Intelligent Design

Started by chickenlover9832 pages
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm open to that. In fact that reminds me of something Devil King once said: "Well I never said that I believe god created humanity...at least not intentionally anyway. If an all-knowing superbieng was behind our creation, he would've designed us a little better. That's why I don't subscribe to the idea of intelligent design." Not an outlandish claim, I think. I've always wondered why the hell we have wisdom teeth.

we had wisdom teeth when we needed them. just as the appendix and tonsels have become useless. we evolved beyond them. and now our little toe is worthless

Originally posted by chickenlover98
intelligent design is evolution with a twist lol. its just everything happened the same way, cept god intended that to happen.
Which makes it completely unfalsifiable, which means it will never be science. This being in addition to it being unevidenced and essentially nothing more than bullshit argument from ignorance making it not science in any way shape or form.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Which makes it completely unfalsifiable, which means it will never be science. This being in addition to it being unevidenced and essentially nothing more than bullshit argument from ignorance making it not science in any way shape or form.

So doesn't that al make it creationism with a twist?

Not really, Creationism is very specific, God created everything in 6 days, Adam from dirt etc. etc. etc.

yeah, isn't that intelligent design? once you get down to the brass tacs, it's pretty specific in it's assumptions.

I.D. hold that things evolved and changed overtime, though guided by an intelligence (aka God), while Creation (Genesis) says God created, as in "poof, there it is."

Anything involving "special creation" is creationism at it's core. Several branches of intelligent design still believe in special creation.

"Young earth creationists—those who believe more or less that the earth was created recently, more or less literally as set out in Genesis. Each spieces on earth now, more or less specially created by God. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species

Old earth creationists—those who believe the earth is geologically older, and God specially created various “kinds” of animals that may have evolved to some greater or lesser extent into today’s animals. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species

Progressive Creationists: Those who believe God created earth and species over time. Each species is/was specially created some recently as God continues His work. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

ET creationists—These creationists believe that life on earth was brought or placed here by extraterrestrials or time travelers. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

“Public Consumption Intelligent Design.” This is the version put out for public consumption by Behe and Dembski. Agnostic on age of earth, apparently natural selection is “mostly” correct and accounts for the majority of earth’s species today. Nevertheless there are a few detectable instances of special creation where the designer, for example, stuck a flagella to the butt of some bacteria, organized one (but not every) blood clotting cascade and one (but not every) immune system. There might not be very many instances of special creation but they are there and can be identified by their irreducible complexity and the explanatory filter’s elimination of regularity and chance.Definitely, several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

Creationism Speciation. Sometimes a member of one of these groups splits off, forming a new species. As Darwin noted, when this happens the parent and offsrping species can exist side by side for quite soem time. I previously identified a creationism speciation event where creationism was identified as “a minority scientific viewpoint (MSV).”

The common thread for all forms of creationism: rejection in whole or in part of common descent and natural selection and a corresponding belief that some life forms were specially created in whole or in part. If you hold that belief you are a creationist.

But people don’t like that term because it carries so much baggage, conjuring up images of ignorant bible thumpers. It also has the unfortunate attribute of being a religious belief so it can’t be taught in pubic schools. People will go to great lengths to avoid the creationism label while eagerly retaining the special creation concept. Thus, old earth creationism evolved into scientific creationism which in turn evolved into intelligent design, which recently evolved into MSV.

Now, a new creationism speciation event is observerved as yet another creationist attempts to avoid the creation label and evolves into a “Post Darwinist.”

Here is her statement:

I concluded that Darwinian evolution cannot, on the evidence, be the whole explanation of the history of life on Earth. Clearly, intelligent design was also involved. But because I do not subscribe to any brand of creationism, I call myself a post-Darwinist.

She adds:

“Whether life forms with a high information load are produced by intervention or by initial encoding can possibly be answered by research.” (yes it can, and has been)

Sorry, you are a creationist. You believe in special creation, whether it’s called intervention or not, of certain life forms on this planet."
Copied and pasted from here: http://brightline.typepad.com/law_evolution_science_and/objections_to_evolution_answered/index.html Since this thread in itself is not really anything else but a dumping ground for copied and pasted stuff at its essence.

'Cause you know people couldn't possibly be produced from the same ancestral species as other modern primates. We're just too gosh darn special.

Young or Old Creationist thinking, still holds that God created, as in 'made as is' (see Genesis), while I.D. loosely supports evolution and/or change overtime.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think I.D, is valid, but Creation and I.D. are not one and the same, they do both rely on God, though it's hidden as "an intelligence."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if we are mistaking growth for design. What if the universe is a living being that is growing and changing, kind of a Non-Intelligent Design?

I have read articles that compare the universe to an organism; but that comparison is not to be taken literally. Similar to organisms, the universe displays irreducible complexity (and fine-tuning). But to classify the universe as a "living being" is dubious in my view. Are you flirting with the notion that the universe has a mind? The universe is changing. As you read this post, our solar system--the entire universe--is expanding; the universe is also subjected to the law of decay. In other words, the universe is getting older (and older). No, I do not think scientists are mistaking growth for design. Growth is a process; design refers to an arrangement (or blue print) of factors; growth and design are completely different. Understand?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What the hell does general relativity have to do with "intelligent design"?

Absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"There is no evidence for intelligent design. The laws of physics and chemistry, and Darwinian evolution, are sufficient to account for everything in the universe." Steven Hawking

I stand corrected; my statement regarding Steven Hawking embracing Intelligent Design was an oversight. I was merely conveying (to a member of the forum) that Intelligent Design is not--solely--the product of Christian fundamentalists. The premise of my statement was true. Why did you feel the need to trample on an honest mistake?

"If we find the answer [the unified theory], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for we would know the mind of God." (Stephen Hawking)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Albert Einstein

If my memory serves me correctly, I never stated that Albert Einstein was a person of religious belief; only that--in accordance with his theory of General Relativity--expressed our universe having a beginning. Moreover, Albert Einstein was a theist.

Read Einstein and God; the article contains a bibliography with 58 references!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Nor did he believe the universe was designed for us.

I never stated so.

"God does not play dice with the universe." (Albert Einstein)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Space-time and what we refer to as the universe may have begun at the Big Bang and expanded from there, but the universe existed prior to that expansion. Time may begin at a certain point, the universe as we know it may begin at a certain point, but current modeling is unable to investigate the universe outside of time, so there's no certainty it has a beginning at all.

Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity confirms that space, time, matter and energy all have a finite beginning; General relativity remains the most exhaustively tested principle in all of physics!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And yes something can come from a vacuum, see quantum electrodynamics.

Quantum electrodynamics encompasses "pre-existing" laws of physics, not to mention the relationship between electrons and photons; this theory has diddly-squat to do with something willing itself into being.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And no "intelligent design" will never be a scientific theory even if you tag the word theory onto the end you will still be nothing more than a cdesign proponentsist. It's not a new idea, it's an old idea repackaged.

The scientific community has marshaled Intelligent Design, even respected philosophers and mathematicians; I understand that religious fanatics have rallied around Intelligent Design theory. But theists did not create (or form) the theory; bark and stomp your feet at the scientific community.

I corrected it because it was misleading. You stated:
"And the theory of Intelligent Design--or the premise thereof--goes back centuries. Albert Einstein himself embraced the theory, not to mention Stephen Hawking!"
Implying both of them "embraced" the "theory" of intelligent design. When neither did.
How you can state now that you "never stated" Einstein believed the universe was designed, when you've tried to imply Einstein "embraced" intelligent design, and reconcile that with the whole 9th Commandment thing is an enigma to me. 🙂

The "premise" of your statements is not true, intelligent design cannot be "substantiated" by scientific method, it is the ultimate god of gaps fallacy and completely unfalsifiable. There's that whole 9th Commandment again.

Despite your little soundbites, it's well known Einstein's "god" was more akin to Spinoza's pantheist equivalence of the cosmos to being like a god than anything else. I don't even no why you quote Hawking using a metaphor when he's directly stated he believes there's no need for any external "intelligent designer."

Anyone with basic physics knowledge knows that general relativity breaks down at the quantum level despite it being "the most exhaustively tested principle in all of physics!"!!!!1111!!

A component of quantum electrodynamics is the spontaneous generation of electron-positron pairs in a vacuum.

The scientific community reject ID because it's not science. Period.

Well, not as much as the evolutionary theory, which is a much vaster, broader and more solid theory. A theory that scientists can work with, unlike ID in its present stage. But nevertheless, still a theory.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, not as much as the evolutionary theory, which is a much vaster, broader and more solid theory. A theory that scientists can work with, unlike ID in its present stage. But nevertheless, still a theory.

you are confusing the colloquial use of the word "theory" with the scientific use of the word "theory"

YouTube video

Should settle it.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I corrected it because it was misleading. You stated:

"And the theory of Intelligent Design--or the premise thereof--goes back centuries. Albert Einstein himself embraced the theory, not to mention Stephen Hawking!"

Implying both of them "embraced" the "theory" of intelligent design. When neither did.

How you can state now that you "never stated" Einstein believed the universe was designed, when you've tried to imply Einstein "embraced" intelligent design, and reconcile that with the whole 9th Commandment thing is an enigma to me.

As I previously stated, I stand corrected regarding my statement pertaining to Steven Hawking; as for Albert Einstein, in stating, "God does not play dice with the universe," implies "design!"

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The "premise" of your statements is not true, intelligent design cannot be "substantiated" by scientific method, it is the ultimate god of gaps fallacy and completely unfalsifiable. There's that whole 9th Commandment again.

Science relentlessly pursues "cause" and "effect" phenomena; it is rather slippery of you--or a scientist--to claim that causes can "only" be accountable to natural processes, especially since no naturalistic scientific theory addressing the origin of life--or the universe--exists; the "cause" is an utter mystery! In light of this fact--and other factors--scientists are considering alternate options, namely, "supernatural" causes. And you are completely off base to invalidate such lines of reason.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Despite your little soundbites, it's well known Einstein's "god" was more akin to Spinoza's pantheist equivalence of the cosmos to being like a god than anything else.

And if you read further, you would have been acquainted in how Spinoza defined God in this Ethica! Spinoza stated:

"By God I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality." Proposition XV of the Ethica stated: "Whatever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."

Digesting the entirity of the text, Spinoza states that the "substance," is a "being!"

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't even no why you quote Hawking using a metaphor when he's directly stated he believes there's no need for any external "intelligent designer."

It is irrelevant at this point of the discussion; let it be.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Anyone with basic physics knowledge knows that general relativity breaks down at the quantum level despite it being "the most exhaustively tested principle in all of physics!"!!!!1111!!

Are you advocating that the theory of General Relativity--proposed by Albert Einstein--is no longer valid?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A component of quantum electrodynamics is the spontaneous generation of electron-positron pairs in a vacuum.

Quantum electrodynamics functions in regard to "pre-established/existing" laws of physics and matter; that is precisely the reason why theories of this caliber are tangible to study!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The scientific community reject ID because it's not science. Period.

The scientific community--as a whole--does not reject Intelligent Design theory; hence the abundance of literature available for study (authored by scientists themselves). Please refrain from being ridiculous.

Originally posted by ushomefree
As I previously stated, I stand corrected regarding my statement pertaining to Steven Hawking; as for Albert Einstein, in stating, "God does not play dice with the universe," implies "design!"

No, it denies that the ideas Quantum Mechanics exist in our universe. It implies predetermination if anything, not design.

I'm in favor of Non-Intelligent Design (NID). God is a plant. 😄

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

Without a doubt, people with theistic views are rallying around the theory of Intelligent Design; but these theists did not create (or form) the theory. Theists embrace Intelligent Design simply because it has <drum roll> religious implications.

that just isn't true...ID was proposed and is still predominantly proposed by the discovery institute in seattle which by its own admission in its wedge strategy which is

"reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

Originally posted by jaden101
that just isn't true...ID was proposed and is still predominantly proposed by the discovery institute in seattle which by its own admission in its wedge strategy which is

"reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

😆 So, ID is more political then science.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are confusing the colloquial use of the word "theory" with the scientific use of the word "theory"

No I don't. even though it's bigger and more encompassing doesn't mean everything has been proven. They still work with circumstantial evidence. No one was there, there's no way to reproduce it, all one can do is build sequences with the elements they have.