Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[Kenny'sID]

That really does seem to be the real reason for the existence of ID. Remember back in the 2000's, there was a push to get ID in the classroom. This resulted in the Dover trial where it was exposed as basically being 'creationism's trojan horse'.

As opposed as the world is to it, that really surprises you? They will always come up with something, viable or not.

Beyond that was else has ID contributed to the sciences? Nothing as far as I can tell.

Yet your opinion is not the only one one. You claim it hasn't, others claim differently, believe who you will.

Sure, but that hasn't happened yet.

Opinion.

Like I said, religion always seems to precede ID

Of course it does, not sure why you push that like it's not perfectly natural it would, unless you think it's a Conspiracy. If so, you'll just have to weigh all the reasons that would happen that have nothing to do with conspiracy, against whatever.

Science is science. Certainly there would be those that have trouble accepting it, but if ID were proven to be overwhelmingly scientifically true, it would be probably the single most profound discovery in human history. It would take some time, but if that's where the science truly led that that's ultimately what would be accepted.

You just aren't paying attention the the OP, are you? There are so many that see it already as fact...old news.

Then why bring it up?

Because it the context I mentioned it, it bared mentioning. Or in short, because it was part of what I wanted to say. Did that seriously offend you? If so, no idea why.

 

[Speedwell]

It's a general attitude, and I'll always generally feel that way. Maybe you need to block me?

No, I understand that it is common with you people--I've lived in the Bible Belt and borne the brunt of it, seen it turn even into violence. Being too outspoken about it is against the rules of this forum, however.

Signed on to what?

The doctrine of the Discovery Institute. You are defending it, are you not? Or are you just tagging along because it appears to be opposed to atheism and non-YEC Christianity?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, I understand that it is common with you people--I've lived in the Bible Belt and borne the brunt of it, seen it turn even into violence. Being too outspoken about it is against the rules of this forum, however.

OK.

The doctrine of the Discovery Institute. You are defending it, are you not? Or are you just tagging along because it appears to be opposed to atheism and non-YEC Christianity?

What I say are my words, again, I don't even know who they are. What exactly do you hope to accomplish with this line of posting? I ask so we can get past it...it seems to be a waist of time to me, at least at this point..

 

[dmmesdale]

That really does seem to be the real reason for the existence of ID.

Opinion.

Remember back in the 2000's, there was a push to get ID in the classroom.

As i recall Dover was about a book in the library. You are overstating. Schools decide their cirriculum at the state level. We don't need the courts to dictate our teaching content. Esp when the bulk of funding is by state and local property taxes. 95% in my state. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=523

This resulted in the Dover trial where it was exposed as basically being 'creationism's trojan horse'.

Most of your creationists would disagree.

Beyond that was else has ID contributed to the sciences? Nothing as far as I can tell.

What has unguided evo and its evil twin abio. (Life from nonlife)? Nothing. It is useless. Here is the con job. To oppose your agenda is to oppose science itself. Self-serving garbage.

Like I said, religion always seems to precede ID; you can't have one without the other.

Yes you can but i don't have much of a problem going to church and i know others who do not attend but believe in a creator. So you are flat out wrong.

Which begs the question as to what ID is in the first place. It hasn't proven it's any kind of legitimate avenue of scientific inquiry. It seems primarily used as an evangelism tool.

Why is naturalism here in the first place? If not for evangelistic purposes? Fact being you can't stand the competition. Your assumptions fall apart under scrutiny.

Science is science. Certainly there would be those that have trouble accepting it, but if ID were proven to be overwhelmingly scientifically true,

ID is true even if it is not scientifically true as you say. When it comes to origin of life the so-called religious beats out the so-called scientific. Again. Truth is not subject to revision.

it would be probably the single most profound discovery in human history.

Not really.

The problem is it's never been anywhere close to that. Right now it's largely in the realm of pseudo-science.

And your science is in the realm of pseudo-reality.

 

[Speedwell]

OK.



What I say are my words, again, I don't even know who they are. What exactly do you hope to accomplish with this line of posting? I ask so we can get past it...it seems to be a waist of time to me, at least at this point..

Because I want to know if you are merely defending the notion that God being creator also makes him in some sense the "designer" of the universe--in which case we have no argument--or if you are actually arguing in favor of Intelligent Design, that is, Complex Specified Information and Irreducible Complexity, like our colleague Dmmsdale is?

 

[dmmesdale]

Intelligent Design is the invention of a group of militant Calvinists in Seattle calling themselves the Discovery Institute.

And what are you if not just another rear echelon Christian looking up the backside of front liners for so called heresy detection. Whats not to love?

 

[Speedwell]

And what are you if not just another rear echelon Christian looking up the backside of front liners for so called heresy detection. Whats not to love?

And how does promoting egregious pseudoscience help you front liners? Where is the Gospel of Christ in your evangelizing?

 

[pitabread]

Opinion. As i recall Dover was about a book in the library.

You might want to refresh your memory: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

Schools decide their cirriculum at the state level. We don't need the courts to dictate our teaching content.

Sure you do, if you're trying to insert religion in the science classroom. That's a violation of something-or-other, constitutional law I believe?

Most of your creationists would disagree.

The court decided otherwise.

What has unguided evo and its evil twin abio. (Life from nonlife)? Nothing. It is useless.

Sorry (not sorry) but this is where you're 100% wrong. Not even wrong as in opinion, but factually, empirically incorrect. Evolutionary biology has a variety of real-world application. My favorite is in comparative genomics methodologies which use phylogenetics (i.e. evolutionary relationships) as part of their analytical approach. In turn, comparative genomics itself is seeing application in everything from agriculture, medical research, conservation biology, forestry, etc.

Now don't go running to any creationist websites trying to find a rebuttal for this. They are firmly in denial over this. And I suspect you will be as well. It's something that after a decade or so, I've never seen any creationist address with the exception of a single AiG article in which the author complained about the methodologies used (but offered no alternatives).

Yes you can but i don't have much of a problem going to church and i know others who do not attend but believe in a creator. So you are flat out wrong.

This has nothing to do with attending church. My point is that you'll be hard pressed to find anyone concluding ID without first ascribing to some sort of religious/theistic belief.

And your science is in the realm of pseudo-reality.

Modern evolutionary biology is an applied science, kiddo. This is why creationism/ID as a grassroots campaign (which is all it really is) ultimately is moot because you can't readily dislodge something which is actually useful in the real world. Especially when you're talking about applications in things like agriculture or medicine which are multi-trillion-dollar industries.

Most creationists turn a blind eye to this because, well, what else are they supposed to do? They can't win against industry.

 

[pitabread]

Yet your opinion is not the only one one. You claim it hasn't, others claim differently, believe who you will.

ID is barely a pseudo-science. It's been generally ill-defined and pretty much regulated to pop-sci books. There aren't any applications of it yet.

If you have an example of a) ID as method of legitimate scientific inquiry, and b) a practical application thereof, then show me. Otherwise, it's not a matter of opinion.

You just aren't paying attention the the OP, are you? There are so many that see it already as fact...old news.

People believing in ID is not the same as ID being a legitimate science. It's not and never has been.

Because it the context I mentioned it, it bared mentioning. Or in short, because it was part of what I wanted to say. Did that seriously offend you? If so, no idea why.

I'm not offended. It just seemed like a non-sequitur.

 

[Kenny'sID]

ID is barely a pseudo-science. It's been generally ill-defined and pretty much regulated to pop-sci books. There aren't any applications of it yet.

If you have an example of a) ID as method of legitimate scientific inquiry, and b) a practical application thereof, then show me. Otherwise, it's not a matter of opinion.

Example? you're getting way ahead of yourself, a)show me some legitimate example of *your* beliefs. Sorry, but if you are saying It came form someplace other than ID, *you* need to back it up/prove evolution, and until then it absolutely is opinion.

People can be so gullible with this evolution stuff.

The OP is proof enough for me, but if someone wants to hide their head in the sand and refuse to see what is so obvious, that's up to them.

People believing in ID is not the same as ID being a legitimate science. It's not and never has been.

I don't care if you don't think it's legit. You look at the OP and still can't put 2 and 2 together, then you think I'm actually concerned about what you think? No offense intended, it's just a natural and logical thought process for me not to worry about what you think, for the reason I mentioned.

It's like me showing you the white cloud and you insisting it's purple. There is a point there where your opinion just won't matter to me, I can see it, and as far as I'm concerned, you clearly cannot.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because I want to know if you are merely defending the notion that God being creator also makes him in some sense the "designer" of the universe--in which case we have no argument--or if you are actually arguing in favor of Intelligent Design, that is, Complex Specified Information and Irreducible Complexity, like our colleague Dmmsdale is?

OK, I think I've given you your answer already.

 

[Jimmy D]

Example? you're getting way ahead of yourself, a)show me some legitimate example of *your* beliefs. Sorry, but if you are saying It came form someplace other than ID, *you* need to back it up/prove evolution, and until then it absolutely is opinion.

Please, we all know that you're not interested in any evidence and will hand wave away anything that is presented. Do you think no one can remember last time, when you demanded the theory of evolution be explained so a five year old could understand and you promptly ran way?

People can be so gullible with this evolution stuff.

Empirical evidence can be verified independently if you have the necessary education and as Pita said, it has real-world, practical applications.

The OP is proof enough for me, but if someone wants to hide their head in the sand and refuse to see what is so obvious, that's up to them

Then you have a very low standard of 'proof'. The OP is a question, and not a particularly well thought out one.

I don't care if you don't think it's legit. You look at the OP and still can't put 2 and 2 together, then you think I'm actually concerned about what you think? No offense intended, it's just a natural and logical thought process for me not to worry about what you think, for the reason I mentioned.

It's like me showing you the white cloud and you insisting it's purple. There is a point there where your opinion just won't matter to me, I can see it, and as far as I'm concerned, you clearly cannot.

Did a designer sculpt and paint each cloud?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is not with the analogy. It is your dogmatism. Here is another one. Finding the starship Enterprise on the moon complete with dummy instruction manuals. Yours would have us believe the source was intrinsic to the moon while we would argue an intelligent extrinsic of the moon. Based on the simple fact the moon cannot make a starship.

Just like cars, starships aren't organic living systems that reproduce with variation and compete for limited resources.

So they wouldn't be subject to a process like evolution.

By using this kind of argument, your "objection" to evolution theory is a analogous to objecting to gravity by saying "When you drop a hammer in the international spacestation, it floats and doesn't fall!!!"

So, yes... if you remove all the factors that power the evolutionary process, then no evolution happens. Whooptie-doo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They infer a extrinsic living source based on the effects, not an observed cause. Same with their imaginary ancestors to bacteria. If you rule out the one then to be consistent, the other must be ruled out. LUCA must be ruled out because LUCA is unobserved according to your unscientific standards.

Should we also rule out that orphans have parents?

Yes you are. We do not have to observe the cause of an event. We reason from effect/event to cause.

You are contradicting yourself, because that is exactly how we have concluded the existance of a LUCA.

Identity is investigated after the cause is established. Not before.

Not before?
It seems to me that as a creationist, that is EXACTLY what you do. You assert/assume a very specific god entity, before actually asking the question.

If a suit is evidence of a tailor then life is evidence of a living super intelligent cause.

A suit doesn't reproduce with variation and isn't in competition for limited resources.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course we don't know that it was solely the result of natural forces. Your problem is that you want to eliminate the possibility a priori and you can't do it.

Why can't i?

Because you don't have the answers before you even asked the questions.

 

[pitabread]

Example? you're getting way ahead of yourself, a)show me some legitimate example of *your* beliefs.

That's not how this works. I pointed out that ID hasn't contributed anything to the sciences. It's just a pseudo-science.

You claimed this was a matter of "opinion". So if it's just a matter of opinion, then surely you have an example of ID's scientific contributions, yes?

If not, then obviously it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Trying to change the subject isn't going to help you here.

The OP is proof enough for me, but if someone wants to hide their head in the sand and refuse to see what is so obvious, that's up to them.

If the OP is "proof enough" for you, then you have a ridiculously low standard of evidence.

I don't care if you don't think it's legit.

Good. Because it isn't.

There is a point there where your opinion just won't matter to me, I can see it, and as far as I'm concerned, you clearly cannot.

Except this isn't a matter of opinion. My contention is simple: ID has not contributed anything to the sciences. Either you have a legitimate example that proves this wrong or you don't. It's that simple.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If not, then obviously it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Trying to change the subject isn't going to help you here.

No one even came close to changing the subject. It was part of the subject and where the subject led. Making false accusations aren't going to help you here.

If the OP is "proof enough" for you, then you have a ridiculously low standard of evidence.

Nope just eyes and half a brain.

That's not how this works. I pointed out that ID hasn't contributed anything to the sciences.

Sorry dude, you don't get to be the decider on what works and what doesn't. Show me one proof that claims of evolution contributes anything more than a bunch of people too big for their britches that cannot see what is right in front of their face, so they have to make up, and even fall for something they fantasized.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Example? you're getting way ahead of yourself, a)show me some legitimate example of *your* beliefs. Sorry, but if you are saying It came form someplace other than ID, *you* need to back it up/prove evolution, and until then it absolutely is opinion.

Being unconvinced of ID does not require someone to put forth an alternative explanation though, does it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I really wish the OP had added a video of "comfortably numb" to the original post.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Being unconvinced of ID does not require someone to put forth an alternative explanation though, does it?

None of this "requires" anything. You act as if there is a set in stone set of rules here.