Intelligent Design

[mikeynov]

The fact is that Evolution has put the clamp on the search for real knowledge. We won't get a real cure for cancer or even a cure for the common cold untill we can overcome the shackles of Evolutionary theory
Louis Pasteur was a pious Christian and he was fought by the Evolutionary Atheists. Can you imagine the world if they had won? Because of Evolution we are forced to believe that Homosexuality is normal, so what chance of a cure?
Because of Evolution we are forced to believe we have evolved to live on junk food and that it is normal to have by pass surgery every couple of years.
Evolution is just a faith belief and I would not mind it nor would I mind Islam, only these aggressive Religions seek to impose their will on everyone - believer or not. Keith
'Each in his own Tongue'A fire-mist and a planet, A crystal and a cell,A jelly-fish and a saurian, And caves where the cave-men dwell;Then a sense of law and beauty And a face turned from the clod, --Some call it Evolution, And others call it God.A haze on the far horizon, The infinite, tender sky,The ripe, rich tint of the cornfields, And the wild geese sailing high;And all over upland and lowland The charm of the golden-rod, --Some of us call it Autumn, And others call it God.Like tides on a crescent sea-beach, When the moon is new and thin,Into our hearts high yearnings Come welling and surging in:Come from the mystic ocean, Whose rim no foot has trod, --Some of us call it Longing, And others call it God.A picket frozen on duty, A mother starved for her brood,Socrates drinking the hemlock, And Jesus on the rood;And millions who, humble and nameless, The straight, hard pathway plod, --Some call it Consecration, And others call it God. -- William Herbert Carruth

Hello. My name is evidence. Please click on me and attempt to rebut me.

 

[raphael_aa]

fanatical Darwinists I notice have no knowledge or experience with biology and absoluty no reading in the History of Science. They just believe the fairy tales their Atheist Sunday teachers have taught them without question in perfect trust. After all it takes a lot of work to read hundreds of books on a subject and with so much fun to be had it is bliss to be ignorant. Reading books only confused a perfectly happy placid mind. It is disturbing to discover that no one really knows all that much and there are millions of con men out there trying to pull a swift one over you. How much nicer to believe that one could trust some one. Like trust Scientists. Scientists by some fluke of "Evolution" are incapable of telling lies or acquiring knowledge that it not absolutely true. And the less you know about Science the more you can beleive. Keith

Would you mind reducing the emotional content of your post and actually cite evidence?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Would you mind reducing the emotional content of your post and actually cite evidence?

I think you'll note that without the emotional content of the post, there's no post.

 

[JoshuaW]

Study of the continuing adaptation of life is not heresy, it is a celebration of God's commitment to survival. God will not be offended if we cannot accurately define his role in the development of creatures...he is ultimately responsible for all of it.

As caretakers of his creation we have the responsibility to understand all life in every detail, to "read the operating manual", which is not found in the Bible but the wisdom of science.

Being a Christian does not give you the luxury of not having to use your brain. God's creations are complex, and it is through science that we understand them.
Joshua

 

[Elduran]

Study of the continuing adaptation of life is not heresy, it is a celebration of God's commitment to survival. God will not be offended if we cannot accurately define his role in the development of creatures...he is ultimately responsible for all of it.

As caretakers of his creation we have the responsibility to understand all life in every detail, to "read the operating manual", which is not found in the Bible but the wisdom of science.

Being a Christian does not give you the luxury of not having to use your brain. God's creations are complex, and it is through science that we understand them.
Joshua

Great post, have reps.

 

[Elduran]

The fact is that Evolution has put the clamp on the search for real knowledge. We won't get a real cure for cancer or even a cure for the common cold untill we can overcome the shackles of Evolutionary theory

Amusing comment, especially since evolutionary theory allows us to understand how diseases adapt to nullify treatments, which the opposing theories (ID/Creationism) offer no insight whatsoever on the subject of disease treatment.

Louis Pasteur was a pious Christian and he was fought by the Evolutionary Atheists. Can you imagine the world if they had won?

ALL scientists are "fought" (a better word would be opposed) by the rest of the scientific community before their word is accepted. This review process is what keeps bad science out and ensures that the good science is all that's let in. His theories made it into the scientific community because they were well evidenced.

Because of Evolution we are forced to believe that Homosexuality is normal, so what chance of a cure?

Homosexuality IS normal, and saying there's no cure for it is essentially stating it is a disease, which is amazingly offensive to any homosexuals reading this. So much for tolerance...

Because of Evolution we are forced to believe we have evolved to live on junk food and that it is normal to have by pass surgery every couple of years.

What are you talking about? Scientists specifically state that junk food is BAD for you, and that you need to stay fit to AVOID heart problems. So I reiterate, what are you talking about?

Evolution is just a faith belief

Incorrect. Evolutionary theory is based on many lines of independent research, all of which can be viewed and analysed by anyone willing to look at it. Do not compare this to the very subjective evidence of a religion, because it is not the same thing by a long shot.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The fact is that Evolution has put the clamp on the search for real knowledge. We won't get a real cure for cancer or even a cure for the common cold untill we can overcome the shackles of Evolutionary theory

I’m not sure if you could come off more ignorant about the ToE or more bass ackwards to reality if you tried… hmm… maybe you are trying.

Louis Pasteur was a pious Christian and he was fought by the Evolutionary Atheists. Can you imagine the world if they had won?

First time I’ve heard of this. Please show me where I can read about the Pasteur vs. “The Atheists” fight. You seem to suggest “The atheists” were against pasteurization for some reason. I’d like to read about that.

Because of Evolution we are forced to believe that Homosexuality is normal, so what chance of a cure?

Hmm.. I don’t think I’ve seen an evolutionary argument for homosexuality being normal. The closest I’ve seen is an isolated gene in specimens (I think fruit flies) that caused males to exhibit female behavior. I doubt this is what you are referring to as it would mean you actually were reading and learning about an evolutionary related subject so please show me some evidence of this.

Because of Evolution we are forced to believe we have evolved to live on junk food and that it is normal to have by pass surgery every couple of years.

Got evidence?

Evolution is just a faith belief and I would not mind it nor would I mind Islam, only these aggressive Religions seek to impose their will on everyone - believer or not. Keith

I think you are projecting. Aside from your infantile attempt to appeal to your ilk’s hatred of Islam and lump evolution in with it somehow, your assertion is only accurate about your own beliefs and how you wield them.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

fanatical Darwinists I notice have no knowledge or experience with biology and absoluty no reading in the History of Science. They just believe the fairy tales their Atheist Sunday teachers have taught them without question in perfect trust. After all it takes a lot of work to read hundreds of books on a subject and with so much fun to be had it is bliss to be ignorant. Reading books only confused a perfectly happy placid mind. It is disturbing to discover that no one really knows all that much and there are millions of con men out there trying to pull a swift one over you. How much nicer to believe that one could trust some one. Like trust Scientists. Scientists by some fluke of "Evolution" are incapable of telling lies or acquiring knowledge that it not absolutely true. And the less you know about Science the more you can beleive. Keith

I’m going to do you a favor here bio. I know you may feel persecuted or vilified here but it’s for your own good at this point. I’m going to illustrate how pitifully ignorant you seem when you post excrement lie this.

fanatical Darwinists

In your first two words you already come off as instigative and ignorant. Your quickness to label supporters of the ToE (Theory of Evolution) as “fanatical” just means that you are intolerant of anyone that does not believe like you do. Your use of the word “Darwinist” means that you are stuck in the past vilifying the pioneer of the ToE. Meanwhile it also tells us that you are ignorant of the fact that the ToE has come very far since the days of Darwin and is now beyond repute. In two words you give away the fact that you are not only ignorant of the very thing you rail against but also intolerant of others. The only thing you’ve accomplished thus far is attempt to instigate a fight in order to derail a thread that you can’t reply to intelligently. Resort to this kind of behavior is merely a sign of a weak intellect.

I notice have no knowledge or experience with biology and absoluty no reading in the History of Science.

This is what’s called projecting. Projecting is “To externalize and attribute (an emotion or motive, for example) unconsciously to someone or something else in order to avoid anxiety.” You are taking your inadequacies in this area and assigning them to your opponents in order to avoid the anxiety caused by your own deficient knowledge in these areas.

They just believe the fairy tales their Atheist Sunday teachers have taught them without question in perfect trust.

Your projecting again. At this point it’s painfully obvious as there is no such thing as “Atheist Sunday teachers” while you are referring to your own religious “Sunday school” experience.

After all it takes a lot of work to read hundreds of books on a subject and with so much fun to be had it is bliss to be ignorant. Reading books only confused a perfectly happy placid mind. It is disturbing to discover that no one really knows all that much and there are millions of con men out there trying to pull a swift one over you.

Now you are projecting more and leading into a conspiracy theory. Attempting to assert that there are millions of people involved in some intricate conspiracy to advance the ToE only makes you appear insane.

How much nicer to believe that one could trust some one. Like trust Scientists. Scientists by some fluke of "Evolution" are incapable of telling lies or acquiring knowledge that it not absolutely true. And the less you know about Science the more you can beleive. Keith

More projecting. This sounds suspiciously just like you have come to develop your own beliefs doesn’t it Keith? Meanwhile it’s not any one scientist or even group of scientists that we trust. In the end we trust the scientific method to run as a check and balance to those scientists that would be dishonest. This is why ID can’t get published in any peer reviewed journals and why it’s not legitimate science. The scientific method allows no room for pseudo-science like ID. In the end the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Real science, like the ToE, give us advancements all the time. New medicines, new genetic insights to making life that will make medicine, gene therapy, the list goes on. What has “creation science” done for mankind? The best you are going to find is some real scientists over the years that happened to be religious. They, however, we not blinded to the fact that they could believe in god and science at the same time. Pasteur didn’t make his discoveries by praying to your god™, he made them by using the scientific method and being the same kind of scientist that you would now vilify if he didn’t happen to coincide with your very narrow beliefs.

 

[Code-Monkey]

The biggest backfire to the ID movement, if it ever gets taught in school is that the designer's designs will be judged. Could you imagine an architecture class or anthropology class where the makers of buildings or tools could not be discussed?

I see two things coming from this movement, we will begin to question how intelligent the designer is, and we will also end up with multiple designers. Why else would some creatures be made just to feast on another in a vicious way (like that flesh eating catepiller)?

I can only speak from comparisons I see to things in my field. But the human body, a replicating cell, and especially the human mind are so incredibly fascinating that we simply can't come close to designing something that complex in computers. In fact in programming a lot of us understand the impossibility of developing an actually "intelligent" computer. The fact is it could never be anything other than programmed to do this or that. Until it becomes free to objectively evaluate things itself, it is no more intelligent than an apple falling to the ground.

The intelligence is people is so far greater than anything we have the ability to design. So when we say, "that was designed well", we apply some meaning to that sentence. But the fact is we know our bodies are far better designed than what we create. By comparison's sake, if we want to pretend to call things we build "intelligently designed", we have to also admit that our brains are far more intelligently designed.

There isn't any real notion (outside of hollywood perhaps) that we can someday get computers to love, to hate, and so forth. We simply can't outdo the design of our own bodies.

 

[doaftheloaf]

There's a major problem with you comparing the Universe to God. Technically, the universe has always existed because time didn't start until the Big Bang (which created the Universe). Scientists can't say what was before the Big Bang because that just doesn't make any sense. It's like asking what's north of the North Pole. The math breaks down at that point so you can't figure out what was before just like the math breaks down trying to find north of the North Pole.

Now, what valid reason is there for the designer being unexplainable? Is he a divide by zero error?

You're just assuming your model is true before you try to prove your point. It's like me referring to Biblical quotes to prove the Bible's legitimacy. Besides that, how are you so sure that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, history's first event? Isn't it also entirely possible that something happened before the creation of the universe (whether by God or natural forces)? One possible explanation could be that what exploded in the Big Bang was the remains of another universe that had contracted on itself.

As for the designer being unexplainable, what is it you want explained? I admit I don't know everything, but I am somewhat curious as to what your questions are.

One point, did you know that an event with 0% chance of ever occurring can occur? If something that's mathematically impossible occurred, did a miracle happen, or was it more likely that you conditioned on too specific of an event?

It's about as possible as the Yankees being 6 games back of the Red Sox with 5 games to go and finishing ahead. If something has 0% chance of occurring, that means it cannot happen. If you've come up with a 0% probability that happens, something's wrong with your math.

 

[Caphi]

You're just assuming your model is true before you try to prove your point. It's like me referring to Biblical quotes to prove the Bible's legitimacy. Besides that, how are you so sure that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, history's first event? Isn't it also entirely possible that something happened before the creation of the universe (whether by God or natural forces)? One possible explanation could be that what exploded in the Big Bang was the remains of another universe that had contracted on itself.

Not at all. A model must be self-coherent. If another model is assumed, naturally the first will turn out to be shown false. To refute a model in absence of evidence (i. e. using only logic), one must begin by working within the predictions of that model and thus come up with a map, as it were, of the model's inconsistencies and limitations.

 

[doaftheloaf]

Not at all. A model must be self-coherent. If another model is assumed, naturally the first will turn out to be shown false. To refute a model in absence of evidence (i. e. using only logic), one must begin by working within the predictions of that model and thus come up with a map, as it were, of the model's inconsistencies and limitations.

You start with "not at all", yet the rest of your post does nothing to refute mine.

 

[Caphi]

You start with "not at all", yet the rest of your post does nothing to refute mine.

Your post asserted that random_guy was using circular logic to prove a point. I demonstrated that this was not the case. random_guy's post was entirely within bounds of logical argument used in theoretical fields like mathematics.

 

[Deamiter]

It's about as possible as the Yankees being 6 games back of the Red Sox with 5 games to go and finishing ahead. If something has 0% chance of occurring, that means it cannot happen. If you've come up with a 0% probability that happens, something's wrong with your math.

That's actually very true. Probability arguments against evolution come up with a near-0% probability only by misusing statistics.

Consider a car coasting to a stop. You know the car will stop within a 100m track due to friction. Now what are the chances that it will stop EXACTLY at 50m? Since there is an infinite number of points between 0 and 100m, the probability of this event occuring is 0.

This is much lilke evolution. The "stopping point" used in all the calculations is arbitrary since there was no goal when evolution started and it hasn't stopped yet! The probability of all the molecules of air in my room being exactly where they are is also essentially 0, yet it's happened!

In short, calculating probabilities based on an exact configuration of DNA when there's an unspecified large (near infinite) POSSIBLE number of configurations is an abuse of statistics. Any number you come up with (and yes, it will be 0 even if the event DOES occur) will be useless.

 

[doaftheloaf]

Your post asserted that random_guy was using circular logic to prove a point. I demonstrated that this was not the case. random_guy's post was entirely within bounds of logical argument used in theoretical fields like mathematics.

He assumed his model was correct before trying to prove it. Sounds circular to me.

That's actually very true. Probability arguments against evolution come up with a near-0% probability only by misusing statistics.

Consider a car coasting to a stop. You know the car will stop within a 100m track due to friction. Now what are the chances that it will stop EXACTLY at 50m? Since there is an infinite number of points between 0 and 100m, the probability of this event occuring is 0.

This is much lilke evolution. The "stopping point" used in all the calculations is arbitrary since there was no goal when evolution started and it hasn't stopped yet! The probability of all the molecules of air in my room being exactly where they are is also essentially 0, yet it's happened!

In short, calculating probabilities based on an exact configuration of DNA when there's an unspecified large (near infinite) POSSIBLE number of configurations is an abuse of statistics. Any number you come up with (and yes, it will be 0 even if the event DOES occur) will be useless.

If it happens, it's not truly 0%, even though it could be such an infinitely small possibility that it could be rounded off as such.

 

[Nathan Poe]

He assumed his model was correct before trying to prove it. Sounds circular to me.

Actually, it's the way things get refuted. Assume Premise "A" is true, then look for what would logically follow. If it doesn't, then you've refuted it.

If it does, that doesn't necessarily prove it true, but it does support it.

If A then B
Not B
Therefore, Not A.

If it happens, it's not truly 0%, even though it could be such an infinitely small possibility that it could be rounded off as such.

Rounded off by who? You?
Do you have the power to turn possibility (no matter how remote) into impossibility?

 

[Matthew777]

How could anyone take their favorite supernatural entity and attribute life to their “design”? If their supernatural entity did exist I think it would be an insult to call what we see his/her best handiwork.

Intelligent Design, as a scientific theory, is agnostic as to the identity of the designer. The "entity" need not be a supernatural being but only an intelligent being. For all we know, the source of intelligent design could be intergalactic space aliens.

 

[LogicChristian]

Intelligent Design, as a scientific theory

ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a literary criticism of evolution.

 

[Matthew777]

ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a literary criticism of evolution.

Given that design theorists follow the scientific method, it deserves to be acknowledged as an alternative scientific theory or perhaps even one that supplements and complements evolutionary theory.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Given that design theorists follow the scientific method, it deserves to be acknowledged as an alternative scientific theory or perhaps even one that supplements and complements evolutionary theory.

ID follows the scientific method?

Which part of the scientific method encourages scientists to throw up their hands in futility and announce "Goddidit"?