Originally posted by lord xyz
so where's the evidence for ID then?
Are you asking me? Because really I don't think there is any, and I wasn't say there was any in my post, just commenting on the absurd propaganda being put out of late by the ID camp, case in point that evoultion is drawing it's last breaths and that some DVD about it is doing big things in Australia.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Its actually a hard name to remember, no worries.And I wouldnt go on almost anything Freud says. He links EVERYTHING back to sex.
"Oh, you chose to eat a ham sandwhich for lunch? Thats because you subconciously want to be your sister while having sex with your mother in a transexual orgy"
LOL.
Intelligent Design predates creationismCritics of Intelligent Design often assert that it is simply a disguised version of creationism that began after the Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. In reality, the concept of intelligent design goes back at least as far as ancient Greece and it has been debated in nearly every century since then. Our century is no different. Those who advocate intelligent design are not “disguising” anything. They are offering for consideration an idea that has intrigued the minds of everyone from Plato to Kant, an idea that possibly began when Socrates asked:
“With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?”
Now, because the design argument can be found in Plato’s dialogues, we can deduce that the concept not only predates the theory of creationism – which was but one religious response to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) – it is also not wedded to Judeo-Christian scripture.
Here's an interesting quote that furthers this point:
"Imagine you walk into a room full of scholars representing two very different perspectives on the world. One group argues that living things are the products of some greater wisdom. These scholars point to various biological structures, such as the human eye, and argue that the optimal arrangement of the parts seen in these structures point to some type of designer as their cause. This same group also highlights the harmony and beauty that is seen in the natural world, again suggesting a form of wisdom that lies behind it all. The other group sees things very differently. They appeal to chance and a huge span of time and argue that the harmony and optimal arrangements could very well have arisen by chance. They argue that natural forces, over huge spans of time, served to stabilize these ordered configurations and thus there is no need to invoke any type of designer. This same group then highlights various chaotic features of the world that suggest there is no designer.
You might be thinking that I have been talking about a group of creationists and evolutionary scientists arguing in the auditorium of a local college. You would be wrong. The scholars arguing in that room actually once argued in the halls of Ancient Greece. The teleologists were represented by men such as Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle. The nonteleologists were represented by such men as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos. These thinkers argued back-and-forth with each other over a period of about 200 years. Their works would later influence such European scientists and philosophers as Robert Boyle, William Paley and David Hume."
In other words, the arguments for design did not start with Paley, nor did they start with naive religious believers. No, such arguments began with people like Socrates and Aristotle. As Barrow and Tipler in their book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" point out:
"Aristotelian science was based upon the presupposition of an 'intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design'. Its supporters were therefore very critical of all those pre-Socratic thinkers who regarded the world structure as simply the inevitable residue of chance or necessity."
The point is that this debate between teleology and materialism is at least 2500 years old and has involved some of history's greatest thinkers. The notion that ID arguments originated as a ploy to get creationism into the public schools is a notion divorced from historical context.
Intelligent design the idea is simply the attempt to answer a simple question:
Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?
As one researcher observes:
"The first thing to note about this question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it.
The question is a good one, as it stems from the fact that certain things do exist in our reality only because they were brought into existence by an intelligent cause. If human beings did not exist, for example, Mount Rushmore would not exist. Thus, Mount Rushmore’s existence is dependent on intelligent causation. So one begins to wonder if there are other aspects of our reality that are likewise dependent on intelligent causation. If so, can we detect them? If so, just how reliable is our detection?"
This, in my opinion, is the very foundation of ID. It’s not a socio-political movement or a system of belief. It is a question and expression of curiosity that's been around for 2500 years and it isn't going away.
Here deb enjoy.
No. In fact, they can't possibly be. ID is a philisophical position on how evolution came about.
It contradicts what most scientists would think in that area, but it does not contradict Evolution itself. It wouldn't actually exist without it.
Again, the reason to exclude it from Science class isn't because it is definitely gibberish, but because there is absolutely no reason to think it is true. It is based entirely on a non-scientific opinion about what is and is not 'randomly' possible. It doesn't have any part to play in the scientific process. Such faith-based ideas belong in faith-based classes.