• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

I find it interesting that they are trying to push ID as "science" in schools, but it is the creationists that are admitting that ID is creationism and that it is the truth compared to evolution blah blah blah.

I also like how they hypocritically say that evolutionists "attack" them. It is the creationuts that attack evolution even though evolution explores the evolution of life and not origins of life.

One thing I wonder is that ID seems to want to say the evolution itself could be a gods' way of making sure life adapts and keeps surviving change. They just don't like macroevolution. I mean, even our cars evolve to get better and better, with us building on what we previously did. Yet, we don't make houses out of cars or whatever.

Yet they cannot explain why there are new species around that didn't live x amount of years ago. You will never find a great ape skeleton with a dino skeleton...I'm sure some dino would have found them tasty. They also can't explain why dinos aren't STILL around since there is then no reason for them to have gone extinct if we all existed at the same time. In fact, no animal should ever go instinct since "the creator" made them all so complicatedly perfect.

With this acceptance of "intelligent design" and microevolution, are some actually getting some understanding of evolution? Why cut out macroevolution then? It is an undeniable part of the picture. Oh well, baby steps.
 
I think I saw, a few weeks ago, some comment about creationists/IDers getting cold feet about the idea of having their ideas taught as science as this would allow science teachers to encourage their pupils to think critically about creationism and the Bible in general. I can't remember where I saw this, but I kind of like the idea!
 
Hmm, I think that is some sort of reverse psychology to get into the schools still. They think if students were made to think about it the way they want the curriculum, then they would question evolution all the more.
 
My girlfriend (a Christian) and I (an agnostic) were talking about this the other day.

She said something like "doesn't all the complexity of everything indicate to you that there was someone who designed it all?"

I said "Assuming that is true for the moment... Wouldn't this "creator" have to be extremely complex as well, to have come up with everything? If so, then wouldn't that mean that He had to have been designed by Someone Else, who would have had to have been designed by Someone Else, who..."

It was along about this point that she said "I've got to learn not to debate with you anymore. You always win, and it isn't because you're right - you're just better at it."
 
Hey, I gotta remember that: I'm never going to acknowledge that anyone won a debate, only that they are a better debater than I.

Ask your girlfriend whether it was all designed up front, or whether a continuous stream of miracles are keeping it working moment by moment.

~~ Paul
 
Some Yahoo Moron:
"Medical progress resulting from evolutionary biology is virtually nil."
Click to expand...

Selective media to grow bacteria and yeast is a fundamental tool of molecular biology. That's evolutionary biology.

Comparative anatomy in medical education was vital for centuries and still is. That's evolutionary biology.

No analysis of genomic or proteomic data is complete without characterizing the subject gene or protein in evolutionary terms. Good luck developing drugs, assays, or any bioscientific technique without doing that homework.


This dork is a Grade-A windbag.
 
What the IDers say is that medical science doesn't need evolutionary theory, it only needs the facts of the matter. The facts, so they say, could have arisen in some other manner.

This is true, to some degree, of all technology. I can improve the performance of an automobile engine knowing only the facts about burning gasoline, without really knowing the deep chemistry or energy physics. However, this is only true up to a point, and as the technology advances, the theory becomes more important, because we begin to play with deeper attributes of the subject at hand.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
What the IDers say is that medical science doesn't need evolutionary theory, it only needs the facts of the matter. The facts, so they say, could have arisen in some other manner.

This is true, to some degree, of all technology. I can improve the performance of an automobile engine knowing only the facts about burning gasoline, without really knowing the deep chemistry or energy physics. However, this is only true up to a point, and as the technology advances, the theory becomes more important, because we begin to play with deeper attributes of the subject at hand.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I can divide with a calculator without having to know long division. But, learning the "hard way" teaches you how to think and to understand. You can gain knowlegde without understanding. That is the antithesis of true intelligence.

-TT
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
This is true, to some degree, of all technology. I can improve the performance of an automobile engine knowing only the facts about burning gasoline, without really knowing the deep chemistry or energy physics. However, this is only true up to a point, and as the technology advances, the theory becomes more important, because we begin to play with deeper attributes of the subject at hand.
Click to expand...

The proper design and assembly of an automobile would happen by chance if a trillion variants were made and 99.999+% of them failed.
 
I find it interesting that they are trying to push ID as "science" in schools, but it is the creationists that are admitting that ID is creationism and that it is the truth compared to evolution blah blah blah.
Click to expand...
I've heard Intelligent Design Theory described as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Creationism is too far out to be taken seriously, ID is more sellable as *credible*. Apparently.
 
Yep. But try as they might, it still has no basis in fact or science. It reeks of creationism, especially the anti-evolution lesson plans that come with it. I've never seen such blatant one sidedness and leaving out of facts.
 
I just had a thought, although surely not an original one. Let's assume that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. It could not have evolved naturalistically; it was created by a miracle of the intelligent designer.

Assuming we're not dismissing all of evolution and the fossil record, shouldn't we be able to determine when the miracle occurred? Things should be moseying along without a flagellum and then wham! a flagellum appears. Or perhaps some critter had a complete flagellum that wasn't jump started and then bam! it starts up. Or perhaps the miracle was performed long ago, but with a timer that kept the flagellum hidden until kazam! it pops into view. But unless we're being continually duped by the intelligent designer, we ought to be able to discover when the miracle occurred.

~~ Paul
 
Any topic about intelligent design is bound to involve my boy Behe! (I'm a proud Lehigh University graduate)

I don't yet buy a word of this stuff, though.

I WANT God to be real. But I'm sure investing a lot more hope in Chris Langan than these ID idiots.
 
Paul; I BELIEVE any theory that incorporates wham, bam, and kazaam just has to be right. I will deposit half my brain at the door.
 
Jessica Blue said:
I've heard Intelligent Design Theory described as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Creationism is too far out to be taken seriously, ID is more sellable as *credible*. Apparently.
Click to expand...

What do IDers say seperates ID from traditional creationism other than a fancy name? Any idears?
 
aargh57 said:
What do IDers say seperates ID from traditional creationism other than a fancy name? Any idears?
Click to expand...

I think traditional creationism just says "Poof! God Dunnit!". ID tries to explain how God Dunnit. This enables them to use lots of high-faluting scientificky sounding words that sound very impressive.
 
IDers focus on "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information." Google away for more than you want to know.

~~ Paul
 
I was flipping channels last night and saw some guy from Answers in Genesis talking about creationism. His statement was something like, "If we can't use the bible in classrooms, we want to at least show how the evidence is consistent with a creator."

My first thought was, what evidence is _not_ consistent with a creator?

This is what kills ID as science. Not that it doesn't account for the current evidence, but that it accounts for _ANY_ evidence. Therefore, it explains nothing.
 
RSLancastr said:
... I said "Assuming that is true for the moment... Wouldn't this "creator" have to be extremely complex as well, to have come up with everything? If so, then wouldn't that mean that He had to have been designed by Someone Else, who would have had to have been designed by Someone Else, who..."
Click to expand...

This is one of the classic flaws that creationists can't ever seem to worm their way out of except by obvious contradiction -- everything needs a cause, except God of course. (He's the exception to every rule they lay down.) Perhaps next time you might try asking something on the order of "What is God made of ?" To argue that He is made of nothing defaults to non-existance -- but if He is made of something ... we can choose that either God's makeup is either very complex or infinitely simple. Let's say that to create a universe God must be very complex. In order to be complex, even mildly complex, one needs more than one type of anything -- 'God Atoms', if you'll permit me. Are God Atoms older than God? From what we observe and measure so far, it would seem to have to be the case. But can't one argue that God and what He is made of always existed? Well . . . then aren't the ingredients of God -- which, when taken by themselves are not God, only parts of God -- just as old as God Himself? Now we have material older or just as old as God. There's a problem in making God complex -- I always thought that He is suppose to be the first, and that everything came after Him. OK then, how about infinitely simple? Just one type of material? The problem here is that anything so simple would not be able to do anything. Try to image material so simple that there are no interactions or changes even within itself. You can't have atoms -- they have individual components. You just have one continuous piece of 'God Matter'. The instant this material does something -- anything -- It must in some way change, alter Its will and recognize the time before and after It did something as being two different events. But is this possible of something that is infinitely simple, which cannot change? There seems to always be conflicting logic in trying to make God out of something -- but there's even more trouble when you make Him out of nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom