Where do you stand on the question of intelligent design?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Where do you stand on the question of intelligent design?

[dsc]

1. I am not going to vote on any option

but I do think this; scientists are very foolish if they think that refusing to debate these people is a solution. Scientists have to understand that this theory sounds good and much of the public is scientificly illiterate. That combines to produce pressure to teach it which may well become overwhelming.

[BurtWorm]

6. I think scientists have become bored by the debate.

It's the same thing over and over and over. ID proponents never seem to learn. They have a limited repertoire of points to make, and, though many of their points have been shown to be based on gas, they continue making them. To engage them is to become part of their act, like the "legitimate" teams that played the Harlem Globetrotters.

[dsc]

10. At least debate them in front of Boards of Ed

The Kansas State board heard from no scientists before its vote to mandate Intelligent Design.

[BurtWorm]

14. They were going to vote in favor of it anyway.

The Board members who voted for it ran for their office with the intention of getting ID into the public schools.

[stepnw1f]

105. I Agree with dcs

the fact is, everybody is reachable... it's just harder with some depending on a multitude of reasons. I prefer to never give up in the end. It's the only solution, and if reason does not work than so be it, but I tried.

I think a debate does not smear the scientific community. Let science into the public realm for all to learn, because right now education is too solitary. It needs to be out there... this is one way of getting information pertaining to evolution out there for the masses to have a public debate as well.

Let society figure this thing out. I believe we will win the end!

[donco6]

17. Exactly.

First of all, they weren't interested in a debate - it was a done deal before the meeting was even set up. The true scientists already knew it was a set up and refused to take part. I wouldn't either.

[unrepuke]

43. That's what makes "The Big Lie" work. The more intelligent

people tire early on of the foolishness and bow out. The 'tards keep on and on until they get their way. Worked for Goebbels - works today.

[Piltdown13]

104. It's not just boredom...and I agree about becoming part of the "act"

Scientists also avoid debating creationists/ID proponents because those people are extremely well-rehearsed and difficult to debate. The deck is stacked against us (scientists) at the outset, because their positions are more easily condensed into sound bites, while the scientific evidence requires longer, more detailed explanations. So, unless a scientist has rehearsed and rehearsed -- not just reviewed lecture notes -- it's easier than you would think for the audience to think that the creationist has "won" the argument. Even Eugenie Scott, who runs the National Center for Science Education, advises scientists to be cautious about accepting such debates because of this factor. Scientists just don't have the time to devote to preparation, and I think many are frustrated and annoyed that this is even necessary.

Having said that, I think that at least a few scientists are going to have to bite the bullet and take on the creationist/ID contingent, at least in terms of informing school boards and policymakers. The anti-evolutionists are gaining too much influence to be ignored any longer, and the consequences if we allow science education to be further corrupted in this country will be dire.

[HereSince1628]

124. It's tiresome and really boring to argue about creationism

As a zoology professor who taught upper division and grad courses on evolution topics I was frequently approached to defend evolution. I found it really a huge waste of time.

Evolution has some _really_ interesting things to engage the minds of thinking biologists. I, and most evolutionary biologists I know, enjoy spending hours reading and discussing things far more sophisticated than arguments that the world is more than a few thousand years old.

Every generation produces another crop of creationists who feel they are part of some divinely mandated insurgency to subvert the infidels. Consequently this "debate" can't be argued to a close.

Evolution is under no threat within science. And the public defense of evolution doesn't require an army of scientists. The need can be filled by a small fraction of working scientists who enjoy doing that.
Which I expect is why only relatively few scientists do it.

[donco6]

15. It's impossible TO debate.

How do you debate the topic when one side can run outside the bounds of science to come up with explanations like, "Well an intelligent creator did it, in a way that's currently beyond our understanding."

[hallc]

21. I call that...

Pulling the "god" card...Don't know the answer to a question? Well, God did it! Its so fucking ridiculous.

[donco6]

25. Exactly.

It's so frustrating to talk about, because I don't think people can visualize what happens when you try to "debate" what essentially is religion versus science.

And welcome to DU!
:hi:

[evermind]

95. That doesn't mean you can't debate it - it's just evidence for

the non-science status of the ID hypothesis.

You can't put forward a "scientific theory of Intelligent Design" because scientific theories must be falsifiable - that is, in principle, there must be some experiment that could be made which is capable of disproving the theory. That is a sine qua non of a scientific theory (string theory notwithstanding - it is at least conceivable that a falsifiable prediction could result from it ;-) ).

There is no conceivable experiment which could disprove an Intelligent Design theory.

Why? Because it is always open to the proponent of the theory to assert that the Intelligent Designer foresaw the experiment, and in His Intelligence decided to fox the experimenter to teach him a lesson!

More formally: when theistic agency is incorporated into a (hypothesis masquerading as) scientific theory, either the theory must place limits on that agency in order to produce falsifiability, rendering the agency less than theistic, or it must admit that the motivation and method of the theistic entity "passeth human understanding", immediately conceding non-falsifiability (since the outcome of an unknowable intelligence coupled with unlimited powers cannot be predicted).

[donco6]

135. Ha! Yes, good point.

I remember one discussion regarding the age of the earth and the speed of light. If the speed of light is 186,000 mi/sec, and we know that there are stars and galaxies many thousands of light years away, how could the earth be only 6,000 years old?

Answer: God created the light not only at the stars themselves, but the photons on their way to earth.

Touche! How do you combat that? It's like being asked to joust with a wet noodle.

[Kraklen]

29. Should historians publically debate holocaust denial?

Serious question.

[donco6]

33. Good analogy.

To agree to debate such a topic gives it a false legitimacy - like there really *is* anything to debate about!

Same thing in this instance.

[hfojvt]

37. if enough public support existed to vote people onto state boards

of education to put holocaust denial into a textbook as an alternate theory, I would think that somebody better take a stand to stop it. Who is more qualified than a historian?

[donco6]

47. The analogy doesn't go far enough.

It's one thing for historians to debate one another over the existence of an event that can be verified or not, by careful research.

It's quite another to debate religionists who have only the "God card" to play, making it impossible to prove/disprove. It's a fool's errand.

[hfojvt]

48. could you show me that card?

or are you just playing the "they're playing the god card" card? Which conveniently allows you to avoid discussing it or debating things.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

[donco6]

49. You're not really defending intelligent design are you?

And if you don't know what the "God card" is, you need to catch up.

[hfojvt]

52. aha, the "you are so ignorant I cannot bother explaining" card

Deep breaths, deep breaths. Remember "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so". Okay, I feel better now.

Am I defending ID? I do not know enough about it to seriously defend it, but I will defend anything that is being attacked dogmatically and ignorantly. Either you know enough about evolution, that you can defend it non-dogmatically, or you know enough about ID that you can attack it non-dogmatically. Or the scientific inquistion declares: they are heretics, playing the "God card" they are to be banished as "unscientific".

Is it scientific to be so convinced of an answer that you no longer consider the question? If ID is unscientific as you say, a search of that site should provide a few examples of the "god card". I did not see it on the first page, and it seems to me I could read all day, report that I have not found it and still be told "you need to catch up".

[Kraklen]

54. Wait, what?

You admit you don't know anything about Creationism but you're accusing us of being ignorant about it?

[BurtWorm]

56. ID very assiduously avoids speaking about God or religion

to give it the false sheen of scientific objectivity. But it's not actually the alternative to evolution that it makes itself out to be, mainly because the dichotomy it draws--if evolution doesn't explain everything, you must buy ID--is false. Evolution explains more than ID says it does, for one thing. For another, evolution continues to provide scientists the means of asking questions to explain more and more. All ID can do is criticize evolution. It has nothing positive to offer on its own, no engine to drive further research. In fact it's designed, so to speak, to try to end further research.

Debates between IDists and scientists wind up being lop-sided in just that way, with IDists making a limited set of charges against evolution, which scientists then easily refute. But what is there to criticize of ID except its vaporous idealism or the weak logic of its critique against Darwin?

[etherealtruth]

84. The only "good" thing about the ID "argument" ...

... is that with each new round the creationist argument is watered down a little more, allowing a little more science in. I predict in 100 - 200 years they'll catch up and the United States won't be having that particular "flat earth" argument.

[evermind]

96. Are you saying a valid ID theory could be that we are all stuck

in a computer game, for example?

[BurtWorm]

98. That's not what I'm saying, no.

I've never heard that offered, but I suppose it makes as much sense as life on earth being designed by aliens.

[evermind]

115. I admit I assumed Intelligent Design theory was theist

in my post (#95), above, where I thought I had successfully ruled it out as a scientific theory.

If space aliens are allowed, I have to revise my argument. Unlikely though the idea may be, it is a conceivably falsifiable idea that space-aliens with technology that we can (at some point) understand have visited the planet and designed our biosphere from top to bottom.

If we posit that the aliens have technology that we can't ever understand, then we are no longer within the realm of scientific theorising (there may be such aliens, as indeed there may be a god or gods (the hypotheses may be indistinguishable!) - it's just not a scientific hypothesis that there are, as per my argument in post #95).

But in the case of space-aliens, the Intelligent Design theorists have to come to a decision: is their theory a theory of the origins of life on earth, or does it have wider scope? Because the question will be asked: how did the space aliens come to be? You can't have "aliens all the way down", I think, so an explanation of how alien life was brought about will still be needed, with evolution an obvious candidate.

Evolution-denying ID theory, then, if it is to be a comprehensive theory of life in the universe, needs a "first designer" to design the other designers that are responsible for life on earth, if it goes down the space-aliens path here.

So ID either remains committed to theism, in which case the argument in post #95 shows that it is not a scientific theory, or it merely defers the applicability of evolution (or some other scientific theory of the origin of life, should one arise) to the question of where the aliens came from...

The above (and my other post) may not be great philosophy, but it's the kind of philosophy the ID theorists deserver, imho.. ;-)

[BurtWorm]

118. Not bad philosophy at all.

You nail it! :toast:

[donco6]

134. Yes.

It's the logical next step - where did the aliens come from? Can research conducted here also give answers to how another race might have evolved - even if they didn't originally evolve here?

[donco6]

133. Take the Red Pill!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/donco6/redblue.bmp

[donco6]

132. Well put.

Yes, that's my observation about ID debates as well. The evolution side gets hammered by a million "problems" (which evolutionists know very well, and are working to solve), while the ID side gets to skate by with "I don't know - and because I don't know, some higher power must have done it!"

Bleh. This is revolting. Cheap, bastardized "science".

[donco6]

58. False dichotomy.

So, we're either dogmatic or ignorant? Gosh, which to choose . . .

Thought it's obvious, and a number of other posters have already mentioned, the ID folks aren't going to admit to playing the "God card". Therefore, a diligent search for it on their web site will turn up fruitless. It is, however, their only weapon, and is played with impunity before such audiences as the "ignorant" (if I may use the term) Kansas State Board of Education.

Is ID unscientific? I like the response given by Talkdesign.org:

It is true that many (though not all) mainstream scientists and philosophers of science argue that science must be committed to a principle of "methodological naturalism", which states that only "natural" explanations can be allowed in science. Unfortunately, the meaning of the term "natural" is unclear. It is often assumed that this would rule out any explanations involving divine action, but it may be that a hypothesis involving divine action could be considered "natural" if it was empirically testable. These are murky philosophical waters, and it seems that most scientists simply adopt the principle of methodological naturalism as rule of thumb, based on the more general principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. More importantly, good scientific theories contain virtues like testability, parsimony, and explanatory power. ID tends to be lacking these virtues and many others; the "naturalism" claim is often a cover for the fact that ID has a difficult time meeting basic scientific criteria.

In any case, ID advocates assure us that their arguments do not imply a divine designer. The designer could have been an extraterrestrial alien. Methodological naturalism certainly does not rule out such a designer. Confusion over this issue has been caused by the ambiguity of the word "natural", which can mean either "not artificial" or "not supernatural" (in addition to other possible meanings). ID advocates frequently conflate these definitions for rhetorical purposes. This issue is explored in greater detail in Mark Issak’s essay, A Philosophical Premise of ‘Naturalism’?

_______________

And this definition of "natural" is exactly what's at the heart of the current Kansas debate. The RW State Board now wants to adjust the definition of science to allow for "non-materialistic" (i.e., supernatural) explanations of events. This is the crux of the God Card, and will be a big mistake for all Kansas students.

[hfojvt]

60. I appreciate the more thoughful response

and Burtworm too.

The site I linked to, pretty much said nothing beyond the first page as far as I could tell, but I thought the refernce to design theory was interesting.

I did some more reading of a biology textbook and have some ideas I need to percolate and try to summarize (I am sure I could sell subscriptions for that since there is such a huge demand for my ramblings) but it is time for me to head to work at the research lab. Yeah, I am researching new ways to clean toilets, that's the ticket.

ediot: sorry Burt, amazing how an unwanted extra 's' seems to change meaning so much.

[donco6]

66. Sorry.

I'd just been barraged by a bunch of RWers on another board and my patience had worn thin.

[hfojvt]

114. the extra-terrestrial alien seems like a cop-out to me

Astronomy has the "space seed" theory for the origin of life on earth, which says that life on earth could have begun from a virus-type life-form which travelled through space and "infected" earth. However, that begs the question "where did the virus (or aliens) originate?" Although the possibility does exist that the incubator for life was a nebula in space rather than the primordial soup, or that it could be part of a combination.

In this whole "Darwin" debate, I am not sure where ID fits in. There are three issues 1) adaptation, 2) speciation, and 3) origin of life. AFAIK nobody denies the evidence of evolutionary adaptation, that moths will adapt to changing environments, changing the color of the moth, for example. However, there is not as much proof, or is there, showing that a moth can evolve into a butterfly.

The origin of life question is very much open. As they write "Not until the latter part of the 19th century was the theory of evolution able to account for the origin of species without invoking a supernatural agency. Can 20th century science do the same for the origin of life?" The answer to that is now definitely "no" and so far, 21st century cannot either. It seems to me that, in that regard, that scientists cannot rule out the idea of ID, and may have to admit that we will never know. Without a time machine, how do you scientifically verify what happened a billion years ago? Even if you could conduct a more elaborate Stanley Miller experiment over several hundred years and produce a DNA molecule or two, that would only demonstrate that it could have happened that way, not that it did. Also, paradoxically enough it would show that an intelligence can manufacture DNA, not that DNA can arise spontaneously.

Also, the book begins by saying "But when asked to say explicitly what life is, we find a satisfactory answer eludes us." Thus still leaving open the possibility that it is more than chemical reactions, that there could be a "ghost in the machine". The "non-material" is not used as a catch-all explanation, but neither can it be ruled out pre-emptively or dismissed as preposterous or irrational. I consider it irrational and dogmatic to dismiss alternatives before there is evidence warranting a dismissal.

[donco6]

131. There's debate, and there's debate in public school.

Your approach is very detached and apolitical - a commendable trait. And if a debate *could* be held with these ideals held firmly in the grasp of the participants, it would be interesting to see what came of it.

However, when we frame such a debate in the context of public schools, and we throw in what we know of the background and motivations of the pro-ID folks (and I suppose, the anti-ID folks as well), it becomes obvious that there is no true debate. There's only machination and maneuvering. What *they* really want is for "God to resume his rightful place at the center of all life." What they actually say is, "we just want an honest consideration of all the facts." What *we* want is for science to remain untainted from the supernatural option - the "Poof! God did it!" element of the equation that leads us inexorably back to the Church-dominated dogma of the Middle Ages.

Maybe God did do it. But maybe we just don't know enough - and when you don't know enough, it sure is tempting to turn to the God Card. But I believe we're doing our children a huge - indeed, irreparably harmful - disservice if we allow these groups to influence their thinking about science. Their agenda is about control - control of a message that leads to ultimate power for their side. Our agenda doesn't lead to power over people, but gives people power over themselves. I guess you just have to take your pick.

[hfojvt]

137. They would say that "God is already in the center of THEIR life"

what they would like is to be able to raise THEIR children with that orientation. Including a paragraph about ID in a 700 page biology textbook does not force all children to accept religion or ID, but it does stop a certain philosophy which teaches, even if not explicitly, that "we do not need God, God is superfluous". They have ten pages or so on the origin of life where they say theorists "suggest that life could and did arise spontaneously from nonliving matter under conditions prevailing on the early earth ..." without providing the disclaimer that "this is not verified scientific theory and perhaps cannot be verified" that "there are many things about life, and about the origin of life that we do not know or understand, and the possibility of God and intelligent design still exists. That there is no scientific proof of the non-existence of God or any scientific reason to not believe in God."
In fact, they do say that at the beginning, but on page 599 they do not bother to repeat it, and they hint that if science can explain the origin of life "without invoking a supernatural agency" that that would represent human progress. It may, indeed, but it is premature to say that we are there yet. CS Lewis writes in "The Abolition of Man" "For the wise old men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique ...The regenerate science which I have in mind would not do even to minerals and vegetables what modern science threatens to do to man himself. When it explained, it would not explain away. When it spoke of the parts it would remember the whole."
The complaint is not so much about science's ability to explain the material world, but its apparent desire to explain away the non-material world. To some of us, non-material values, goals, and aspirations are, at least in theory, primary to material and materialistic ones.

[donco6]

142. Now you're just being disengenuous.

I know that you have some knowledge of philosophy and rhetoric. So for you to posit: "there are many things about life, and about the origin of life that we do not know or understand, and the possibility of God and intelligent design still exists. *That there is no scientific proof of the non-existence of God or any scientific reason to not believe in God*" is surprising. Surely you remember that it's impossible to prove the negative. It's the whole basis for our "innocent until proven guilty" legal system. So that's quite an obvious red herring.

Furthermore, to say that because some people want God to be the center of their children's lives we must, in our public schools, accommodate a religious explanation for creation is pretty fantastic. Where does it end? Will we need the Koran in chemistry? The Bhagavad-Gita in biology? Susie's Church of Fun in Phys Ed?

I think you know my stand, and I think I know yours. It's been interesting chatting.

[hfojvt]

144. either you give me too much credit or not enough

Actually I do not remember that it is "impossible to prove the negative" and that is the basis for "innocent until proven guilty". Certainly I can prove that there is Not a chair in the room by performing a thorough search of the room. Certainly I remember one guy proved he was not guilty because he was videotaped at a baseball game at the time the crime happened across town, but I can see how it might be impossible to prove that there is no God, and how that fact does not really prove anything.

So I made a silly statement, but my point that questions of God are not scientific is pretty solid even if my words were clumsy. Also that I do not consider the material to be primary in my value system. Not that that means I agree with ID as it is currently proposed, but I do recognize the domino theory. Probably we need the Gita in biology and a "church of fun" sounds better than the Phys "Ed" which I remember.

I did not say that "we must". I am only trying to explain why some people do. I think they have a bumper sticker "I am unscientific, and I vote". Not on my car, even if I had a car, but I enjoy a contentious discussion to a degree.

[donco6]

145. I have a tendency to be impatient.

The question of materiality is actually much more interesting than the Creation/Evolution debate, anyway.

The more I read about matter and energy and the differences/similarities, I think the question is very valid. There was a great article in Discovery recently about the multiple universes theory of matter (Heisenberg Uncertainty and why Newton's Laws seem to conflict when talking about larger mass). I'm not as much of a materialist as I may appear to be.

Thanks for the discussion and please pardon my peevishness. This topic just brings out some of the worst in me.

[quaker bill]

112. The essential lameness of ID

"The theory of intelligent design has been described by ID theorist Professor William Dembski of Baylor University as follows:

Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things that undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words and sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design arguments of past centuries.21"

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

The essential lameness is exactly this, Darwinian Evolution includes a force called "natural selection" (emphasis should be placed on the word "selection")

"Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board" is correct, but what is lost in the basic argument, is the concept of selection. Selection in essence removes all the letters that are in the wrong order to make meaningful words or sentences but retains those which are correctly ordered. Each generation, the letters are tossed out again and selection just keeps removing all those which do not make sense, but retaining those that do. Given sufficient trials sooner or later you get "Romeo and Juliette" written by "undirected forces".

The fundamental flaw in their logic is so large that it could not be accidental.

[hallc]

128. Dembski is an idiot

He basically makes up his own mathematical equations to "prove" things are irreducibly complex. I had to read his book in my evolution class (so my prof could make fun of it later...)and i had never laughed so hard.

[JNelson6563]

51. Nonsense

I read a column by an atheist in a mag and sure enough, once he had agreed to just such a debate, the creationist was telling all his supporters what an affirmation it was for their view that this famous atheist was going to debate him.

Just like any other blather, I don't give it any credence by debating it.

Cheers--

[Emendator]

103. No need to "debate" these IDiots

You can't grant legitimacy to every crackpot idea out there. The only option is to teach biology properly and explain what evolution and natural selection is. You can't allow those not properly informed to force a change upon the teaching of science. The inmates cannot run the asylum.

[formerrepuke]

2. Evolutionary biology is so fascinating - and so humbling.. it's amazing

there are still people in 2005 who would deny it.

[laura888]

3. Worth mentioning at least once in school

If nothing more to say, "Science has no way to explain the numerous similarities in design of completely un-related species."

I believe its ok to say that science cannot explain everything.

[BillZBubb]

11. Your point is incorrect.

"Science has no way to explain the numerous similarities in design of completely un-related species." Design? You are loading the dice. There is no "design". There is evolved structure.

Anyway, it's also completely untrue. Science offers many theories relating to the similarities of diverse species. The fact that good evolutionary solutions can evolve independently is not a problem at all.

[donco6]

19. Yes.

You're right. There is evolved structure that "looks" like design. It's perfectly logical, for example, that if a bipedal structure favors one mammalian species, why not others? If a trisegmented structure favors one insect species, wouldn't it make sense to see it evolve in others?

[BurtWorm]

20. That's totally wrong, laura888, with all due respect.

Science's explanation for similarities in structure of "unrelated" species is that they're all related. The similarities are inherited from common ancestors, some going back hundreds of millions of years.

[Kraklen]

39. So we shouldn't teach convergent evolution?

I don't understand what your post is trying to say.

Since you can't understand convergent evolution therefore science can't explain convergent evolution?

[iconoclastic cat]

4. I actually think that fundies are proof of Dumbass Design.

[hallc]

5. Easy question

Its bullshit plain and simple. Anything the right wingers can do to push science back 100 years is ok in their eyes. This was such a controversial topic in my area (Lancaster, PA - the county next to York,PA where they had that whole legal thing going on) that I took a class on it last semester. Granted, it was a philosophy class and my prof was an atheist, so it was pretty slanted to MY view...but I learned a hell of a lot about the movement and how it all started. Anyone interested should read the book "Creationisms Trojan Horse - The Wedge of Intelligent Design" by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross. It goes into the whole "Wedge Strategy" and what not and all the people involved.

[BillZBubb]

7. "intelligent design" is an unintelligent reaction to the unknown.

It has the advantages of being simple, easy to understand, and requiring no effort or study. And it's dead wrong in all of it's premises.

[K-W]

62. I think it shows alot of intelligence. Compared to creationism at least.

It is finely crafted propaganda.

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. It's pure rightwing fundamentalist non-science bullshit crap that isn't

even a faithful reading of Scripture.

Fuck the ID fuckerclowns, and anyone who believes in their fake fucking bullshit, and fuck the creationists, too.

[ironman202]

9. Intelligent design people are religious ignoramuses

[VOX]

12. I like it in automobiles, wristwatches, and appliances, but that's it.

Evolutionary biology is awe-inspiring enough for me! :)

[The Magistrate]

13. None Of Your Options, Sir, Quite Matches My View

It seems to me to be a view imposed on matters by the unexamined employment of pattern-seeking proclivities in the human mind. As used, "intelligent" design generally stands for "excellent" or even "perfect" design, and any such perception as that seems to reflect more the attitudes of the speaker employing the term than the reality described, revealing limitations of imagination, knowledge, or experience. There is certainly a great deal about what surrounds us that seems pretty obviously botched and poor work indeed, if one imputes there is a designer responsible for it.

"This is the best world possible. Everything in it is a necessary evil."

[hallc]

24. I once heard a surgeon speak about ID..

And he said, "If we are so intelligently designed, then tell me why our reproductive system is in the middle of the sewer system of our bodies."

[VOX]

36. And in men, why does the prostate gland surround such delicate plumbing?

That one should be taken back to the workbench post haste.

Welcome to DU, hallc! :toast:

[BurtWorm]

40. And why don't our teeth last a lifetime?

And why do we die, for that matter? Why aren't we immune to disease? Why do we have to kill (or rely on killing) to live?

[hallc]

41. Oh got another one...

Why do men have nipples?
Why do we still have remnants of the reptillian brain? (the limbic system)

All questions i would LOVE to ask this almighty designer. IMHO, they fucked up royally.

[EST]

125. I'm not Mr. ID or even GOD, however, back in the 1960s

we found out why men have nipples--
It was so you could find your cigarettes when you're drunk.

[Beelzebud]

42. Excellent point. Also: Genetic Defects.

Genetic Defects. Doesn't seem like something an "intelligent designer" would build into a system.

[BurtWorm]

44. So he's a slightly dim-witted designer.

He didn't have anyone to teach him, he had to figure it all out himself. ;)

[Beelzebud]

45. LOL Amateur Hobbyist Designer.

:D

[Zhade]

55. A "creation enthusiast".

ID isn't science in any way, shape, or form, and it stuns me to see how many people swallow its idiocy.

[libhill]

63. It stuns me

how many of our fellow Americans are simple minded idiots -

[Zhade]

140. Yeah, and nine of them voted "I believe in it" in this poll!

NT!

[K-W]

57. And when the designer made viruses... what was he thinking exactly? EOM

[Guaranteed]

78. Not necessarily. Some capacities of the human mind aren't merely "pattern-

seeking." Capacities such as our inner and outer senses, in fact, rely entirely on patterns in the outer world as prerequisites to their function.

Where do you believe the concepts of time and substance come from? "Pattern-seeking" proclivities, or pattern-demanding proclivities?

In other words, you seem to be brushing off all of the patterns recognized by the mind as creations of certain tendencies of the mind to want to create patterns. But aren't there certain patterns, and seemingly natural laws, that must be true in their own light in order for the mind to function at all?

[The Magistrate]

86. Not In The Least, Sir

There are indeed patterns out there, apparently, that this quality of the human mind successfully perceives. But like the stock-market, which it used to be said has predicted eight out of the last three recessions, not all the patterns perceived by the mind are actually there, nor is there any particular guarantee that those which are there are perceived accurately. The ancient theory of the four elements was based on perception of a pattern, but that pattern the ancients perceived and expounded on does not seem to have actually been there. It still guided their actions in many matters: one of my books is an old collection of ancient chemical directions and treatises, and its description of the mixing and drying of gypsum plaster in terms of the four elements is quite convincing. The mere fact that a human mind perceives a pattern is no surety that pattern is actually there: some can be adequately demonstrated, others cannot. The "patterns" cited as indicated a designer behind the universe, or the history of living beings, seem to me to fall into the latter class.

[Guaranteed]

107. I have to disagree. There are conceptual patterns that are

known as fact, and not even by scientific demonstration. One example I gave earlier was the notion of "substance"- physical matter that remains in existence, as itself, from moment to moment. This concept does not arise from the constant conjunctions of impressions within the mind. The concept is ingrained within the mind as a prerequisite for its function- the outer senses would not work without it. Not only that, but the actual existence of "substance" is necessary in the same regard.

[Beelzebud]

16. A friend of mine posed this question to me. He was in favor of the idea

until I asked him:

"Well if intelligent design says we were created by a higher power, whats to say that higher power isn't extra-terrestrial aliens? What's to say evolution wasn't a huge genetic experiemnt?"

He got very quiet, and hasn't brought up ID with me again.

ID is just veiled Creationism. Call them on their bullshit. If not god, then what? Aliens?

I'll stick with SCIENCE.

[BurtWorm]

22. There actually are people who believe aliens did it.

They're called Raelians. :crazy:

[Beelzebud]

32. They call themselves Raelians. I call them insane. :P

[libhill]

65. So -

you believe that the alien theory is more far fetched than the idea of some big booger man in the sky???

[jmowreader]

123. They're not any MORE insane...

than people who believe the following:

* an invisible man created the earth and the sky
* this same invisible man killed someone for putting his hand on the box containing the tablets bearing the Ten Commandments so that the box wouldn't fall out of the back of the wagon it was in
* and the invisible man used to put to death anyone who killed someone else
* but for whatever reason, the invisible man hasn't taken our Dear Leader and all of his confederates out back and killed them for sending about 2000 Christians and an uncountable number of non-Christians to their deaths in a war he started as a result of lies he told.

[donco6]

23. And even if it is aliens . . .

. . . the next obvious question is, who created them? Or did THEY evolve? And if they did, how did the process work for them? ID does not forward any scientific thought at all. It's a total dead end, and will leave us mired in the same place Galileo found himself in in pre-Ren Italy.

[hallc]

30. Michael Behe doesn't rule-out aliens as a higher power...

which is quite scary in my opinion (Michael Behe wrote the book "Darwin's Black Box" and is a founder of ID)

[MisterP]

70. that was the subject of a Lovecraft story!

[teknomanzer]

75. Just one question...

How did the aliens come into being?

[Selatius]

18. I do know those who push ID now pushed Creationism 30 years ago

I know; I shouldn't shoot the messenger, but the point is all they did was simply delete biblical references in their arguments and repackaged it as a secular theory on how the universe came to be. It is the same people.

Ultimately, the scientific method would be the solution to see whose answer comes closer to what actually happened in the past. Put ID through peer review by the entire scientific community instead of ignoring it. If you're being challenged, answer it.

[Kraklen]

26. I'm not prejudiced against it.

"prejudiced" implies judging before taking a good look at it. I've taken a good look at it, and I've judged it to be complete bullshit.

[Wizard777]

27. Alchemy 101

In the begining of monotheism. Religion and Science were as one. They were always at odds. Their was much contention between them. Constant competition. They stiffled each others growth. So the Universal Solvent disolved their bond and sent them on thier seperate ways. I call it the Alchemical Divorce. This gave religion the freedom to believe and science the freedom to know. If this divorce is sucessful. One fine day with .999 pecent certainty. Science will tell religion that God exists and we can prove it. Then the world will bear witness to the Alchemical Marriage.

[Missy M]

28. ID is the way religion can be brought into science class.....

so evolution can be argued against. It has no business being in science class and should stay in the category it belongs and that is religion, plain and simple. I hate to have a generation of children taught ID as science.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. It's humanity's attempt to give meaning to their lives.

It's hard to face the reality that we are insignificant specks of star stuff in a universe, far too large to ever comprehend, that is as indifferent to our existence as we are indifferent the the doings of the microbes of a single drop of water in the Pacific Ocean.

It is a comforting thought to some people that some God is taking a personal interest in their thoughts, deeds, accomplishments, sins, health, and, especially, their sex lives.

The mere idea that any "God" worthy of the name would concern itself with the doings of we miniscule pipsqueeks of the universe and gets upset when we don't "praise" him/her/it adequately is the most laughable display of human egotism.

If there is some sort of deity, it may "mark the sparrow's fall" but it's beyond belief that it gives a rip.

[naturalselection]

34. The Tower of Babel

Just finished this book that deals with the evidence against the "new creationism". I really enjoyed it and it goes into ID, young earth creationists, old earth creationists, and the problems with their ideas.
ID/creationists (whatever you want to call them) are always on the attack rather than providing positive evidence for their ideas. This further discredits the ideas that are proposing.
I never take part in any evolution/creation debate. Usually they are set up for 1-2 hours and it is nearly impossible to cover everything that supports evolution in that time period.

[BurtWorm]

59. I just read that myself.

About a month ago. :thumbsup:

Welcome to DU, by the way. Have you checked out the Science forum?

[DaveJ]

35. Just realized, I.D. looks a lot like 'plausible deniability'

Plausible deniability results in wingnuts who fervently make ridiculous denials of things that anyone in their right mind knows to be true.

According to Wikipedia Plausible Deniability is based on loose chains of command that can be questioned, whereas evolution is also based on a chain of evolutionary events that winguts similarly want to deny really happened.

Just replace fact with fiction and there ya go.

[Beelzebud]

38. It sure does. That's exactly what it is.

They want to skirt the "god" issue by saying a "designer".

It's either god or aliens. We have equal proof of both: Nothing.

[hallc]

87. Or....

As Neil Shanks would say...A time traveling Molecular Biologist...

[Wizard777]

53. Alchemy 102 - Where did it all come from and where is it all going to?

I call it destinys' map. Those "wingnuts" holding it all together have names. Alpha and Omega. The begining and the end. We are obviously some place in the middle. So in accordance to the theory of Triplicities (things formed of three. Like time. Past, present, and future.)If we are in the middle (present)then there must also be a begining (past) and an end (future). I prefer the Alchemist's tale of the creation. It is told in Numbers to create a subtle blend of logic and emotion.
Out of the nothingmess One did come. The One became lonely and divided it's self and there were Two. The One saw that the Two were imperfect and rose above them both and there were three. The three became as one to form the key to unlock the door to evermore. From One, two, three, and four did an infinate multitude come forth.

[Ikonoklast]

46. If there truly is such a thing

as "Intelligent Design" how does one explain the existence of Republicans? Not a whole lot of intelligence went into their creation; they are stuck at the Neanderthal level of higher thinking, IMHO.

On second thought, Rethugs are proof that the Creator has a sense of humor, twisted as it may be.

[JNelson6563]

50. Just another stinky pantload

from creationists conceding there is evidence of evolution. Inject ID into the equation and one still gets to enjoy magical thinking. Ugh.

Julie

[tsuki]

61. Intellegent Design missed the Bushes.

[Vinca]

64. I think it's total crap, but if I'm wrong that means

we're nothing but a giant ant farm.

[mvd]

67. Other

I believe that God set a plan in motion, but that the fundies use the term to cover up for outright creationism.

68. scientists

I feel science took over at some point and scientists want to think they have all the answers or could if given enough time. However I started out on the science track and got disillusioned. It is mechanical, and certainly doesn't explain everything. I think evolution explains some evidence about how we have changed but it doesn't explain why the world is so incredibly beautiful and charged with spirit and fire. It isn't all survival of the fittest. I find that the gentle mourning doves are much more highly evolved than the local grackles, and yet what more does the mourning dove have? More beauty, more grace, more devotion to a mate, more delicacy and poetry. Evolution doesn't account for those features and my science classes surely never pointed that out to me. Many scientists want to triumph over romance and spirit. An ardent evolution teacher I had in college, I found out later died of skin cancer from being in the sun too much. Maybe this is a stretch, but why didn't he follow the laws of science there? Sun = dangerous rays. I think he thought he was bigger than science too. He was just big period. That probably sounds foolish, oh well. :think:

[LanternWaste]

69. I don't think they preclude the existence of the other

I don't think that ID and Evolution (either macro- or micro-) preclude the existence of the other...

[Kraklen]

71. Sure they do.

Intelligent design holds that evolution is too complex to have happened naturally.

[Disturbed]

72. If there was a "designer"

that being must have been a sadist.

[ecstatic]

130. that's my view as well , very well said nt

[Onlooker]

73. It's not science; it's simply a reaction to Evolution

Intelligent design is not intelligent. It's stupid. It basically carves out for itself the remaining questions about evolution and uses those questions to say evolution is wrong. When it tries to argue evolution head on, it presents itself in all arcane ways, for instance, as information science. It relies on fancy language and rare exceptions to the theory of evolution to delude people into believing its legitimate.

At any rate, even if it was correct, one needs simply to look around and discover how unintelligent the Intelligent Designer was--almost everything S/He created has some flaws.

74. intelligent design and evolution

I think neither side has the "answer". The religious groups are trying to stick to the bible and be good Christians, and the evolutionists want to say they "know" how everything works and happened. THey are both lacking, and the answers are way above and beyond logic or the bible.

[BurtWorm]

77. They're working on different problems.

Neither side does have "the answer." The difference is that scientists know that they don't. "Evolutionists" do not want to say what you think they want to say. They do have a method for investigating the physical evidence, and this method leads them to certain conclusions about the origin of species.

Science did not pick this fight. Christians who feel threatened by science did.

[hallc]

88. Evolutionists never say they "know" everything...

They often point out that they have no flipping clue how the whole shabang started, but they believe that in time with more research we can figure it out. Just because we don't know the answer now, doesnt mean we won't figure it out later. By jumping the gun and playing the "god" card, you totally neglect the fact that we haven't exhausted all other possibilities.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. You understand how science works, right?

And you understand, I'm sure, the concept of verifiable physical evidence.

We're not talking about who has "all the answers"... religions make that claim frequently, science never does. (if evidence comes out tomorrow that replaces evolution with something else, THAT will become the current "science") We're talking about what should be taught as science in public school science classes.

[JHBowden]

76. Intelligent Design = creationism

What, you thought a Giant Lobster designed the universe?

More importantly, ID isn't science.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. The Fact That You Did Not Include Flying Spaghetti Monsterism In Your Poll

indicates a clear bias on your part.


http://venganza.org/

[MercutioATC]

120. The author has obviously not been touched by His noodly appendage.

One has only to look at the declining number of pirates to know why we are going to hell in a handbasket.

Ask yourself, WWFSMD?

[Guaranteed]

80. I believe in some form of intelligent design, and while it's arguable

that the philosophy behind it should be examined in school, any religious ideas that are a product of it absolutely should not be.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Maybe aguable, but not in Science class.

Not unless

a) evidence to back it up turns up, or
b) we want to redefine what "science" means.

[Guaranteed]

106. No, it wouldn't be appropriate for science class.

It's philosophy.

[LWolf]

81. That depends.

If you mean the tool currently labeled "intelligent design" by the religious right, used to insert the book of Genesis into the public ed system, it's nothing more than a political manipulation, and I despise it.

If you mean the idea that our reality is somehow "designed" or "created" by an intelligent force, I'm open to the possibility.

I don't think evolution and creation are mututally exclusive. I think that things continue to evolve after they've been brought into being, no matter how that occurs.

[porphyrian]

82. It isn't. - n/t

[sweetheart]

85. there is no duality

There is only intelligent design,
and a fallen world of human mind
decieved and mistaken in to creating
a society of war and oppression.

Lucifer has fallen,
and the garden of eden is riven,
women are eaten like ribs
and mankind is incredibly stupid.

Noah has built his ark, and on
it walk the intellectuals,
2 by two, the brilliant, the wise
and the enlightened.

And a flood of ignorance covered
the earth,
And when the ark came to rest after the flood,
the stupid people killed and ate the
enlightened that they might have enlightenment inside them,
squandering the truth for a fallacy,
and to reflect on the comedy of
intelligent design devolving.

[jzodda]

89. Intelligent design has nothing to do with science

So you want to teach it in philosophy? fine

but as science its a huge joke. No credible scientist would ever call it science either

[etherealtruth]

90. Clear and concise ... thanks!

[slackmaster]

91. ID is an attempt to repackage Genesis mythology as science

It's bull-pucky.

[DanCa]

92. I think it doesn't belong in a school room

That's up to churches and parents and I am a christian. The main problem I have is that no one has the right to force anyone into a person's belief system. Than theres the problem of picking which brand of christianity, and the inevitable problem of teachers "spinning" the bible either thru accident or intent to meet thier own agenda. I mean no disrespect to anyone here. I am just stating my opinion and we all know what opinions are like. Have a terfiffic weekend everyone.

[madeline_con]

93. Other.

Just a way to get Creationism into the schools.

Too bad we're onto them, and are fighting the plan, regardless of the choice of name they give it.

[retread]

94. Intelligent design would preclude putting reproduction so

close to elimination.

[Astarho]

97. None of those options really fit

If by Intelligent Design, you mean "Evolution was guided by a higher force"

That to me sounds more like philosophy than science, and I would have no problem including that in a high school philosophy class (It would be nice just to have a high school philosophy class).

If you mean "The world is too complex for evolution to have just happened, therefore, God did it"

That's just watered-down creationism

[JanMichael]

100. That it's a last gasp effort to explain the eventually expainable.

And an effort to continue Human blindness as to our origins.

[pitohui]

101. it is silly

anyone who knows anatomy can see god is a piss-poor engineer

maybe they should have called it microsoft design

make it somewhat believable

[GoneOffShore]

102. I would point the people who voted for it

along with those who 'wish it were true' and the 'other' category to Richard Dawkins' book, 'The Blind Watchmaker' for an intelligent discussion of the fallacies of 'intelligent design' or as it's more properly known, 'Creationism'.
Here are some links to Dawkins:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_dawkins/

[wickerwoman]

117. That's who I was thinking of!

I remember in one book he argues that the sole alone should disprove intelligent design. It's a flatfish that used to be a roundfish(?) and you can still see half of it's nose sticking sideways out of the top of its head.

[Sentath]

108. Its not only bad science, its bad theology.

thus - an 'other' vote.

[Guaranteed]

111. You know, the term "intelligent design" originated in philosophy.

It's been stolen recently by the religious right to put a secular spin on their wanting to put prayer in schools.

But, as a philosophical discussion, I think the idea of "intelligent design" is something that people should address critically, and to dismiss it as pure theology would be wrong.

[BurtWorm]

119. Actually, Bullgoose, ID is "natural theology" in new bottles.

Google "Paley natural theology." It's not science or philosophy, really. It's rooted in apologetics for Christianity.

[Guaranteed]

121. We used the term "intelligent design" in all of my

philosophy classes.

That was the term used when we discussed the arguments that have been put forward for the existence of "a god." And they were philosophical arguments- there was no Bible-quoting.

The religious right stole it.

[Sentath]

146. The OP is what I said to my minister

after he endorsed ID from the pulpit.

If he had wanted to debate it as philosophy I'd have had no objections, but he was trying to shoehorn it into religion. I thought we already had those answers in religion?

[wtmusic]

126. Beat me to it!

It's what has happened to every deity when science has caught up and created a better explanation for natural phenomena.

[stevietheman]

109. My standard position statement on ID

"Intelligent design" is not a valid theory, and it's not science. Its backers are unintelligent people who don't have a clue about design in general, how biological systems naturally change to adapt (and in these adaptations, become more complex), and that science is always an approximation of understanding of natural causes for what we observe. Fundamentalist Christians however would have us stop thinking and accept the absurd idea that complex life forms can be perfected right off the bat, while essentially denying all the observations that make evolution a valid, if not yet thoroughly examined, scientific theory, if not fact.

[lonestarnot]

110. Total believer, but don't want it rammed down anyone's throat.

[eridani]

113. It should be called Stupid Design

--because it's based on the premise that an entity smart enough to invent the operating system of the universe is nonetheless still too stupid to get it right the first time.

[LibertyorDeath]

116. It is pure shit

Served up for the magical thinkers.

[bklyncowgirl]

122. Religion is Religion--Science is Science

I talked to a woman yesterday who said that her son, who was taking AP biology, was told to study the chapters on evolution over the summer as the teacher would not cover this topic in class. This is in an upscale community in a perfectly blue state. It's possible that the mother got it wrong--but if this is true this is chilling. I don't live in that particular community but I know people who do and I know that some of them will be very interested to hear that the schools that their taxes pay for are not fully educating their children for fear of offending some small group of religious fanatics.

I went to Catholic High School. When we started on evolution, the teacher said something to the effect that we would study the Biblical account of creation in Religion class and how the natural world (which as Catholics we believed that God created)works in Biology class. We then went on to learn straight evolutionary theory untainted by any talk of God, creationism or anything of the sort.

Wouldn't it be ironic if kids had to go to Catholic school in order to learn evolution--although with the new Pope, who knows if even they will survive the fundamentalists.

[Solly Mack]

127. I just want someone to intelligently design a kitchen for short people

and that's about where I'm at with it.

[ecstatic]

129. I don't believe I'm here by chance

I have a Bachelor of Science so of course I know that evolution is real, but all the Big Bang stuff requires just as much faith as it does to believe that there is a Creator behind all of this.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Well, as soon as you can find three degrees of background radiation

that verifies the existence of a "creator", I will agree with you on that... But the big bang has physical evidence to back it up, "God" does not.

[Deja Q]

136. God created all. But God ALSO allowed his Creation to EVOLVE.

Why so many creationists are unable to fathom this mundane truth is beyond me.

Well, not really. They parrot things and choose NOT to think.

[retread]

139. His ???? Your God has a masculine gender? Hmmmm.

*

[Deja Q]

143. I forgot to put in my usual disclaimer:

"God is beyond corporeal gender. I sometimes refer to God as 'He/Him' out of force-of-habit and nothing more."

My intention was not meant to be sexist...

So shoot me then. You've already bashed me with your tedious pedantics.

BTW: If you bother to take the time and see some of my other posts, you WILL see that I generally AVOID the masculine term or at least put in the disclaimer.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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