What is so pleasing to me is that you have stated that science holds all the answers. And of course it does in one sense only and I appreciate the distinction. In fact I appreciate it so much that I'll go on to explain that science is a long way from knowing all the answers and readily admits it. And thank you for starting to talk to me again. I always knew you would!
Intelligent Design is a legitimate concept
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
What is so pleasing to me is that you have stated that science holds all the answers. And of course it does in one sense only and I appreciate the distinction. In fact I appreciate it so much that I'll go on to explain that science is a long way from knowing all the answers and readily admits it. And thank you for starting to talk to me again. I always knew you would!
don't enjoy it too much, I have a sneaking suspicion you won't last too long before talking to me like you're training a puppy worthy of a pat on the head again. You've stated again and again that you essentially intend to teach spirituality out of anyone who talks with you, and I guarantee that it won't happen here. You'll just end up angry again. And I don't stick around for that kind of exchange.
I've never, not once in any of my threads, said that science wasn't something worthwhile and incredible. I follow new scientific theory in a vast array of fields. But, while you state that ID is completely invalid, I completely disagree. There is a force out there organizing all of this, and no, it's not simply natural selection. As I've said to others, I really can't explain it or reason it out to you, because it's something I just know. Something that I can sense, there on the periphery. I have faith that it will all come together one day, that what I KNOW, and what I FEEL will be brought together. I wish I could explain it to you more clearly, give you even the tiniest sense of it.
Maybe not, but it does tell us that if they are a result of intelligent creativity, whoever or whatever's doing it isn't as bright or as compassionate as we are. Nature's full of instances of dreadful pieces of design. What sort of ruthless, insensitive loon, for instance, would invent a process like parasitism? Might be great for the parasites, but the hosts often suffer horribly. Would you welcome a tapeworm as one of god's creatures? The worm flourishes in your gut and sheds its eggs into the sewer system while you slowly starve to death... I described the design issues with the human eye in another thread, which I know you've read 'cause you PM'd me about it, and here I'll add this to it: from a design perspective the eyes of squids and octopusses (octopi? octopussies? never been sure what the plural is) are much better than ours. The light sensing structures are on the front of the retina pointing toward the light source, and the blood vessels are behind it. What can we conclude from this? God likes cephalopods better? God's a sloppy designer? Or there's no designer involved?
More to the point, though, it depends to some extent on exactly what you mean by "intelligent design" and "legitimate." Most basically, ID asserts that some biological entities can be explained only by intelligent causes. Here's what The Skeptic's Dictionary has to say about it:
Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes.* Advocates of ID maintain that their belief is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution. ID is essentially a hoax, however, since evolution is consistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe. The two are not contradictory and they are not necessarily competitors. ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who feel science threatens their Biblical-based view of reality.
You can find the rest at http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
At its worst, then, it's an attempt to pervert science by inserting a religious agenda into it. At best, it's a metaphysical idea that philosophers and theologians might enjoy tossing around, but the real knock against it from science's perspective is that it's simply not useful. It doesn't explain anything. It amounts to saying, when we encounter something we don't understand, "God did it." Given the usual presumed nature of god, the implication is that not only don't we understand, we can never understand, that's all the explanation that's possible. End of the research program, might as well shut down the lab and go home.
You appear to have used it in some sense intermediate between the best and worst as I've defined them, as an answer to some questions you don't currently have any other answers for, and you've set up an updated version of William Paley's watchmaker argument, which you can find here: http://skepdic.com/design.html. But how useful is it, really? It still doesn't really explain anything very satisfactorily, and appears to me no better than saying, "I don't really know, it must be supernatural." I'm sure you can see how scientific curiosity would reject that as a useful answer.
Don't despair, I know where you are coming from but I have never had a good opportunity to talk it over with you before now.
When we are children there are beliefs instilled in us which we will never get rid of. You know this to be true in sadly so many instances which have nothing to do with religious beliefs at all if you are a socially minded person. It's very clear to me that you are. Now all you need to do is start to entertain the idea that what was instilled in you in a religious sense has maintained the same power over you.
And to reinforce that a little I will harken back to my assertion that once a person is born into a religion and brought up in that religion, he/she will mostly remain in that same religion. But sometimes you see, as in my case, the relgious background which I got in the Lutheran religion never stuck. It just didn't take! Two reasons and they are, combined with a rather high IQ and the fact that my parents didn't push very hard, I have been able to escape religious superstitions. Now remember, befor you get angry again, I am speaking about myself.
And I will just add that my previous assertion of there being 85% of the brightest scientists are atheists is completely true. This tells us that as intelligence increases, relgious beliefs fall off. But the importance in that statistic is not the 85% but the other 15%. How can very intelligent minds stay with religion when in some cases it flies directl in the face of everything they know is right? Well, they can and even some eminent archeologists can so how do they do it and why do they do it. I can't answer for how they do it but I can say why they do it, and in fact they are quite aware of the reason themselves and they don't need to reconcile the problems. They were born with religion and they had it instilled in them to such a degree that it will forever be a part of them.
I sincerely hope that you will give my words much consideration before you respond. If in fact you do choose to respond.
See, my personal experience has been the opposite. I was raised in religion, yet, being the higher iq in my family, I'm the only one who has stuck with religion (although many priests might argue that I am a poor example of a religious follower). I've searched long and hard for any other answers that ring true. I'm highly logical and love science. But, there are still so many things I feel and have experienced, things even my church can't explain.
What you say about being raised with religion being the decider makes some sense, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think if you are raised in a religion, but are just truly not a spiritually based person, it will be relatively simple for you to shrug off what was taught to you. Likewise, I've seen people raised in a nonreligious environment who have sought out religion to help make sense of a spiritual sense they could not explain. I've also seen the people who are raised with a religion, and stick with it, despite not being spiritually inclined at all.
So, you're not interested in yuan's opinion, or anyone else's for that matter! Just your own... Well, you weren't in the back row when ego's and tolerance were dished out; just when good manners were! I may, or may not agree with your philosophy on the topic at hand, but, since you are not interested in others opinions, I'm not interested in what you have to say, regardless of what I believe!
You have a nice day!
I don't subscribe to the theory of intelligent design...but I don't think it can be completely written off either.
While I am not a religious person, I know a good many very intelligent people who are. One interesting point is that none of these people have a problem with evolution. Most will talk of evolution, and Trilobites and three-toed horses with some degree of exactitude, and say that evolution was God's way. Intelligent design is for those who have problems with evolution but won't, for some reason, publically come out and say that God did it all in six days. Intelligent design is a waffle at best.
I have to say that evolution, or natural selection, is an elegant process. What other system could there be?
I have to say that evolution, or natural selection, is an elegant process. What other system could there be?
I'm willing to bet that science does not hold all of the answers, mainly because it will never ask all the questions. I do however believe science provides the best answers to the questions that it does have the wit to ask.But if you think the human mind can get to the end of time and space well that's an infinite job. I think it's more correct to state that nature holds all the answers to all of the questions.
The answer to a question usually frames ten more questions, and the answers to those ten begat a hundred more questions and so on. So is the universe formed of questions or answers? Is there a difference?Or is the answer in the question? It's ammusing to watch you attack faith with faith in science, mainly because I did it for years and arrived nowhere, maybe you'll suceed. You'd have to be god to move them off the rock, your rational argument is powerless against the faithful, they just feel sorry for you. I still bark at them when they get to close but I ain't going to chase them to far down the road.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:
I don't disagree with you in the least. I have made my point with you and I'm pleased that you have been able to make some sense out of it. But please don't think that they are all my ideas because they are not. They are the analysis of the reasons for religious beliefs belonging to the branch of science which studies the question.
I'm not trying to convert you karrie but I am trying to make you think a little deeper than you were thinking when I first encountered you and noticed that you had the capability. I have succeeded in a small way and that's o.k. with me. Sanctus's hold on all of you is not what it was before I came to this forum. And one Christian in particular must be hurting a little because of her vicious attack against my opinions.
We'll work on it!
It appears you haven'tn't accepted the advice given to you by one of the mods via pm. If you want to post here show some respect for others. If not you will need to take it elsewhere.
I realize it is indeed necessary for me to clarify what I mean by "Intelligent Design" and "legitimate". You at least have the merit of asking me what I mean while other fools would immediately and naively put me in the same category as creationnists who believe the world was created in 6 days.
A big problem with the ID concept is that it seems to make a lot of people to react spontaneously without thinking. Just look at Lieexpsr's 2nd post:
Intelligent design is a totally illegitimate concept, it's dishonest of religion to promote it, and it flies in the face of evolution completely and totally. If one needs to accept intelligent design then he/she also needs to accept creation over evolution entirely. That means that he has to accept the bible entirely, including the 6000-10000 year earth theory completely. There is no half-way believing allowed. God's word as read in the bible must be accepted 100%, and one must somehow reconcile the discrepancies within one bible itself and the discrepancies between the other bibles. It simply can't be done and if you don't then you bury your head in the sand.
I dare say Intelligent Design is a legitimate concept to ponder, don't even mention the words ''God'', ''Bible'' and ''Religion'' once, and here comes Lieexpsr telling me I need to follow the bible entirely and accept creation over evolution if I am to accept the idea of ID!!! This is a major problem with the debate: too many people seem unable to make any form of nuances... Either you are a religious fanatic, or a cold-blooded atheist depending on which side you are on. I'm totally disgusted by the polarisation that has occured around the concept of ID and this is one of the main reasons I want to talk about it. I feel it is greatly needed for middle-grounders to express themselves.
Ironically, the description by the Skeptic's Dictionnary you posted contains all the elements that resume the problematic around this debate. First of all, the description kind of contradicts itself. At first, it states ID is an anti-evolution belief, and furthur on, it states evolution and ID ''are not contradictory and not necessarily competitors''. So is ID anti-evolution or not??? It is for hardcore creationists, but certainly not for me! I stated clearly that I don't question the evidence given to us by science. Science not being my specialty (music is...), I freely admit I might have a limited understanding of this evidence, but I'm smart enough to understand the basic issues.
to be continued... (will be back very shortly)
I always get a chuckle out of the people who say that we need to either accept evolution, or a six day creation story, but no middle ground. Who's to say that God's 'six days' isn't exactly what we've seen: millions of years of evolution. I know I could never say what a day is to God. Frankly, no priest I've ever talked to has said that the creation story is literal either, but rather, a written story to explain to people how life came to be when they had no concept of the universe. I think it was Dexter in one thread who discussed how quantum theory and the theory of relativity contradicted one another, yet he was hopefully awaiting a theory to tie the two together.... I really don't see how this is any different.
I have absolutely no problem with ID, Atheists, Agnostics, evolutionist, reincarnation-ist, witches, and Satanists.
I know who my creator is and what the flesh is capable of thinking about His creation.
My foundation is settled and true, a true rock hard surface on which I am anchor to.
So nothing that anybody says other than what Jesus said, is Man made ascertains.
Therefore, I can not in truth condemn any soul! I can only relate who my God is.
And He is Love!
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
I know who my creator is and what the flesh is capable of thinking about His creation.
My foundation is settled and true, a true rock hard surface on which I am anchor to.
So nothing that anybody says other than what Jesus said, is Man made ascertains.
Therefore, I can not in truth condemn any soul! I can only relate who my God is.
And He is Love!
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
I don't need your pats on the head lie. and I most certainly don't need you trying to talk with me to irritate or undermine sanctus in some wierd way. If you ever want a true discussion, come and find me. but peppering posts to me with these sorts of comments will not keep the discussion alive.
(continuing my previous post)
When I speak of ID, I speak of the philosophical assumption that an intelligent being or intelligent beings might be behind the phenomenons of life in all its forms. Those who will put me in the same category as Christian creationists are guilty of lazy thinking.
Now I can certainly understand why you would want to keep ID out of science classes... With all the religious fundamentalists trying to impose their view, it's important for science to protect itself and to focus on the issues that concern it.
Personally, I prefer a generalist approach to science in which philosophy and existential questions are allowed to exist freely, and that includes ID. It seems to me that if I was researching a particular phenomenon, the question of whether or not the phenomenon has its origins rooted in some form of intelligence would be more than crucial... Even if it's impossible for me to answer the question, I could never dismiss it as being useless.
When I speak of ID, I speak of the philosophical assumption that an intelligent being or intelligent beings might be behind the phenomenons of life in all its forms. Those who will put me in the same category as Christian creationists are guilty of lazy thinking.
Now I can certainly understand why you would want to keep ID out of science classes... With all the religious fundamentalists trying to impose their view, it's important for science to protect itself and to focus on the issues that concern it.
Personally, I prefer a generalist approach to science in which philosophy and existential questions are allowed to exist freely, and that includes ID. It seems to me that if I was researching a particular phenomenon, the question of whether or not the phenomenon has its origins rooted in some form of intelligence would be more than crucial... Even if it's impossible for me to answer the question, I could never dismiss it as being useless.
Last edited:
Karrie I wouldn't let the condescending attitude of a pseudointellectual, egoistic troll like lieexpresser get to you. It's a legend in its own little mind.
Anyway, "Intelligent Design is a legitimate concept " roflmao. Only, if one attributes the human trait of intelligence to the universe.
Anyway, "Intelligent Design is a legitimate concept " roflmao. Only, if one attributes the human trait of intelligence to the universe.
To tell you the honest truth Gilbert, and you've seen me around the forum enough to hopefully get that I'm telling the truth, if something actually 'gets to me', I walk away. If someone lets comments on the internet upset them, then they need to evaluate why they're there. I dropped his thread once before because he started commenting about being angry with me... there's just no need for anger when I'm so used to this forum being a neat exchange of the minds. His getting angry showed me either that there was something wrong with the way he was reading my posts, or something wrong with the way I was posting to him.... either way, there's not much more to say if two people can't read eachother's posts as honest discussion rather than angry debate.
take you and I for instance. I wouldn't even TOUCH this thread with you. lol. You and I simply see the world with two different sets of senses. But I know that if we DID decide to discuss it, we could honestly discuss, not fight. I know how much you hate hearing you're wrong, but I like that you take it well when you're told, "you're wrong, there's a God!" lol.