Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

[Chairtime]

freewill is the antithisis of ID,

I think you have a different understanding of free will. Free will is limited to my actions, words and thoughts. My will does not control my form and it does not control the form of my offspring. (If it did, I would be a little bit taller and a lot smarter.)

what proof do you have for ID, real tangiable proof, or is it just faith?

That's what this thread attempts to explore. There is evidence and reasonable doubt on both sides of the debate. Neither is proven.

then it is not that intellegent then

We will be lucky if we can quantify Intelligent Design, let alone the Designer.

[QDO1]

I think you have a different understanding of free will. Free will is limited to my actions, words and thoughts. My will does not control my form and it does not control the form of my offspring

the freewill actions of Hitler for example have had a massive effect on where we are today. Either Hitler was in the design, or freewill defeats Intelegent design in its most absolute sense. You have free will to choose your partner, and thus your offspring will be as a result of your freewill, so yes freewill does control the form of your offspring

[QDO1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by QDO1
what proof do you have for ID, real tangiable proof, or is it just faith?

Quote:
Originally prosted by Chairtime
That's what this thread attempts to explore. There is evidence and reasonable doubt on both sides of the debate. Neither is proven.

QDO1:
Well stop avoiding the question, and cough up some proof. Freewill and Intelegent design seems to be a Idea or philosophy, rather than something that is qualitative and tangiable

[QDO1]

Looking at the thread from front to back, I still see no evidence for ID. Pete had a stab at it in his first post. Beyond that it seems that belief and "wanting it to be true" seem to be the motivations and reasons about suggesting ID is true

To begin to prove ID then one must firstly show some evidence. It is not good enough to say "we are complex" so therefore the design must have been intellegent

To humor the debate, and perhaps add a vital perspective: follow this link

http://www.venganza.org/ - home of the church of the flying spagettie monster

[Robert Martellaro]

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
-Isaac Asimov

[QDO1]

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
-Isaac Asimov

Issac Asimov had amazing foresight, and is due much respect

[chip anderson]

On his death bed Asimov expressed regret that he could not find evidence of God, but said he could not.

[chm2023]

On his death bed Asimov expressed regret that he could not find evidence of God, but said he could not.

??????

George Will was discussing this over the weekend (the ID thing). He made the point that the recent Dover Pa election (wherein 7 of 7 school board members who had voted to include ID in the district cirriculum were voted out of office) was the truly worrisome result of the elections for Republicans. His theory (not especially his actually, well accepted by many) is the the Republican party is made of 2 parts--the libertarian, small government, low taxes part, and the social conservatives, mainly evangelicals. The coalition is uneasy as are all political coalitions, but what will really test it is when the social conservatives start to move to involve the government in promoting personal beliefs--things like ID, stem cell research.

There's a really interesting article in The New Yorker on a somewhat similiar topic--talks about Casey v Santorum and how the Democrats are moving to win that election. Basically, they are taking abortion off the table--Casey is pro-life--and saying to their base, "Look, we can hold fast to a hard pro-choice position with no limits (minors, 3rd term etc) and let the Republican appear to take the high ground and end up with a radical like Santorum, or we can bite the bullet and help elect someone like Casey who holds with most core Democratic beliefs." Santorum is behind by 15 points. Of course it helps that Casey is very, very popular and that his Dad was extremely popular. Guess we'll see.

[QDO1]

??????

George Will was discussing this over the weekend (the ID thing). He made the point that the recent Dover Pa election (wherein 7 of 7 school board members who had voted to include ID in the district cirriculum were voted out of office) was the truly worrisome result of the elections for Republicans. His theory (not especially his actually, well accepted by many) is the the Republican party is made of 2 parts--the libertarian, small government, low taxes part, and the social conservatives, mainly evangelicals. The coalition is uneasy as are all political coalitions, but what will really test it is when the social conservatives start to move to involve the government in promoting personal beliefs--things like ID, stem cell research.

There's a really interesting article in The New Yorker on a somewhat similiar topic--talks about Casey v Santorum and how the Democrats are moving to win that election. Basically, they are taking abortion off the table--Casey is pro-life--and saying to their base, "Look, we can hold fast to a hard pro-choice position with no limits (minors, 3rd term etc) and let the Republican appear to take the high ground and end up with a radical like Santorum, or we can bite the bullet and help elect someone like Casey who holds with most core Democratic beliefs." Santorum is behind by 15 points. Of course it helps that Casey is very, very popular and that his Dad was extremely popular. Guess we'll see.

there you go - the issue is religious and political. If it were an issue of straight science, none of the above would need to happen. Perhaps one might think... what is taught in Religious education - Christianity alone - or all the other religions, and athiesm too?

[chm2023]

there you go - the issue is religious and political. If it were an issue of straight science, none of the above would need to happen. Perhaps one might think... what is taught in Religious education - Christianity alone - or all the other religions, and athiesm too?

Well that depends re religious education: if you are attending a church related school, you are schooled in your faith, and perhaps others. Comparative religion looks at various and is a legitimate topic for public schools, though it's hardly core cirriculum or appropriate for lower grades.

Kansas is re-writing their definition of science (for schools); the current definition is "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

Those clever Kansas folks are taking out the word "natural". Leaving room of course, for the "supernatural". Which is lovely, just not science.

Of course, it's an ill wind: I got quite a chuckle out of that numbnuts Pat Robertson threatening the good citizens of Dover with the wrath of God. It's so disconcerting to think of God confiding in this toad.....

Rev. Ridiculous doesn't speak well for intelligent design
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
Knight Ridder Newspapers


'And the Lord did look with discontent upon the town of Dover in the province of Pennsylvania. For Dover was a wicked and prideful place and had turned its back on God. Its people had voted out school board members who tried to introduce intelligent design into schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

"And the Lord was wrathful and said, I will smite them with burning coals from the sky. Their fields I will make barren, their rivers I will cause to rise in flood, their football teams will lose, their sewers will back up, no one who lives there shall hit the Powerball. And I will help them not."

OK, so that's not in my Bible, either. But apparently it's in the Rev. Pat Robertson's. Incensed at Dover voters for insisting that science classes teach science, he issued a dire warning to the town last week on his TV show The 700 Club.

"If there is a disaster in your area," he said, "don't turn to God — you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. ... Don't ask for his help, because he might not be there."

Ah, Pat. Pat, Pat, Pat. Thank you, Pat. Whenever there's a slow news day, we can always count on you to liven things up with your special wisdom.

I mean, wasn't it just a few months ago that Rev. Ridiculous put out a hit on Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez? Two years ago that he asked viewers to pray for God to remove three justices from the Supreme Court? Four years ago that he linked the Sept. 11 attacks to the fact that organized prayer is not allowed in schools? Seven years ago that he warned Orlando, Fla., of "terrorist bombs ... earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor" for allowing a gay pride event?

He also said that Mouse Town could get hit by a hurricane, which was a really gutsy prediction, if you ask me. I mean, a hurricane, hitting Florida? What are the odds?

So this latest nonsense is right in line with what we've come to expect from our friend Pat. The only thing you can do is laugh — and try not to think about how many people lump you in with this fellow when you profess to be a Christian.

Point being, I believe there was a Designer. I also believe that's a matter for the pulpit, the class in comparative religion or the class in philosophy. It doesn't belong in science class because it's not science. It's faith.

And please spare me the thousand word-for-word e-mails arguing with eerie, "Stepford wife" uniformity, that "the theory of evolution is just that, a theory."

Your humble correspondent was only a "C" science student, but even I get the fact that scientific theory involves a bit more rigorous reasoning than my personal theory that I can make my team win by wearing my lucky shirt and yelling at the television. Scientific theory requires conclusions based on observable, replicable and predictable phenomena.

To put it another way: gravity is "just" a theory, but I don't hear anyone arguing with Isaac Newton. Or suggesting students be taught the "alternative" theory that we are held to earth by invisible strips of Velcro.

Not that I want to give Kansas any ideas. At the same time voters in Dover were standing up for common sense, Kansas' state board of education was voting to adopt standards undermining the teaching of Darwin's theory. This is the latest step in the state's long, hard-fought campaign to turn out stupid kids.

See, the Pennsylvanians get what the Kansans do not: Teaching religion masked as science devalues both and ensures that children will be that much less prepared for college and the world beyond. I can't believe God requires ignorance, that he gave us brains he doesn't want us to use, or that intelligence and faith are mutually exclusive.

Of course, I'm forced to reconsider that position every time Rev. Ridiculous opens his mouth.

[QDO1]

perhaps they ought to teach intellegent design in religious education lessons, and science in science lessons?

[chm2023]

perhaps they ought to teach intellegent design in religious education lessons, and science in science lessons?

Ta-dah!!!!!!:cheers:

[drk]

I have a take on this ID thing: Really, if you want your kid to get a Christian education, send them to a Christian school. If you send your kids to a public school, or public university, you get what you deserve.

You all will see, however, in the not-so-distant future, that ID will become more and more accepted in non-religious circles. It may never become the predominant theory of the day, but it will increase, as the case for it is increasing. ID will not necessarily lead people to God, though. Look for more panspermia and alien visitation explanations. I kid you not. I kid you not.

The problem in Christianity is that at least half of Christianity thinks that it is possible to usher in God's kingdom here on earth: sort of "reform" society and the planet. That is a non-biblical fallacy. Fundamental Christians know that things are going to go downhill quickly.

So, to sum up,
ID: good
Fighting with secular authorities: bad
Saving the world with a broad-based approach: foolish
Saving each individual personally: God's will.

[Steve Machol]

To put it another way: gravity is "just" a theory, but I don't hear anyone arguing with Isaac Newton. Or suggesting students be taught the "alternative" theory that we are held to earth by invisible strips of Velcro.

I couldn't resist sharing this:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
more......

[QDO1]

I couldn't resist sharing this:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

In this context, "Evangelical scientist" is a bit like saying "married batchelor"

To be absoloutley fair, I suppose if you believe in angels, one would worry what holds them up, and how they fly

[drk]

You'd better click the link, QDO. You're not familiar with the satirical "Onion"?

[QDO1]

You'd better click the link, QDO. You're not familiar with the satirical "Onion"?

oh yes, but i didnt want to be accused of taking the Pi$$ too much.. LOL - did you click my earlier link?

[Chairtime]

QDO1 I clicked your link about the Spagetti Monster. Cute. Obviously an athiest website dreamed up by some guy who has a lot of time on his hands.

[QDO1]

QDO1 I clicked your link about the Spagetti Monster. Cute. Obviously an athiest website dreamed up by some guy who has a lot of time on his hands.

yes - it is as relevant to science as the religious version of intelegent design, read it again carefully, seems exactly the same as the christian version, but with a different god as the designer.. Its a shame it takes humor to highlight the sillyness of the intelegent design proposition

[chm2023]

I couldn't resist sharing this:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
more......

Very good, love the Onion!!!!:D They had a similiar article about "faith based" initiatives proposed by Bush, having religious orgs take over traditionally govt functions. My favorite was "faith based air traffic control". (Fact stranger than fiction dept: faith based FEMA):hammer:

[Chairtime]

yes - it is as relevant to science as the religious version of intelegent design, read it again carefully, seems exactly the same as the christian version, but with a different god as the designer.. Its a shame it takes humor to highlight the sillyness of the intelegent design proposition

Well not exactly the same. Unless I missed the 2000-year-old Spagettie Bible and the Noodle that died on the cross.

[QDO1]

wait 2000 years... and where in the thread was it mentioned about not refering to the scriptures or religion.. right at the beginning?

Without quoting the Bible or any religious beliefs, can you support one theory or the other? (ID or E) Please keep this thread sterile. Use only facts, evidence, logic and/or scientific analysis.

[Chairtime]

the christian version, but with a different god as the designer..

You're the one who brought up God and Christianity, remember?

[QDO1]

to bring this thread back on topic.. would someone explain to me the limits of intellegent design... is it all encompassing, and defines where each of us is today, because that is waht was supposed to happen, or is it more limited - in otherwords like planting a tree - maybee a big tree will come, maybee it will wither away?

[chip anderson]

God has no limits, God's designs have no limits.