I stumbled upon Intelligent Design.

[Johnny Rico]

Brent said:

Johnny Rico said:
It's not about rejecting science. Not at all...it's beliefing that science in of itself is a tool to explain the theory of Intelligent Design.

I agree

Thanks.


And one more thing about those who have a problem wth organized religion.

I'm wondering, do you also have a problem with the term "organization" in general?

I ask because an "organization" is nothing more than a group of people, or in scientific terms, particles, that come together to accomplish or create something greater than they are capable of achieving themselves.

For example, "organized sports" is a group of people who have agreed upon a set of rules that govern how a "game" is played and they come together to play that game and have fun. Because if the rules were constantly changing, trying to play a game would become totally chaotic. It's the same thing with organized religion. It's a group of people who have come together with similar beliefs and rules that they've agreed upon which keep order in their "gatherings". And in an example of what happens when a lot of people start getting their own beliefs and make up their own rules you get, I dare say, the Protestant Reform Movement. . Some of which actually became more extreme that the Roman Catholicism that they broke away from...but that's for a different discussion for another day.

 

[Unicron]

I dislike organized religions because I can't see why an omnipotent being would need them. And because they've proven throughout history that they can't agree on many of the basic tenets in the organization. Why should any of us who are non-religious be convinced if the faithful spend so much time arguing amongst themselves?

Regarding ID, I am open to the possibility of there being some external influence, and I believe most scientists are too. But we need proof of that to be convinced, not just people claiming it's true. There are many people who have some degree of belief in the ID concept who are not extremists, but the ones trying to get it into schools are the Bible-thumping Creationists. They're desperate to to get it included because they've trained themselves to ignore all possible evidence to suggest Christianity is wrong.

If science is supposed to be a tool explaining the ID concept scientifically, where is the evidence? Most of the "evidence" I've seen comes from philosophical models (like the First Cause, teleological model etc, all of which have problems) and from things alleged to be examples of "irreducible complexity" i.e. intelligent design. Very few if any of these claims have held up to scrutiny, nor have such findings been published in respected scientific journals. At best, they only get published in works by authors who already believe in ID.

 

[Brent]

I think a true scientist would have an open mind to the possibilities that can exist, and one of those is intelligent design.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Johnny Rico said:

PlixTixiplik said:
Intelligent Design as a personal philosophy, in its loosest sense as in believing that a deity created the universe, is a widespread and perfectly valid belief - even one that many scientists share. The "irreducible complexity" kind of Intelligent Design is simply creationism in disguise, relying on the intellectual laziness of its followers to think that simply because we do not know how something happened means that it couldn't possibly have happened. Despite having to put up with that sort of thing on a regular but thankfully not too frequent basis (as someone who teaches paleontology in university), I still can't wrap my mind around why a small group of people so vehemently reject science when I can't see how it would possibly contradict any religious beliefs about the the divinity of Jesus or even the existence of God. But they clearly do see some kind of contradiction, so I guess we just have a completely different mindset or something, because it's just not something I can fathom at all.

-MEC

And that statement proves that you know nothing of what the Theory of Intelligent Design and those who believe in it stands for.

It's not about rejecting science. Not at all...it's beliefing that science in of itself is a tool to explain the theory of Intelligent Design.

I'm pretty familiar with the various arguments put forth by intelligent design. Are you trying to tell me that the use of "irreducible complexity" and the argument of the finely tuned universe doesn't try to claim that simply because we do not know how something happened means that it couldn't possibly have happened? What types of positive evidence that actually require the invocation of a creator do intelligent design proponents submit? I would suggest that, while many things are both consistent with either an intelligent creator or natural processes, there is nothing that is demonstrably inconsistent with natural processes and therefore is proof for a creator.

Nearly every intelligent design argument is an argument from incredulity - we don't know how something could have arisen naturally, therefore it must be impossible and have been designed instead. That statement is a logical fallacy and is simply intellectual laziness.

-MEC

 

[TerriO]

Johnny Rico said:
This post is just stupid I don't know where to start.

Johnny, dial it back, please. Thank you.

 

[Deks]

Johnny Rico said:

This post is just stupid I don't know where to start.

As I said above, do you really think that this whole universe came together and the miracle of life we find here on Earth is just the result of happenstance? That it just all started out of of conincidence? That it was just by chance that it happened and developed like this?

If you do, then it is folks like you who are so close-minded, or at the very least tunnel-visioned when it comes to the "almighty science" scene.

I think the major falicy that Inteligent Design denying scientists have is that they assume the extremist point of view of the Intelligent Design supporters. You have to remember that the vast majority of people are NOT extremists.

But certain extremists, (read: athiests) proclaim that all believers of Intelligent Design theory are Bible-thumping literalists. Which is not true at all. I'd argue that most of them are happy to accept scientific findings, it's just that they like to say that there has to be some external intelligence to create such wonderful creations.

Actually I do think it's possible this universe came into existence due to a random factor.
It doesn't have anything to do with being closed minded, I'm just saying that your interpretation of how this universe came to be is not the only possible/probable/trustworthy explanation.
Just because YOU don't understand that certain processes happen in nature spontaneously and at random without outside interference (which was proved by science btw) and that such processes might have been responsible for the formation of the universe as we know it is not my problem (if anything it proves that you my friend are actually the closed-minded one).

To claim how science is a tool to prove Intelligent Design is stretching it a bit.
Do you know why ?
Because people who are religious and have to believe in a deity will find any and whatsoever excuse to do so (otherwise, they loose the entire basis for their belief, which is probably scary for them).
Organized religions have discarded science in the past once they saw it prompted people to think for themselves.
They even burned scientists who claimed the Earth was round and not flat.
Then they started changing their point of view upon realizing that progress cannot be stopped, creating new set of rules and started using science to 'prove' how their religion is the truth and should be followed (so they wouldn't loose 'believers' or people who support them).

Science is not a tool to be used to `prove` Intelligent Design.
Science is not about proving or disproving religion to begin with.
You might do well to keep yourself a bit more informed my friend on certain things.

And what do I have against organized religions ?
Oh lets see ... having a hand in murdering people even in this day and age (hanging of homosexuals comes to mind in Eastern countries), being responsible for the most bloodiest wars in the history, slowing down progress of humanity overall, deciding for people on how to think instead of letting them make their own decisions and take responsibility for their actions.

I'm sorry, but from my personal experience a large majority of religious people (not all though) have demonstrated the following:
Lack of emotional control, hypocritical behavior, corruption, presumptuous behavior, etc ...

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, and I respect that, just keep in mind though that your opinion is not absolute, nor is it accepted as such by everyone.

I keep an open mind to the possibility that something might be out there.
But, keeping an open mind to the possibility is one thing, actually believing in it is something entirely different (and since I am an atheist, I have no belief).

Now please stop behaving as a child and try leading an adult conversation without attempting to insult someone just because they disagree with you.

 

[Amaris]

Brent said:
I think a true scientist would have an open mind to the possibilities that can exist, and one of those is intelligent design.

A scientist's open mind should never get in the way of the evidence.


J.

 

[Computer]

Well we might as well just kick this thread over to TNZ, I dont see it going anywhere but down from here.

 

[Blip]

Deks said:
And what do I have against organized religions ?
Oh lets see ... having a hand in murdering people even in this day and age (hanging of homosexuals comes to mind in Eastern countries), being responsible for the most bloodiest wars in the history, slowing down progress of humanity overall, deciding for people on how to think instead of letting them make their own decisions and take responsibility for their actions.

Whilst I'm generally in agreement with you that organised religions are a bad thing, my view tends to be rather that instead of being responsible the actions you mention, I find that religion is itself used as an excuse by human beings to follow their baser (or: primitive, ignorant, savage, barbaric and generally stupid) genetically-driven instincts to group together and eliminate the procreative opposition (ie, anyone else).


Edit:
Couldn't be bothered to continue a debate that will likely go on until we all end up burnt to a crisp when Sol finally does the rest of the galaxy a favour and eliminates all the whining humans...

 

[scottydog]

PlixTixiplik said:
...I still can't wrap my mind around why a small group of people so vehemently reject science when I can't see how it would possibly contradict any religious beliefs about the the divinity of Jesus or even the existence of God. But they clearly do see some kind of contradiction....

I completely agree with you. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example, I believe that some Higher Power created the universe and the miracle of life. I also believe that science and evolution can explain how this miracle of physical & human existence unfolded.

 

[Unicron]

^^ That's one of the other problems with the ID theory, at least in terms of the divine creator, and why philosophical theories like the First Mover one run into problems. Theists don't really have a good answer, and usually will claim that God (or another deity) merely exists indefinitely, which is an unprovable assertion.

I want to say too that, in all fairness, organized religions have done their share of good throughout history. I think it's important to remember that, because not everything they do or have done is bad.

 

[Computer]

Unicron said:
^^ That's one of the other problems with the ID theory, at least in terms of the divine creator, and why philosophical theories like the First Mover one run into problems. Theists don't really have a good answer, and usually will claim that God (or another deity) merely exists indefinitely, which is an unprovable assertion.

I want to say too that, in all fairness, organized religions have done their share of good throughout history. I think it's important to remember that, because not everything they do or have done is bad.

Ah yes the first mover, I remember that.

It's not so much organized religion I have a problem with as it is the humans who occupy said organization.

Of course whos to say that god and the universe are separate at all. an atom cant possibly know that it is part of a living human just as a human may not know they are part of god.

Whos to say that a universe of infinite complexity doesnt have a consciousness of it's own.

The point is we are one pixel in a portrait of unimaginable proportions, trying to see the bigger picture is part of science, the portrait itself (IMHO) is god. So religion and science have absolutely nothing to fear from one another.

Science tells me that love is nothing more than a checmical reaction, this may be absolutely true, but what ignites the chemical reaction when a certain girl walks in the room and not the other girl? The soul perhaps?

Point being: I simply don't know and I am ok with saying that. None of us will know the truth of anything until we die and by then we will have realized we had it all wrong anyways.

 

[Deks]

Unicron said:
^^ That's one of the other problems with the ID theory, at least in terms of the divine creator, and why philosophical theories like the First Mover one run into problems. Theists don't really have a good answer, and usually will claim that God (or another deity) merely exists indefinitely, which is an unprovable assertion.

I want to say too that, in all fairness, organized religions have done their share of good throughout history. I think it's important to remember that, because not everything they do or have done is bad.

Oh I am not claiming organized religions haven't done any good throughout history ... they have, but from my perspective they did more damage to humanity (and are still doing it) than good.

 

[Amaris]

Computer said:
Well we might as well just kick this thread over to TNZ, I dont see it going anywhere but down from here.

I'd rather it not. Then I wouldn't be able to participate. Believe me, the conversation we're having here is genial compared to what TNZ usually serves up. It would be on topic for about 5 or 6 posts, and then it would become a partisan argument, blanket statements about how the NeoCon "Fundies" have destroyed everything, and how liberals will believe everything that's against God, then it will de-evolve even further into a shouting and flaming match with some trolling on the side. So no, I'd rather not go there.


J.

 

[The Doctor]

PlixTixiplik is really being too kind.

Intelligent Design, as advocated by frauds like Behe or Dembski, is nothing more than a scam to sell books and promote the 'Wedge Strategy,' which is an attempt by the Discovery Institute (Now there's an ironic name) to bring fundamentalist Christian ideology into every avenue of our lives. All of the major proponents of ID are themselves devout Christians, and many are even Young-Earth Creationists, another completely refuted psuedo-science.

 

[The Borg Queen]

Can Young-Earth Creationism even be called a pseudo-science?

 

[Unicron]

Deks said:

Oh I am not claiming organized religions haven't done any good throughout history ... they have, but from my perspective they did more damage to humanity (and are still doing it) than good.

I know. I just thought it important to say in general, because it's only too easy for us to look at one side of the coin.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Deks said:

Johnny Rico said:

This post is just stupid I don't know where to start.

As I said above, do you really think that this whole universe came together and the miracle of life we find here on Earth is just the result of happenstance? That it just all started out of of conincidence? That it was just by chance that it happened and developed like this?

If you do, then it is folks like you who are so close-minded, or at the very least tunnel-visioned when it comes to the "almighty science" scene.

I think the major falicy that Inteligent Design denying scientists have is that they assume the extremist point of view of the Intelligent Design supporters. You have to remember that the vast majority of people are NOT extremists.

But certain extremists, (read: athiests) proclaim that all believers of Intelligent Design theory are Bible-thumping literalists. Which is not true at all. I'd argue that most of them are happy to accept scientific findings, it's just that they like to say that there has to be some external intelligence to create such wonderful creations.

Actually I do think it's possible this universe came into existence due to a random factor.
It doesn't have anything to do with being closed minded, I'm just saying that your interpretation of how this universe came to be is not the only possible/probable/trustworthy explanation.
Just because YOU don't understand that certain processes happen in nature spontaneously and at random without outside interference (which was proved by science btw) and that such processes might have been responsible for the formation of the universe as we know it is not my problem (if anything it proves that you my friend are actually the closed-minded one).

To claim how science is a tool to prove Intelligent Design is stretching it a bit.
Do you know why ?
Because people who are religious and have to believe in a deity will find any and whatsoever excuse to do so (otherwise, they loose the entire basis for their belief, which is probably scary for them).
Organized religions have discarded science in the past once they saw it prompted people to think for themselves.
They even burned scientists who claimed the Earth was round and not flat.
Then they started changing their point of view upon realizing that progress cannot be stopped, creating new set of rules and started using science to 'prove' how their religion is the truth and should be followed (so they wouldn't loose 'believers' or people who support them).

Science is not a tool to be used to `prove` Intelligent Design.
Science is not about proving or disproving religion to begin with.
You might do well to keep yourself a bit more informed my friend on certain things.

And what do I have against organized religions ?
Oh lets see ... having a hand in murdering people even in this day and age (hanging of homosexuals comes to mind in Eastern countries), being responsible for the most bloodiest wars in the history, slowing down progress of humanity overall, deciding for people on how to think instead of letting them make their own decisions and take responsibility for their actions.

I'm sorry, but from my personal experience a large majority of religious people (not all though) have demonstrated the following:
Lack of emotional control, hypocritical behavior, corruption, presumptuous behavior, etc ...

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, and I respect that, just keep in mind though that your opinion is not absolute, nor is it accepted as such by everyone.

I keep an open mind to the possibility that something might be out there.
But, keeping an open mind to the possibility is one thing, actually believing in it is something entirely different (and since I am an atheist, I have no belief).

Now please stop behaving as a child and try leading an adult conversation without attempting to insult someone just because they disagree with you.

Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

You insult religion because it doesn't subscribe to the secularist within you.

And need I remind you that athiesm has killed SCORES more people than religion has ever done. Every mass genocide case in human history, and ironically, more recent human history has been due to atheistic, Marxist, people who feel that if you do not denounce the existance of a higher power, then you must be killed.

How many millions did the Stalinist Purges kill, again? 20+ million?
Mao kills

Hitler kills 6 million Jews.

Religious wars kill far less people than athiests kill.

Religious people kill others for what they believe in. Atheists kill people because they don't like that the other actually believe in something.

So don't even lecture me and others about the age-ol' athiest excuse for hating religous people.


Now then, back to our regulary scheduled debate...Intelligent Design....


I think the whole issue needs to be broken down to its roots.

Intelligent (Intelligence).

and Design.


First of all, Intelligent Design only states that there was some sort of higher power that helped/assisted/started the CREATION of everything we know of the universe.

OK, key word there...CREATION.

Can we agree that everything has a creator...beit a celestial body, a laptop computer, a automobile, a TV, a motorcycle?

All that the theory of Intelligent Design is saying that something other than just "it happens by itself" created an object.

A laptop computer for instance...those parts just don't make and assemble themselve on their own to form a laptop computer. No, someone or some people who have intelligence, design and make said parts and put them together in an intelligent manner to make them do what they desire a laptop to do. Right?

Same thing with a car...those parts just don't make themselves and combine to form a transportation device. No, someone designs them on paper, in a computer, and manufactures them and assembles them to form the desired automobile.


OK, so what makes those who oppose the idea of Intelligent Design with regards to the creation of the Universe and all of its elements?

The bottom line is that if you believe everything has a creator. Then you must also believe that there is some creator that created the universe.

And let's take living things for example. A tree, perhaps. What creates a tree? A seed, right? OK, what makes that seed unique to that certain type of tree?

And what about life (on Earth) in general? Earth started out as a molten volcanic planet very similar to Venus. First came the oceans and whatnot (I'm abbreviating here..) Then came the single-celled organizisms. OK, so how did all that start? Intelligent Design rejectors will say that they just started, "Because".


In this thread, someone said that that science doesn't explain things, but it describes HOW things happen. OK, fine...I'll argue then that Intelligent Design explains WHY things happen. Or even vice versa for that matter.

We all know that one atom of Oxygen and two atoms of Hydrogren combine to form a molecule of Water. We know how that happens...the 1 electron "ring" of a Hydrogen atom combine with the outer what is it? 21 election ring of a Oxygen atom to complete the balanced and stable molecule. OK, so why does that happen? Who created those atoms in such that they would do that?


If we are to believe that the Big Bang Theory created the universe from nothingness, where did all these wonderful things come from? You can't get something out of nothing. Or can you?

 

[TerriO]

Johnny Rico said:

The bottom line is that if you believe everything has a creator. Then you must also believe that there is some creator that created the universe.

Not necessarily. Let's reverse that thought for a moment.

What about the theory that the Big Bang was the equivalent of "Creation," but everything from that point onward has played out on its own in accordance with scientific theory without outside interference? I'm not sure if there's a specific name for that theory, but I have spoken to people who share the belief.

 

[Deks]

I'll post more when I have the time as now I have to go to bed as I am working in the morning.

Btw, Johnny Rico ... get some of your facts correct please.
Hitler was not an atheist.
He was a catholic and so were the Nazis.