jab. Pity. I preferred the idea that your SN referred to an enlightened zen person as opposed to a dabbler.

Well I doubt you remember how this conversation started. You replied to me. I made a remark that basically said I thought that there are people here that are so set in their ways that they cant even comprehend any other viewpoint. Read your last post man. Then you replied to me. I replied back in a sarcastic fashion and then you proceeded to prove my point.

You are the one who brought up Occam's Razor. A horrible axiom for a scientific debate to be honest. It has merit but not when applied to scientific principle so I felt free to take license with it and play simplistic. After all if you want a simple answer it doesn't get any simpler than God snaps his fingers. With me so far?

As far as to the who designed the designer thing....well think about it from a physics stand point. If you are omnipotent you are by definition the sum total of all energy in the universe+a whole bunch more. Its infinite power. There is no infinite + 1. Note that I never said that is definitely the answer. I said that was my belief.

Keep in mind you replied to me. I didn't really want to do this but hey...

As far as our areas of disagreement my main one with you would be that you seem to be a religious bigot. You may have a hard time comprehending my viewpoint but to me yours is very apparent. If I am wrong I apologize but that SEEMS to be the case.

Edited to add-I dont really need to ask you any questions I suppose.

[Zenlitened]

226. Self-delete. Placed incorrectly.

[Zenlitened]

227. See, that's the sort of thing that confuses me.

In this statement, you say one thing and immediately contradict yourself:

If you are omnipotent you are by definition the sum total of all energy in the universe+a whole bunch more. Its infinite power. There is no infinite + 1.

"All plus more." Then "no infinite plus one."

Also, I'd argue that your insistence on calling me a religious bigot is based less on my statements than on your desire to feel victimized, and inability to suffer any criticism of religion.

If I am wrong, I apologize.

[Boosterman]

229. Well see there your wrong

most Fundies would consider me a heretic. Actually most Christians too.

As to the universe thing. Would you say that the universe had infinite energy? I suppose such a thing is possible but its outside my realm of knowledge. Otherwise my statement doesn't contradict itself. If the universe has infinite energy then I will amend my statement.

[Zenlitened]

231. I suppose that depends on the definition of the universe.

How would you define the term?

[Boosterman]

232. The universe?

K no pressure. keep in mind I might be wrong but I was under the impression it was an X amount of galaxies all in the space/time continium. No matter what X= to its still less than infinite.

[Zenlitened]

233. But then where is the Designer?

If the universe is finite, and Designer is in the universe, then the Designer is part of the universe and its matter and energy.

All sorts of conundrums seem to arise.

[Boosterman]

234. Heh

We WERE discussing the Creator of the Creator. So are we past that point now?

[Zenlitened]

235. I don't understand your statement.

:shrug:

[Liberal Veteran]

213. Actually, God is a unnecessary positing of plurality.

Evolution and origins of life are adequately explained without the addition of a "uprovable being".

Occam's razor, which was originally stated as plurality should not be posited without necessity would mean that the "God" idea to explain evolution, is not only an unnecessary idea to science, it's a totally unprovable one.

Or to put it another way: We don't understand the mechanism of action that causes gabapentin's anticonvulsant activity.

I would be laughed out of the room if I proposed that a "diety" was responsible for the anticonvulsant activity.

I don't think anyone would suggest that neurontin is a magical "god pill" that only works because of an unprovable diety and be taken seriously.

However, if I followed your logic, instead of trying to find out how neurontin causes its effects, I could just leave it at "God makes it happen" and that would be the simplest explanation.

That's neither scientific nor smart.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boosterman]

228. I wasn't the one who brought Occam's Razor into

the debate. I admit its a horrible scientific principle and I wasn't using it to prove the existence of God. Perhaps you should read into the post I was replying to.

I have no clue what kinda medicine your talking about. Seizures? Epilepsy? If its some sort of drug that helps people then no Occam's Razor wouldn't apply here. You are correct.

[Boosterman]

165. OT

I wonder where people get the idea that liberals are condescending elitists from?

[mutus_frutex]

174. I'm touched..

Really.. :-)

Thanks for the compliment. And just to further you impression of me, I think you really don't have a clue since you think my message was OT..

Cheers..

[Boosterman]

177. Cheers back at ya

Perhaps my meaning eluded you. My post was OT.

[mutus_frutex]

178. My bad.. I'm kinda new at this.. :-) nt

[mutus_frutex]

33. That's the problem, you "believe"

There is no need to believe. Go and read about evolution and about abiogenesis. No need to have any "intelligence" involved.

In my experience people are in your situation just because they are not aware of the massive amount of evidence that exists against the ID hypothesis.

[ClassicDem]

81. All of the books in the world can

not prove evolution or intellegent design. I have spent many years of my life researching theology and science to try and determine two things, one is there a God and two what happens when I die, neither Religion nor Science has a difinitve answer for either of my questions, thus I am probably one of the few people alive who looks forward to death.

Through my research though I have concluded that there is no true "God" and if there is he is not the God that is detailed by most of the world religions. I have also come to the conclusion that even though there is no God, chaos is highly unlikely to create order thus for our existance another entity had to have a hand in our creation. Now you can dismiss this, which is fine I am not trying to convert anyone I am just stating my conclusion through my research.

[mutus_frutex]

88. Glad to read your comments...

Let me first say that I also don't think that science can prove or disprove the existence of god. That is not a question science can answer. (Science can rule out some types of gods, but this is another story).

With regards to evolution, it is proven, at least in the scientific sense.

Finally, regarding chaos and order, well, that is something that people get confused with. It is possible for disorder to produce localized order, as long as the overall amount of disorder in the universe increases. Otherwise things like an ice crystal would be impossible.

Best...

[immoderate]

96. In your research

Did you read much about chaos and complexity? Did you come across auto-catalysis, which is a possible explanation of why it is likely that choas will lead to order (in an open system)?

--IMM

[Harry S Truman]

9. They destroy their own argument.

They claim ID because they see everything in nature fitting together in perfect harmony (so it must be their bearded man in the sky). Of course it all HAS to work perfectly together or it simply ceases to exist through natural selection.

Next they'll say god, not gravity, is holding us down. It's a great time to be insane.

[DrWeird]

11. It's such a morally bankrupt philosophy.

It basically boils down to: "it's too complicated for me to understand; God did it."

[Taxloss]

18. "I couldn't do it, so God did it."

That's how religion began. An easy explanation for lightning, rain and so on.

[mcg]

12. Undirected? What does that mean?

In scientific terms, what do you mean by 'undirected'?

What scientific evidence do you have for this? How do you prove or disprove this notion that evolution is 'undirected'? How do you measure this attribute?

What conclusive evidence do you have that the apparent design of living systems is in fact an illusion? The fact is, the appearance is design is overwhelming, and I've yet to read plausible accounts of exactly how various complex biological structures could have been built up by a series of small beneficial mutations. No, some people just assume they could have been and therefore they must have been and therefore they must be undesigned. How all this logically follows is not explained. They give far-fetched scenarios, presenting them as so-called 'evidence'. For example, semi-wings lessening the impact of an animal's fall. How would that apply to a bee? Doesn't that sound rather absurd? Even if these structures could have been built up by small beneficial mutations, that does not imply they are undesigned.

'Not God' does not imply a giant lobster. That is a very illogical argument you are using. But then, you know that, don't you? It's just a nasty argumentative tactic.

Are you are implying that a lack of a description of the 'intelligence' means that evolution is necessarily 'undirected'? Just how does that follow?

[DrWeird]

14. LOL.

Since there are so many flaws in our physiology, it's hard to believe we were designed intelligently: detachable retinas, appendices (sp?), horrible lower backs.

As for the evolution of wings, that's an old creationist canard. The benefits of "semi-wings" are profound and were explained ad nauseum years ago.

If you "have yet to read plausible accounts" it's probably because you're purposely ignoring them.

[Taxloss]

16. The entire spine and leg system is deeply flawed.

We were originally on all fours. That should be apparent to anyone.

[mcg]

76. Ok, we were on all fours, so what?

[Taxloss]

80. Rather blows a hole in ID, doesn't it?

[mcg]

85. No, it doesn't.

[Taxloss]

87. So, where does the design enter the process?

You admit we evolved from quadrapeds; so we evolve. At what stage were we designed?

[mcg]

90. Who said design and evolution are incompatible?

[DrWeird]

93. Since evolution depends on random mutation...

that implies it's not design.

Unless you mean "design" from a fate perspective, like "it was design that lead him to pick the winning lottery number."

[mcg]

104. Circular reasoning there.

The genetic changes were unguided, therefore they were unguided.

Wow, that's really convincing.

[Taxloss]

109. Show evidence of the guide, then.

Then your point of view will be convincing. Demonstrate one clear instance of design against the uncountable instances of evolution.

PS, a hint. The "perfection of the eye" is an old and tired argument.

[Taxloss]

98. By definition, they are incompatible.

Evolution works on the pinciple that species adapt, over time, to their environment. If design is involved, shouldn't it be involved at EVERY stage of the process? Or does this mysterious intelligence have lousy after-sales care?

[ClassicDem]

112. I disagree...

A well designed product will adapt to its environment hence evolving.

[Taxloss]

115. Then demonstrate the designer.

All you ID fans are at pains to say it doesn't have to be God. Demonstrate design. Then demonstrate that we are created by design. You carry the burden of proof.

[mcg]

116. The evidence of design is right in front of us.

In biological structures there are interdependent parts that function together, just as in mechanisms that are designed by people. There is specified complexity. While not absolute proof, it IS very strong evidence. We do NOT carry the burden of proof.

[Liberal Veteran]

118. Actually you do. You are proposing the..ahem.."theory"....

...therefore, it is incumbent upon you to provide the scientific facts to support your theory in order to have it taken seriously as science rather than philosphy.

[Taxloss]

124. Quite.

[Taxloss]

122. That is utterly retrospective.

Humanity emerged after life emerged. Wouldn't you say it is more likely our mechanisms are based on evolved mechanisms? The notion push-button design can be proved by saying "people are clever" is rather tenuous.

[ClassicDem]

119. I do carry the burden,

And have no issue with saying that it is unprovable. I also have no issue with the theory of evolution, it is quite possible that there was no ID taking place to bring humans about. I try to keep an open mind about everything.

[Taxloss]

120. Possible? It is both credible and likely.

No design was involved. Until the ID crowd can clarify on their mysterious "designer", evolution is the only game in town.

[geniph]

188. If the human body is such a stupendous example

of "intelligent design," I'd like to know what frigging brainiac of a designer ran a toxic waste line right through the main recreational area. That's not a designer, that's an engineer, and a piss-poor one at that.

or...just maybe...it's structures evolving to serve additional functions...

[mcg]

36. Nonsense.

The existence of flaws does not invalidate the overwhelming appearance of design.

No, the benefits of 'semi-wings' have not been explained.

I have read what has been proposed as 'plausible accounts', they are not plausible.

[DrWeird]

43. Ah, it's not plausible because you say so. Wonderful reasoning ability.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html

Here's explanations for "half a wing" backed up in peer reviewed scientific journals.

[PassingFair]

125. You seem to believe that nature has been designed because

it so wonderfully suits YOU.

YOU have adapted to nature.

No design, change and adaptation.

[Boosterman]

180. Yes

and your observation on the wacky "Christian" site which was in all actuality a humor site leads me to believe you are somewhat closeminded on this subject.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. I'd like to see ID proponents explain the origin of God....

Since obviously such a complex and powerful being as God would not have been able to spring forth from nothing without a guiding force, then what is that force?

[oneighty]

22. Yes like

man where IS the universe?

180

[Viking12]

20. Evolution is not teleological

Science doen't pretend to answer such questions. 'Not God' may imply 'giant lobster' or 'space alien' or 'leprechaun'; if IDers are unwilling to provide evidence for their designer, they are open to such interpretations. In any case, the ID's faux dissociation from God is merely a ruse; putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it less a pig.

[Liberal Veteran]

21. Or put another way: Evolution does not speak to the existence...

....or non-existence of God.

Period.

[BillZBubb]

34. But, evolution does speak to a literal interpretation of the Bible

That's what the fundies and imbeciles are afraid of. Whether evolution deals with the existence of God is not what frightens them.

If the Genesis story is not true, what else in the Bible is not true? Ergo, they have to fight against the tide of knowledge to keep the dike from bursting.

[Liberal Veteran]

39. Of course that is the crux of the problem.

The bible contains a few things that just don't work out very well (Noah's Ark being one of those things or people that lived to be 900 years old) when you apply logic to them.

If they could just take it for granted that much of the bible is allegory and leave it at that, then they would be MUCH better off.

Even stuff like the New Testament has opposing geneaology for Jesus.

[hfojvt]

46. the genealogy is not necessarily opposing

check out what my hobby is.
If, as I have heard, the word "father" really means "ancestor" then all you need for both genealogies to be accurate is for either Matthan (of Matthew's genealogy) or Heli (of Luke's genealogy) to be Joseph's mother's father. Because everyone has two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, and so on, there are many paths between a person born today and a distant ancestor born 2000 years earlier. That any culture is going to keep 2000 years of accurate records of these paths is quite a leap of faith, but I suppose it is possible if, as in the book "Enemy Mine" every generation is made to memorize its ancestry to the patriarch.

[Liberal Veteran]

48. But Joseph ISN'T Jesus' father.

Not if Mary was a virgin.

[hfojvt]

69. True, but both genealogies trace Joseph

and ignore most of Jesus' female ancestors.
As far as the virgin birth, did you know that Suzanne Somers got pregnant while remaining a virgin? It is not that miraculous.
I am just saying that the two genealogies do not clearly contradict each other.

[Boosterman]

170. Is that true?

About Suzanne Somers I mean. What gip for her. Not that she probably would have enjoyed it the first time but still...

[mutus_frutex]

49. It does, however, rule out some types of gods..

For example,the biblical god should probably be ruled out, at least when the bible is taken at face value.

[semillama]

28. you're arguing from a logical fallacy

known as the burden of proof.

you're arguing that you cannot prove ID isn't valid, so therefore it IS valid.

Your example of an illogical argument comes from sloppy comprehension of the original text. Sure, 'Not God' does not NECESSARILY imply a giant lobster, but it also doesn't rule out the possibility.

You don't mention which accounts you have read about evolution. You can say that they aren't plausible, but it sounds to me like you made up your mind before weighing the evidence. Not very scientific at all.

Me, all the accounts I've read on evolution make perfect sense to me. If they didn't hold up to rigorous scientific analysis, then it wouldn't be a theory, now would it?

In the case of the bee, bees didn't evolve wings. A winged insect evolved into bees. Here, I think you are referring to the old chestnut that bees should not be physically capable of flight. This has been studied by scientists, who have shown exactly how bees fly. not much of a mystery, but pretty fascinating. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/925309849.Bp.r.html

You may want to check this out before arguing againt evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

Evolution is simply the theory that groups of alleles change over time. This has been observed. It's not random. check out the talkorigins FAQ for more information. Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, it is concerned with the changes in life over time.

Heck, this is all probably too much. I should have just asked you to explain this in the context of intelligent design:

The Human Appendix.

[mcg]

53. No, I'm not.

I'm not arguing that a lack of a disproof means it is valid, I did not write any such thing. The same thing applies to the notion of 'unguided'.

Burden of proof? The burden of proof must at least be shared by those who claim that the appearance of design is an illusion. What even led to the wording 'appearance of design'? There is something we notice, Darwin noticed it, so did Dawkins. At least they have acknowledged the issue instead of just trying to sweep it under a rug.

I comprehended the text quite clearly, it is an insulting argumentative tactic, and you also know it. 'Not God' means it can be anything? No, it cannot be anything, such as a giant lobster. What do you believe is behind all this? Nothing? That's even more absurd than believing in the Giant Lobster. How do you get something from nothing?

I asked about how the argument about semi-wings breaking a fall applies to (something small like) a bee, do not put meanings into my writing that are not there or nit-pick. I've read about how bees can fly and I believe my own eyes. You are simply side-stepping the issue.

I am not arguing against evolution in general, but questioning the notion of 'unguided'. You are equating evolution with this notion, they are not the same. And how about answering my question, how do you scientifically measure and test this notion of 'unguided'?

You are falsely assuming I haven't read talkorigins, etc., I have.

The theory that groups of alleles change over time is not the same as the notion of 'unguided'. That is equivocation.

'It's not random.' I'm surprised you wrote that.

Genetic changes have been observed that look statistically random, which is different than the notion of 'unguided'. Some of these observed changes were benefical. So what? That doesn't mean evolution is 'unguided'.

The human appendix, seemingly vestigial, so what? Evolution happens, that doesn't mean it is 'unguided'. I program computer, there are commented out lines of code, that doesn't mean no design went into the process.

[Liberal Veteran]

57. So where did God come from?

If believing "something came from nothing" is irrational, then you are left with the irrationality of saying it's possible God came from nothing but that people couldn't.

By the same token, evolution doesn't posit that "something came from nothing".

[LoneDriver]

64. ...and is it really turtles all the way down?

And just how many turles anyway?

[Liberal Veteran]

66. It's an infinite number of turtles......

I had John Edwards do an earth to afterlife call to Mr. Sagan who told me there were an infinite number of turtles holding up the turtles.

[mcg]

70. No, but many atheists do think that it all comes from nothing.

Dennett for example.

No, I don't think that God came from nothing. "So where did God come from?" is a question that may not even make sense. Whoever/whatever is behind all this is beyond my comprehension. Simply because something is beyond our comprehension doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Tell me, how can something come from nothing?

I was humored by one person years ago trying to explain this, he talked about taking null sets and combining them, but I pointed out that he started out with more than 'nothingness', he started out with more than one null set and the union set operation. And what does set theory have to do with creation? The fact is, some degree of complexity is needed to generate complexity, even in the case of fractals. The notion that the universe is simple is unfounded.

Qualia and consciousness - I haven't heard any good explanations from atheists to account for them, or from anyone else for that matter.

[BillZBubb]

144. Bullshit and hand waving.

Things come from nothing all the time. Do a little reading on quantum physics, then get back to me.

Apparently that life, the universe, and everything in it exists is beyond your comprehension so you have to use a God as a crutch. Why not admit that existence is beyond your comprehension--but simply because it is beyond your comprehension doesn't mean it didn't happen through totally natural processes? All the evidence we have indicates that is exactly what happened.

[mcg]

157. Have you heard of virtual particles?

Things do not come from nothing at all, even in quantum physics.
Quantum physics does not say that "something can come from nothing".

No, all the evidence does not indicate that, there is evidence of design in nature in the form of specified complexity. That is far too little evidence against it to dismiss it. There is a ton of evidence for design.

Why do you say 'your comprehension'? As if you understand it? Now that is bullshit.

[BillZBubb]

169. You need to get a better understanding of quantum physics.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Furthermore, there is NO evidence of design in the form of specified complexity. And their is certainly NO evidence of a designer. There is only the misguided belief and/or intellectual laziness that design was necessary to generate complexity. Sort of like seeing the "Virgin Mary" on a piece of burnt toast. Credulity knows no bounds apparently.

And I said 'your comprehension' because you talked about things beyond comprehension, not me. I never claimed to understand it, but I do understand there are plenty of totally natural potential explanations for what exists. That's where we should concentrate our efforts to find the right answer, not some deus ex machina.

It also makes no sense to claim a designer had to exist to create the universe without answering where the designer came from. Supposing that the complex universe had to be created while excusing the even more complex designer from the same requirement is laughable.

[Boosterman]

181. Ok so

*quote
All the evidence we have indicates that is exactly what happened.
*

You have evidence of the Big Bang? Wow. The head of the Physics Department at IU would love to talk to you. Friend of mines father and he researches this all the time. He seems to be somewhat openminded if not skeptical.

[BillZBubb]

210. There is plenty of evidence of a big bang type event.

Here are two of the easiest to understand:

The most significant is the cosmic background radiation that is an almost consistent 3 degrees K in all directions in space. This is the leftover heat signature from a very, very, very, very, very hot initial state of a very, very, very much smaller universe.

Another is the fact that the universe has been and continues to expand. In other words it's been getting bigger for as far back as we can tell.

So, we know beyond a doubt that the universe was once very hot and very small. Now it is large and much cooler. Big bang, fast expansion, mega-change, call it what you will.

Maybe IU needs a head Physics that knows this?

[Boosterman]

218. So your contention is that

all physics professors believe completely in the Big Bang? Or is it only the competent ones?

[mutus_frutex]

47. The undirected nature of evolution is

pretty much, a consequence of the random nature of mutation (Before anybody starts to complain, I'm leaving aside other mechanism of variation. All of them have some random nature. I'll concentrate on the most important one).

Mutations are the results of chemical reactions, which are nothing else than random events. Therefor, unless you are willing to address the possibility of something playing fast an loose with the laws of chemistry and physics, you have to accept that evolution has a random component.

I would suggest that, since you seem to be interested in this topic, you read some literature that hasn't been produced by creationists (seen what you write, I presume that is where you are getting your info). Any book by Richard Dawkins would be a good start. Some books by Daniel Dennett would also be good.

Regards.

[mcg]

65. Lots of assumptions there.

You assume that the physical world itself is 'undirected', this is simply your philisophical outlook, which you are entitled to.

Simply because there are harmful mutations does not mean that evolution is 'unguided'. The overwhelming appearance of design in nature is still there and there isn't enough evidence to the contrary to discount it.

I don't agree that 'miracles' are needed for evolution to be 'directed', which seems to be what you are implying. As to whether 'miracles' have been involved at all with evolution, I don't know, I don't rule it out but I'm not much into it either. What is most mystifying is the origin of of the first life form(s).

I've read Dawkins, more than one of his books. I think that Dawkins basically a good guy and intelligent, I certainly like him a lot more than right-wing jerks like Gish and Bush. But I can't overall agree with his philosophy. When I read Dawkins, I was open to what he had to say, but found his arguments (e.g. about wings, bat radar, and his computer-generated shapes) overall unconvincing. Some of what he writes I do agree with. He shows that he has ethics when he speaks of 'overcoming the tyranny of our genes'. I think that contradicts a bit what he says about not seeing altruism, and it's clear that altruism does happen.

Dennett? He thinks that believers should be rounded up and put in zoos. He also talks about a 'nothingness' that behind everything. He is a nihilist. His philosophy is nonsense, he doesn't even believe that consciousness and qualia are real, I suppose because he doesn't like things he can't explain. He can take his 'nothingness' and shove it.

[mutus_frutex]

74. Not many...

My point was that, if you accept that the main mechanism of evolution is variation and selection, and that such variation results from chemical (and therefore, physical) processes (assumptions that are pretty much scientifically proven facts), then you have these possibilities:

1) You accept the randomicity of physical processes and have to postulate another mechanism that wipes out its consequences at a different level. This would be what you call "miracles".

2) You accept that there are no other mechanisms beside the physical processes, but you have to postulate that physical processes are not random.

Option 1) is pretty indefensible, at least in scientific terms. Option 2) is up for grabs and (if you know some quantum physics) it is a topic of hot discussion.

I personally lean toward the randomicity and acausality of nature.

Regarding the "appearance of design", well, it is just that, appearance. If you eliminate all the organisms that are not well adapted to a given environment what you get is a group of organisms that have the appearance of bing designed for such an environment.

The origin of the first organism is not the topic of evolution, that is abiogenesis. Evolution takes over as soon as you have replication. These topic is also open although there are some very interesting hypothesis out there.

Dawkins is definitely a very decent guy. It's sad you don't find him convincing. What is it that you don't agree with?

Regarding Dennett, well, I really like him.. :-) Maybe that's why my personal philosophy rubs people the wrong way..

Cheers, and it's nice to discuss this in this civilized way...

[mcg]

83. 'Randomicity'

I don't share your philosophical outlook on what variation and selection means, you think it means 'undirected', I don't, and I don't think this is something we can resolve. It comes down to questions like why are there harmful mutations? why pain, evil, extinctions, etc. Why isn't everything a rose garden? Well, I don't know, but I don't think the answer is 'nothingness'. To me, selection is after the fact, it is certainly a factor, but doesn't imply non-design. A slow car 'dies out', but it was designed (I'm just citing this as a counter-example).

In Dawkins' discussion of the eye, he speaks of it's general shape and how that might have been produced in more than one step, but doesn't get to the hard part, and that's the intricate details. Now, I don't think our eyes poofed into existance either by a miracle or by one single mutation, but I find it quite hard to believe that all the interdependent parts are simply - in essense - accidental (then selected), or that they could have come about by many small mutations. 'Darwin's Black Box' gets into the details a bit, and shows that 'mount improbable' is indeed quite high.
The photochemicals in ours eyes just happen to be sensitive to those frequencies that are at the sun's peak output. A coincidence, I don't think so.
Regarding the inverted retina, some claim it is poor design, but it actually has benefits in terms of heat dispersion. The more I looked into the details, the less I could believe it is all in essense accidental.
As to the computer-generated shapes, I don't see what that shows, there's a lot of subjective interpretion going on there, and they are quite simple. They don't seem like a good analogy to evolution.

There is some evidence of some 'large' (in my opinion) genetic changes in our past, although I don't have the web link offhand. When looking at a comparison between human DNA and other primates, it looks plausible that a chromosomal splicing was involved, and that a transition may have happened within around 3 generations or so. Kind of like an evolutionary Adam or Eve (the missing wives make more sense in this setting). It seems to me rather 'improbable' given just 'chance' that such a chromosomal splicing would have been beneficial.
There is also the seeming fine-tuning of physical constants in support of life.
A whale has separate breathing and eating 'tubes', it doesn't seem that a 'gradual' change could take place from a whale to a land animal with one tube. I think it is artificial and unscientific to rule out large physical and/or genetic changes simply because they seem 'improbable'. The purpose of science is not to support atheism or religion, but to study nature. Shouldn't it start with a neutral position?
As to 'Occam's Razor' or what is purported to be so, it seems that a bias towards viewing things as simple and random has at times gotten in the way of science. Case in point, scientists saw evidence of a complex orderly structure within cells, but they started with an assumption that the interior of cells is 'simple' and 'random', that the innards just slosh around. They resisted the evidence for a while. I can see not looking for things that aren't there, but when there's evidence, it should be directly seen. To paraphrase Einstein, simplify, but not too much.

I don't understand how anyone can simply discount qualia, I mean, qualia are really in a sense all we know of, they are our entire experience. They are the means by which we can even do science. To brush them aside and say they don't need explanation is a cop out.

We can go on and go debating this, but after a while I see the same arguments go back and forth.

I think what is more important is for people to be kind, compassionate, intelligent, etc.

[mutus_frutex]

161. What, you don't like my spelling?? :-)

Yeah, I know. English is not my first language. I should probably have said "aleatoric nature"..

I agree that we probably will never agree.. :-) But let me make myself clear, since I think you misunderstood some of my ideas.

Variation and selection are proven parts or evolution, and I understand that you accept that. Selection is clearly "directed", i.e. it is the response to factors that have a timescale longer than the variations. (It can be argued that those factors are also random, but that's another story). So, what we are discussing is whether the variations are directed (or, in other word, if they have a purpose). If they are truly random, as I propose, then they can't be directed. Since the variation comes from chemical and physical processes (if you leave aside other "miraculous" variations), which are random, then variations are random.

This is all regardless if mutation are beneficial or not.

I'm not going to go into the details regarding the examples that you mention. Just would like to mention that Behe's DBB has been repeatedly refuted, and that if you looked into the scientific literature you would find very convincing answers to your questions.

I think that you have a misunderstanding regarding Occam's Razor: given two theories that equally explain the experimental results, one gives precedence to the simplest. Occam's Razor doesn't force you to simplify, only to simplify as long as you keep agreeing with experiment. It also doesn't make you reject a theory, only experiment makes you reject a theory.

Dennett's position is a result of his strict adherence to evolutionary thinking. I'm not so versed in philosophy as to defend his position. I'll try to read a bit more on that regard.

Cheers...

[Zenlitened]

55. It's not up to science to prove that evolution is undirected...

... it's up to you to prove that it IS directed, if that's your position.

That's how science works. What is your evidence that an intelligence is directing evolution?


(Edited typo)

[mcg]

71. That is true, the purpose of science is not to support atheism.

And if you claim that evolution is undirected, than it is up to you to show that that is true. It is not true by default.

Your backpedaling shows the weakness of your position.

My evidence - the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, it is right in front of our eyes, deal with it.

[Zenlitened]

78. LOL! I love these deep discussions!

"It looks complicated! Deal with it!"

LMAO! :D

[Liberal Veteran]

111. Your eyes propose nothing to me.

If you believe your eyes, then the sun "rises" in the east and "sets" in the west, therefore the sun revolves around the Earth.

Appearances can be very deceiving, so you'll have to forgive me if I require something a bit more "scientific" than your eyes.

[Zenlitened]

129. I think this one is a lost cause, frankly.

Just look at the statement:

And if you claim that evolution is undirected, than it is up to you to show that that is true.

That translates, roughly, as "if you claim something is NOT, then prove it is NOT."

It's the old "prove a negative" thing, as usual.

And the poster offers no evidence of direction, other than "the overwhelming appearance of complexity." Overwhelming to whom? Appearance or actual fact? Complexity by what measure?

Unreal.

[SheilaT]

15. Another aspect of

Intelligent Design is that the Designer couldn't have been too bright.

Consider the overall design of humans (or most vertebrates, for that matter). Two kidneys is good. There redundancy built in. And two eyes. Fabulous! Two lungs, just in case one of them gets damages. So far so good. But, only ONE heart? ONE liver? The design of a human female's pelvis which makes childbirth painful at best, life-threatening to mother and child at worst? What was the Designer thinking of?

Come to think of it, the human pelvis is another proof of evolution.

[Taxloss]

17. Not to mention the "blind spot" in the apparently oh-so perfect eye.

And the spine problems that the vast majority of us will experience because we used to be quadrapeds. And the knee, the most shoddy joint in both the human body and much of the mammal world. And the vestigial tail - just ignore all that. GOD did it.

[mcg]

94. There is a benefit to the inverted retina - heat dispersion.

[Taxloss]

99. So what? There's a benefit. It's still an imperfect system.

And its evolutionary path is clear.

That's how evolution works: unexpected mutations and benefits.

[mcg]

110. So to have the inverted retina, the blind spot is needed.

You say 'imperfect', a value judgement, let's see you come up with something better. Something that is designed doesn't have to meet your standards of 'perfection'.

You claim it is 'unexpected', that is still yet to be shown. If you claim that ID has no place in science, then that kind of wording also has no place in science, especially not in a classroom. You cannot have it both ways, if 'expected' cannot be tested, neither can 'unexpected'.

The purpose of science is not to support atheism.

[Taxloss]

113. The purpose of science is not to support God!

It is to explain the way we are, to explain the universe. Science, so far, does not involve your god.

And "imperfect" is not a value judgement. Are you saying Mankind is perfect? What possible justification do you have for that?

As for "let's see you come up with something better", that's classic "I couldn't do it, so GOD must have done it" talk. Utterly irrelevant.

[Liberal Veteran]

117. Indeed...there is wellspring of facts that say Mankind is NOT perfect.

Cystic fibrosis.
Cancer.
Birth defects.
Sickle-cell anemia.
Appendixes.
That tail we have.
Wisdom teeth.

We could probably go on all day.

[Taxloss]

127. Yes! Thanks for the support!

eom

[mcg]

158. A cynical attitude, that is all.

Because shit happens, in your bitterness you want to think it is all meaningless. That's your perogative, but do NOT call it science.

[Liberal Veteran]

173. Of course it's science.

Sickle-cell, cancer, cystic fibrosis = Medical science. Two of those conditions are genetic disorders and the other the result of a flaw in cell division that results in a dangerous disease. That's also medical science. If we were perfect, we wouldn't have recessive genes that allow cystic fibrosis to occur.

The others are of course vestigial left-overs as we evolved from one species to another = biology.

It's science no matter which way you look at it.

Where do get bitterness from that? It simply is.

[Taxloss]

230. Funny, an ID proponent accusing Evolutionists of not using science.

:7

[DrWeird]

101. It's evidence of simple intermediates leading to complex organs.

nt

[stanwyck]

23. Funny story from Focus on the Family

radio show we heard in the car on a family trip. The moderator was crowing about how intelligent design was really "gaining inertia" among Americans.
We almost ran off the road laughing.
"Gaining inertia" has become a catch phrase for us.
I'm not lying on the couch, avoiding housework. I'm gaining inertia.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Is that like a "medically supervised anecdotal study"?

I heard that one on the radio yesterday for some kind of psuedo-viagra.

[stanwyck]

141. Ooooh, love that.

I'm going to have to appropriate that...here, try this...it was proven successful in a "medically supervised anecdotal study."

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Meh. I'm a theistic evolutionist myself. I believe God created

everything, including evolution.

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Which is probably a more sensible approach...

Than the creationists who are trying to do an end run around hard science to set up the Genesis version of creation against evolution as competing "theories" when only one is actually a scientific theory at all.

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. There are TWO accounts of creation in Genesis.. fundies never

delve into that.

"Flip" through these pages. There are two sections which speak about this.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195282175/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-6973446-1107163#reader-page

-----------------------------------------------------------
Save this nation one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[mcg]

68. and Genesis doesn't say God created man and animals in one step,

I can see why it is interpreted that way, but it is just an interpretation. It's also quite questionable to think that the people who wrote it intended for it to be the literal truth.

On one page it says God created animals then man, on another page it says God created man, then animals. They can't both be right. Frankly, I think fundies are dishonest when they claim to think that the Bible is flawless and always literally true.

Besides, it is just a book, not something to be worshipped.

[GreenPartyVoter]

72. Bibliolatry... It is true many fundies break one of the Ten Commandments

by worshipping the book instead.

[baba]

106. Do you have any resources?

Do you know any good articles or books on theistic evolution? I was thinking it could help me in my debate with my conservative sister.

[adigal]

41. Don't make fun - ID could not be a giant lobster

It is a giant squid, yeah, a squid, because God has many hands and can do many things.

[Astrochimp]

50. The main problem is.....

it shifts the question to "where did the designer come from?" so it answers nothing. Much like the people who think we were "planted" by space aliens. Ok, where did the aliens come from?

[Stuckinthebush]

51. Perhaps an intelligent power designed the rest of the universe

But she must have left the design of humans to an intern.

[sakabatou]

52. Intelligent design is not a theory

it's a hypothesis. There is no empirical evidence for it.

[Liberal Veteran]

54. Here's an example of how the scientific theory of ID works.

Pick something that hasn't been completely explained by evolution and claim that is evidence that ID is correct.

In the same sense, I propose that since the exact mechanism of action of the drug neurontin is unknown, it is evidence that nanites from the Planet Garbrex cause the beneficial effects of the drug.

[sakabatou]

58. So...

it's a lazy man's explanation of the world?

[Liberal Veteran]

60. More like lazy with an agenda explanation.

Let's be totally honest. ID/Creationism proponents aren't what they are out of scientific curiosity. They have an agenda that really has more to do with theology than science.

[Astarho]

56. Intelligent Design, IMHO, is essentially philosophy

free of both religious and scientific underpinning (not that it's not used by Creationists as a backdoor). Personally, I always though philosophy should be taught in schools.

and the whole FAQ was pretty funny BTW.

[Baconfoot]

107. I agree, let's teach philosophy in schools. But ID is NOT philosophy.

Philosophy is in the business of reasoning and reasoning well. Intelligent design "theory" is in the business of getting around some legal obstacles to using the public school system to brainwash children and of making certain people feel more comfortable about some otherwise nasty tensions in their belief systems.

Does this mean I believe that it's CERTAIN that no intelligent being was involved in the coming about of man? Not surprisingly, no. All it means is that a belief that an intelligent being was involved somehow is wholly irrational. If you have no good reason to think something is true and no access to any evidence of any kind that the something is true or probable etc, then you are irrational to believe the something, EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.

Essentially, if you make stuff up you get no credit. Later it might turn out you got lucky. But if it "turns out" that you were correct, this means we are then in a position to accept the something, unlike when you made the original claim.

Philosophy is NOT in the business of making wild unsubstantiated inconsistent claims EVEN WHEN IT IS CONCERNED WITH OR ADVOCATING SOME PARTICULAR RELIGION OR CLAIM REGARDING A NON-HUMAN NON-ANIMAL BEING.

Even Spinoza. Yes. Even Spinoza.

[MichaelTheCat]

59. I'll be honest...

...I don't like the phrase Intelligent Design. It seems to be an Orwellian code word used by right-wing wackos to advance their theocratic march against the Constitutional separation of church and state.

[Liberal Veteran]

62. Creationism by any other name would still stink of theology.

:)

[Hugin]

63. I hope they all choke on their darn theory...

Seeing as how the Intelligent Designer put their damn
pie hole so close to their air hole.

It's NO accident! Lemme tell ya!

[Canuckistanian]

82. Apes!

Those eveolutionists said I descended from apes! Well, I eat with a knife and fork, mister. Apes, indeed.

[mcg]

84. The web site the resolves the evolution - ID - Creationism debate

This should set everything straight:

http://www.besse.at/sms/evolutn.html

[DrWeird]

91. I'll say that sets things straight.

Goofball Creationist website. The only non-parodical reference they give is for The Bell Curve.

:eyes:

[mcg]

103. Get a sense of humor, it is not a Creationist website.

Take for example this:

http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html

"A major weakness is that it fails to account for the origin of Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law."

[Boosterman]

168. Its called reading comprehension

Or would you rather admit the problem was bias?

[WI Independent]

236. LOL... Good stuff. n/t

[ihelpu2see]

164. you must also present to these loons the idea

that evolution and natural selection does not exist for H. sapiens benefits. The idea that evolution is a latter, where small single cell organisms strive to become more complex and more complex, is wrong. And always fun to point out that if some intelligent being was playing a role in ID why is the fossil record littered with organisms evolving into extinction???? hmmmmm

[Boosterman]

171. Why wouldn't a creator let evolution take its course?

After all he granted free will to us supposedly. Why would he do something like that if he knew how it would all turn out? Perhaps to give others a chance to learn something? Who knows? Is it so far of a stretch to think that there is some design behind species going extinct. Perhaps to eventually teach humans a lesson. Heck maybe he just goes in for verisimilitude After all he is ineffable.

Ya know I find these topics interesting. The Bible is possibly the biggest con game in the world but its written so well in parts that if you look you can easily find loopholes to escape from everything. One of my big knocks on Fundamentalists is that their minds are so rigid they cant look for another explanation. It also makes them easy prey.

Its also possible the Bible is true.

[ihelpu2see]

206. its nice to see a creative answer to my question but dont

fall into the trap of assuming evolution was put into motion to "create" us..... it was not we are not the success story of evolution.....arthropods(insects) have many more species than primates and vertabrates for that matter...

[ComerPerro]

200. I hate shit like "intelligent design"

Really, what it boils down to is "I am too stupid to grasp difficult concepts, therefore there must be a higher power."

[Sgent]

207. ID

Is not even a hypothesis -- it cannot be tested.

It is a philosophical speculation. The advocates at the Discovery Institute (Behe, et all) won't take it the next step and flush out the hypothesis to be truley scientific.

One would suppose that this is because they know in their own minds that any prediction that it generates, which conflicts with evolution, will most likely be proven wrong, thus destroying their ministry.

There is no debate in the scientific world -- since most of modern medicine and biology is founded on evolution. A proposed replacement for evolution would need to be consistent with all of the facts and research already performed -- or it would be tossed for further refinement.

As for theistic evolution, it is the position taken by the Catholic Church, many protestants, and Jews. The bottom line is that god created the natural laws and mechanisms for life.

[EVDebs]

208. I too believe in Intelligent Design, but the devil is always in the detail

Singularities along with string theory allow for a Great Architect of the Universe. Call him/her/it what you will ! You can't get sumthin from nuthin ...

The beginning of wisdom is fear (respect for the Lord)-- Solomon.

Intelligence is pattern detection in essence, which allows us to see God's handiwork . I see toooo much pride and hubris on all sides of this battle.

The kids are alright, as the Who once said. They can see through this.

[Trajan]

222. The Beginning of Wisdom is Observation ....

Trajan ....

[bemildred]

217. How is an "intelligent cause" NOT an "undirected process"?

Who or what "directs" it?
So you still have an "undirected process".

These fuckwits always confuse grammar with the laws of the universe.

[hippiegranny]

221. oh... I thought this was another thread about the

clothes worn at the cheater's coronation.