[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Intelligent Design.... (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 8/19/2008 2:51:09 AM EDT
|
what a joke feel free to discuss take it away HENRY "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." -- Voltaire |
Did that idiot not evolve proper motor control of his arms?  I believe in a Creator, and therefore that the design of the universe, and everything in it, is an intelligent design (lower case). I also believe that the mechanisms of that design are interpreted by us through science as evolution (geologic or biologic). IOW, I have no conflict whatsoever with accepting Belief and Science. If God wanted to design me from a fresh dog turd or an ape, who am I to argue? ID (capitals), as a SCIENCE is right up there with Global Warming: it's bunk. I wish it weren't, but there it is. IBTST. (In Before The Shit Storm)
|
|
We look at a work of art by Picasso and think "Wow! What beauty! What an artist!". We look at the human body and say "Wow! What a random product of chance with no design!" Yet the latter is far more beautiful than the former and we believe it is a fluke chance. Does not compute. |
Agreed, but it takes more than that for it to be labled SCIENCE. Yes, I look across creation and say, "Wow! Can God cook or can He COOK!". Sadly, however, that is no more proof of His existence than, "Because the Bible says so."
|
You'd be suprised the stuff nature can come up with after BILLIONS OF YEARS  |
Doonsbury is in for SUCH a shock when he dies.... 
|
|
I tend to not really listen to what Henry Rollins has to say on any topic, let alone something like intelligent design. I also don't seek his opinions on neurosurgery, foreign diplomacy, astrophysics, or engineering. Why? HE'S A FUCKING ENTERTAINER. I also don't listen to Susan Sarandon, Madonna, Britney Spears, or Tim Robbins. |
Theres a lot of truth to that...... |
You have to distinguish between big "ID" Intelligent Design and little "id" intelligent design. Intelligent Design = a poor attempt at making a scientific argument that evolution didn't happen and the earth is 6000 years old. intelligent design = a philosophical position based upon inductive reasoning that argues that the sheer complexity and majesty of the universe suggests an intelligence behind said universe's design. What you're suggesting is little "id," which is different from the big "ID" being fought about these days in the local school boards. |
you do know, do you not, that voltaire was an avid atheist? The priest at the deathbed said, as Voltaire was a bit of a skeptic towards religion: "I urge you to swear off the devil." Voltaire replied "Now now, young man, this is not the right time to make enemies." |
|
I have two quotes on this... "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." -Isaac Asimov and... "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture!" -Pastor Ray Mummert, creationist/intelligent design proponent, March 2005 |
No, any minute now the TB is going to develop a circulatory system, brain and nervous system, etc. etc. and then we'll be in for big trouble! |
What you call "ID" is Creationism - "Intelligent Design" whether capitalized or not, has nothing to do with Creationism. ID neither cares nor claims to know "who" designed anything - it primarily looks at the known age of the universe, the presumed earliest appearence of life, and the state of life now, and analyzes the probability that natural change could get us to where we are now in the time available. It's kind of like some tollways that give you a stamped ticket when you get on them, and then check the time when you reach the exit - if you get there too soon, they know you had to be speeding. ID seeks to see if we "got there too soon". |
That's not what they tried to implement in the Kansas school district a few years ago under the name "ID." It appears that ID is kind of like feminism, no one really knowns what the name means. |
The Dover case pretty much established that ID is just Creationism in new clothes. If you want to think of ID as "science", it is really bad science. "Global Warming" bad. |
The problem with ID is that it takes a reasonable philosophical argument (complexity suggests design) and tries to force it into a scientific argument by saying that mathematically, the "chance" of this happening randomly is so small that one must conclude that an intelligent power is behind it. The problem, of course, is that it is almost impossible to talk about the "chance" of the universe working the way it does because we have nothing to compare our universe to. If somehow you were able to take a God's eye view of things and watch 1000 universes get started and fall to crap, but one universe created a wonderous human civilization, then you could at least have the beginnings of a scientific argument for intelligence, but of course no one can have that kind of perspective. |
|
The idiocy of "ID" in any incarnation damages our country by surrendering educational excellence to foreigners who have no problems with kooks fighting to teach fantasy in their science classes. It also lowers our prestige in the world as a nation, by projecting the image of ignorant, backwards, unintelligent and superstitious buffoons. It also makes Christians look like swindlers, lunatics, and liars. |
Not likely. |
That is what faith is about. If we had proof we wouldn't need it |
Westboro is supposed to be a "Baptist" church, too - you can;t stop someone from misusing a word - look at how its "pro-choice", not "pro-interuterine infanticide"... |
gotta agree with the deduction regarding the lies in the kitzmiller case http://web.archive.org/web/20051030082431/http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87427/ |
and if it can't be proved, it has no place in our educational system, at least not within the sciences. I am fine with people believing what they want, but science class is not the place for faith discussions. |
False argument - we can look at the fossil record, and see how fast life changed in the past. We can compare that to current rates of genetic drift and mutation, especially in isolated breeding populations, and see what the numbers say. |
ok |
Are we really misusing it? From wiki:
ID is the bastard child of creationism. |
1. How do they misuse baptist? Having no creeds leaves the term baptist open to those who wish to use it. It is neither trademarked, nor backed by any lengthy theological treatise, at least not in modern America. Im not here to defend them, just their right to be called baptists... |
Fuck it let's extermenate the lot of them. After all with no souls there is no reprecussion right 
|
Not false. There is no scientific baseline set in stone to say that evolution should take X or Y amount of years. The ID argument is basically "We don't think it should have taken this long to evolve, so must be God did it." It is basically a "God of the gaps" argument, which is not a very good argument. |
The establishment clause appleis only to Congress. One of the first official acts of Congress was to order Christian bibles - the establishment clause was meant to prohibit Congress from making a particular BRANCH of Christianity the Official State Religion - a la Church of England. Since a shcool district is not Congress, it can;t violate the establishment clause. But that's just one example of how much fail this judge is full of... |
Fill me in on when Evolution was "proved" - if it was, it would be the Law of Evolution. |
O.k. I guess we're now changing subjects from "what is intelligent design" to "I don't like current church/state jurisprudence." On our new topic, you are wrong about the 1st Amendment. It applies to the state via the 14th Amendment. As for church/state separation, I think it does go too far at times, but in this instance I agree with the Courts. There is no place in a science class for a religious argument. If they want to teach comparative theology then the school should have a theology elective. |
Certainly, not all theories have been vetted sufficiently to become a law. That said, evolution, at many levels has been supported enough to merit discussion. At the same time, the ID crowd has done little more than say, things are too nice to be an accident. Religion belongs in the Humanities, testable hypotheses and observation belongs in the science class. |