I stumbled upon Intelligent Design.

[TerriO]

But, is it possible for the field of Biblical archaeology to provide those concrete and testable links?

Well, accompanied by social science, of course. As I said earlier, mankind has always tended to attribute what could not be explained to the divine.

 

[Geoff]

TerriO said:
This is not the place to call out people of other religions as "shameful and dishonest,"

Fair enough, but in my own defense, let me be clear that I wasn't in any way implying that anyone's beliefs are shameful or dishonest. Rather, I said it was both shameful and dishonest to wilfully misrepresent the definition of science in order to circumvent the law and get creationism into the schools. And that is entirely on topic. (And I stand by it.)

Is theology enough of a science to back the notion of something branching from theology also being a science?

No, it really isn't. Theology is a branch of philosophy, not science. Unless someone comes up with a notion of theology that is testable and falsifiable, it will always be outside the realm of scientific inquiry (and so also, therefore, is Intelligent Design).

 

[Tyson]

"We can have an intelligent discussion of the subject without resorting to pithy insults."

The entire subject of "intelligent design" amounts to nothing more than a pithy insult to those who actually seek answers, rather than making them up or pulling them out of ancient fairy tales.

That this subject is being given the dignity of debate in this forum is pathetic and reflects poorly on everyone who reads these threads.

 

[Brent]

^ then don't read or post in it

can you not accept that people might believe in something 'greater' than what we see?

 

[jeff lebowski]

Johnny Rico said:


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?

OK, but using your same arguement...

Who created the creator?

You can go infinately in any direction with this.

The real answer to these questions is...

No one knows.

Not you. Not me. Not even the greatest scientific or religous minds that have ever lived.

No one.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

Robert Maxwell said:
Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, not testable, and therefore not science.

I agree its not science and this kind of mumbo jumbo shouldn't be in this section of the forum

 

[Amaris]

TheMasterOfOrion said:

Robert Maxwell said:
Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, not testable, and therefore not science.

I agree its not science and this kind of mumbo jumbo shouldn't be in this section of the forum

Now, hold on. I believe religion, philosophy, faith and human behavior fall under the social sciences, do they not? And this forum is titled, "Science and Technology". There is no reason why this cannot be a valid subject.


J.

 

[Geoff]

J. Allen said:
Now, hold on. I believe religion, philosophy, faith and human behavior fall under the social sciences, do they not?

Actually, no. The social sciences include the study of religion, philosophy, faith and human behavior, and the affects of such things upon society (often referred to as "soft sciences"). But the actual disciplines and practice of religion, philosophy and faith themselves fall squarely under the umbrella of arts and humanities, not science. Look at the required curriculum for a college degree in the arts vs. the sciences (I have both) and you'll see the differences.

In the specific case of Intelligent Design, it's an article of faith and/or philosophy masquerading as a form of "hard" science, even though the fundamental assumptions of ID violate the most basic tenets of hard science.

 

[BCI]

And what's very important: the study of these phenomena would never dare to declare this or that "true" or "false". It's always about understanding, decribing and comparing the different ideas at hand. What a scientist takes for true himself is a private matter.

Religion has way to go in accepting the tolerance at work in scientific circles.

 

[TerriO]

Tyson said:

"We can have an intelligent discussion of the subject without resorting to pithy insults."

The entire subject of "intelligent design" amounts to nothing more than a pithy insult to those who actually seek answers, rather than making them up or pulling them out of ancient fairy tales.

That this subject is being given the dignity of debate in this forum is pathetic and reflects poorly on everyone who reads these threads.

The fact that an attempt to get to the heart of the matter in this forum is a reflection of the posters and their ability to actually have rational discussion on the subject. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.

Please keep that in mind if you intend to insult everyone in the forum again.

 

[Chaos Descending]

J. Allen said:
Agreed.

I'm a devout Christian and believe that God created the universe. However, scientifically speaking, there's no way I could ever prove that. Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy course, not a science class.


J.

x2

 

[Amaris]

Geoff said:
Actually, no. The social sciences include the study of religion, philosophy, faith and human behavior, and the affects of such things upon society (often referred to as "soft sciences").

Obviously. It was early in the morning and I forgot to add the term "study".

J.

 

[TerriO]

Okay, I'm not going to inflict my opinion on this, even though personally I think "soft science" is just as legitimate for discussion here as "hard science". And since so many seem to like dictating what I should and shouldn't do about it, tell you what. We'll be completely diplomatic about it. I'm going to allow you guys to speak up about whether or not subjects like "soft science" belong in this forum.

I'm going to close this now, and make up a poll. That poll will be pinned and be open until 3 November.