So, what is Intelligent Design?

[Iacchus]

If the sun is a true constant, then we have millions of true constants. The Earth, the stars, grass, Johnny Carson, even pi. Perhaps the Creator is Johnny Carson eating a piece of pi.

~~ Paul

Would you deny that you have a father (the sun) and a mother then? (the earth). And where would the rest of these things be without them?

 

[RussDill]

Iacchus,

Well, I know I'm wasting my time but anyway.....

Can you please, PLEASE, PLEASE puncture the suspense and just SIMPLY tell us as STRAIGHTFORWARDLY as you can WHAT it is that happened to you that FORCED the issue for you and MADE you accept that GOD EXISTS.

PLEASE.

BillyJoe

Dreams and visions.

 

[RussDill]

The base-energy of our existence progresses from its base- indeterminism towards the classical order and law seen within our perception.
One must ask oneself how existence becomes progressively self-ordered, as perceived, without ID.

yes, and people have asked that, for the past few thousand years, maybe you should read up, especially on those explainations that have had very good predictive powers (such as thermodynamics)

 

[RussDill]

Would you deny that you have a father (the sun) and a mother then? (the earth). And where would the rest of these things be without them?

oooh, ooh, ooh, don't forget the gay lover, the moon.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
Would you deny that you have a father (the sun) and a mother then? (the earth). And where would the rest of these things be without them?

The sun and the earth are bit players. The true father is the quantum vacuum and the mother is entropy. The older brother is momentum and the younger sisters are the quarks. The little puppy dog is a black hole.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

oooh, ooh, ooh, don't forget the gay lover, the moon.

The moon would probably be sister Artemis who, was the goddess of the moon and, childbearing.

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. - Revelation 12:1-5

 

[pupdog]

From the ReligiousTolerance site, they list the following belief types that wouldn't contradict what ID stands for:

I agree that ID is not incompatible with the listed religious types, but are any of them actively promoting ID or calling for teaching it in public schools? The most prominent group, led by lawyer Phillip E. Johnson, certainly has a religious agenda, with a more fundamentalist inclination than mainstream Christianity. Johnson has written (1997, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds") "... we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this... We call our stategy the 'wedge.'"
The Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture prepared a document, "The Wedge Strategy", which begins its introduction with "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."
They are less extreme than some zealots, in that they are not as concerned with reconciling every word in the Bible with current scientific knowledge, but they are intent on making their viewpoint the prevailing one.

 

[Checkmite]

What is Intelligent Design? Is it possible to acknowledge that Goddidit and acknowledge the merits of evolution as well? I think so. Of course I don't think we're speaking of the same Intelligent Design as the Creationists, if in fact that entails taking the Bible too literally.

What do you think?

Yes, it's perfectly all right to believe that natural evolution was the manifestation of God's or a god's will if you want. If one contends that "evolution was the way God created everything", then one's basic worldview does not deviate in an impactful way from scientific evolution, which simply states that "evolution was". Of course, you add a God, which you will have to account for (and if you can't find some way to account for Him, you can't really expect to convince anyone) if you want to make things smooth.

And you are definitely not speaking about the same Intelligent Design as the Creationist version, which is essentially everything in Genesis while being careful not to mention the words "Bible" or "God"; by extension, you are not speaking about the same Intelligent Design which is frequently the subject of educational reform debates and bills (like the event Upchurch is complaining about, for instance), because they are talking about the Creationist version. Creationists will not allow your version of Intelligent Design to be considered.

 

[BillyJoe]

T'ai Chi,

Well that is what the ID proponents are trying to see if it is the case [that evolution is blind]. [/B]

They are the only ones. To everyone else who cares to look the evidence is overwhelming.

BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Anything that requires all interpretation and no data is not scientific.

Or as someone else puts it.....

Science is selecting an interpretation based on the data
Pseudscience is selecting the data based on the interpretation

BillyJoe

 

[Mercutio]

This is all debatable. While I'm afraid I have to stick with my own experience on this one.

Ahh....finally...the foundation of your house of cards.

I would humbly suggest looking at a bit of the history of experimental psychology. The problem of the untrustworthiness of "my own experience" is at the heart of the evolution of this science. You trust your experience so much that you refuse even to admit that you are assuming things. Your experience, however, should not be awarded the trust you give it. There are so many simple demonstrations that show your experience to be a poor guide; it is certainly not strong enough to serve as a foundation for a system of belief.

I know you are absolutely certain of your experience. I also know that there is no way that you can be absolutely certain. And that is the crux of the matter. You mean it as certainty, it sounds more like arrogance, and with not much examination, it is shown to be nothing but ignorance. Don't build on it.

 

[BillyJoe]

Paul,

You need to stop reading this thread. You are sounding more and more like Iacchus with every post.

Iacchus,

Now I understand. You won't come clean because you are afraid we will laugh at you.
Well, I promise I will only laugh with....er....at Paul.

BillyJoe

 

[Iacchus]

Or as someone else puts it.....

Science is selecting an interpretation based on the data
Pseudscience is selecting the data based on the interpretation

BillyJoe

So what else could we possibly interpret, except for the "data" we receive through our senses? The bottom line is, "everything" is subject to interpretation. Like I said, open eyes, the evidence is all around you.

 

[Iacchus]

Ahh....finally...the foundation of your house of cards.

I would humbly suggest looking at a bit of the history of experimental psychology. The problem of the untrustworthiness of "my own experience" is at the heart of the evolution of this science. You trust your experience so much that you refuse even to admit that you are assuming things. Your experience, however, should not be awarded the trust you give it. There are so many simple demonstrations that show your experience to be a poor guide; it is certainly not strong enough to serve as a foundation for a system of belief.

I know you are absolutely certain of your experience. I also know that there is no way that you can be absolutely certain. And that is the crux of the matter. You mean it as certainty, it sounds more like arrogance, and with not much examination, it is shown to be nothing but ignorance. Don't build on it.

You demonstrate nothing but the physicality of the material world which, is only temporal by the way.

So, if we happened to get stuck with our material bodies throughout the rest of Eternity then your theories would great but, unfortunately (for you) it doesn't work that way.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, the Irony!

Quoted from the post above ...

Do you know what would be ironic? Is if I could teach everyone on this board how to see The Truth for themselves. And we could all tell James Randi to go take a hike! And we could say, Sorry Randi, the truth is self evident and you'll have to see it for yourself. Now wouldn't that be a blast!

 

[Tricky]

No, it still requires a human being to run the tests and "validate" the results.

No. It only requires them to observe, and it doesn't even have to be a human observing. You could have a machine performing the tests and recording the results.

And if there were no sun, would there be DNA?

Is that incredible non-sequitur supposed to pass as deep thinking? If water did not float when it freezes, could life survive on the earth? See, I can make non-sequiturs too!

It always has and always will be "my" interpretion. Just like 1 + 1 = 2. It will always be what my "mind" interprets it to be.

Still no. Your mind is only observing it. It is possible that your mind might make 1+1=3, but that would not be a different interpretation, that would only be a faulty observation.

The truth exists in everything, although "relative" from one thing to the next. However, the one true constant we have is the sun. Now, can you see a possible correlation -- and hence "inherent design" -- to a Creator here?

Got a "hot" flash for you. The sun is not constant. It has all sorts of variability, the most obvious being sunspots. In the longer picture, the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to fuse and become a dwarf star. And no, I see no correlation whatsoever. I know that you are full of enthusiasm about your "revelation", but I'm afraid it has blinded you to reality.

Do you know what would be ironic? Is if I could teach everyone on this board how to see The Truth for themselves. And we could all tell James Randi to go take a hike! And we could say, Sorry Randi, the truth is self evident and you'll have to see it for yourself. Now that would be a blast!

The "Truth" you teach is simply that everyone decides on "Truth" for themselves, just as you have. This is no great discovery because people have been doing it since they first began to think. The things that you have simply decided are "Truth" are pretty much irrational babbling to most of us here. If I could teach you about critical thinking, you would see this "truth" and you could stop wasting your time pursuing a chimera.

How about all the remote viewing experiments conducted by the CIA? As I understand much of that was successful and, repeatable. Not unless the Nova program that I saw was entirely wrong?

Perhaps you could provide some links to that. Nova is a pretty good show, but like all made-for-tv things, it likes to go for the sensational. Maybe your "interpretation" of the conclusions was wrong.

If the CIA could do remote viewing, then we would have found the WMDs by now. I am still looking for one single useful, reliable thing that has resulted from paranormal research. Do you know of any?

As I said the truth exists in everything. However, as I already said, there comes a time when you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hmm ... And that time may be arriving shortly.

Oh dear. Now you are calling down the apocalypse on us. Hey. It's been done. Hundreds of times. All of them were wrong. But ya know, I have my own system for separating the wheat from the chaff. If you can demonstrate it repeatedly, it's wheat. If you can't, it's chaff. Your philosophy is chaff.

This is all debatable. While I'm afraid I have to stick with my own experience on this one.

I didn't really expect anything different.

 

[BillyJoe]

So what else could we possibly interpret, except for the "data" we receive through our senses? The bottom line is, "everything" is subject to interpretation. Like I said, open eyes, the evidence is all around you.

Well, I was referring to pseudoscientists who start off with a pet theory and search for data to support their pet theory. Rather than the other way round.

But anyway, yes, all data must come in through the senses (putting aside telepathy for the moment ). The problems however are multiple and varied.

For example, you could just sit there and passively receive everything on offer. Or you could go searching.
You could be blind to the data that refutes your present interpretation/theory/hypothesis or, on the contrary, you could pointedly search for data which, if found, could refute your theory.

But you are still being obscure and secretive.

You can't just keep giving links to your online book. It would be costly in time and effort to read your book so we need some sort of assurance that it would be worthwhile. After all this time I am still not clear what exactly it is that makes you tick.

Are you the tick of a well oiled engine or the tick of a bomb about to go off?

BillyJoe

 

[Mercutio]

You demonstrate nothing but the physicality of the material world which, is only temporal by the way.

So, if we happened to get stuck with our material bodies throughout the rest of Eternity then your theories would great but, unfortunately (for you) it doesn't work that way.

What a great response. It fits no matter what you are responding to! Or rather, fits equally well, which is to say it doesn't fit at all. Kinda like ID.

Seriously, re-read the post you pretended to respond to. Do what scientists do every day: challenge your own beliefs. See if there might be another explanation. Hey, maybe you will disagree with what I said. Fine by me--but I would really rather you actually read it and responded to it, rather than what you did.

I think you will find that those of us here who disagree with you--even those who disagree very strongly--actually make the effort to understand what you are saying. Please have the decency to reciprocate.

 

[Iacchus]

No. It only requires them to observe, and it doesn't even have to be a human observing. You could have a machine performing the tests and recording the results.

What are you saying, nobody's doing the "thinking" then? Then what do we have scientists for?

Also, how did these "machines" come into existence? And what's going to happen when the machines "think" they're better than we are? That would be a grave mistake now wouldn't it?

Is that incredible non-sequitur supposed to pass as deep thinking? If water did not float when it freezes, could life survive on the earth? See, I can make non-sequiturs too!

The reason why life exists on this planet -- first and foremost -- is due to its relationship with the sun ... at least in terms of the way people (the lay person) evaluate it in terms of common everday experience.

Still no. Your mind is only observing it. It is possible that your mind might make 1+1=3, but that would not be a different interpretation, that would only be a faulty observation.

What are you saying I only have a mind and no feelings by which to evaluate things? Yep, all we need are the machines!

Got a "hot" flash for you. The sun is not constant. It has all sorts of variability, the most obvious being sunspots. In the longer picture, the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to fuse and become a dwarf star. And no, I see no correlation whatsoever. I know that you are full of enthusiasm about your "revelation", but I'm afraid it has blinded you to reality.

Why do you insist in getting stuck in the "physicality" of everything? The sun is a constant in that it's been there day in and out ever since the earth has been here.

The "Truth" you teach is simply that everyone decides on "Truth" for themselves, just as you have. This is no great discovery because people have been doing it since they first began to think. The things that you have simply decided are "Truth" are pretty much irrational babbling to most of us here. If I could teach you about critical thinking, you would see this "truth" and you could stop wasting your time pursuing a chimera.

It's not for me to decide what the ultimate truth is, only present to you what I know.

Perhaps you could provide some links to that. Nova is a pretty good show, but like all made-for-tv things, it likes to go for the sensational. Maybe your "interpretation" of the conclusions was wrong.

It's strange but I cannot find a link?

If the CIA could do remote viewing, then we would have found the WMDs by now. I am still looking for one single useful, reliable thing that has resulted from paranormal research. Do you know of any?

Actually I'm not all that up on what other people are doing with paranormal research. I just brought up the Nova program because it was interesting and I thought easily verifiable. Of course that's not to say there aren't any links out there ...

Oh dear. Now you are calling down the apocalypse on us. Hey. It's been done. Hundreds of times. All of them were wrong. But ya know, I have my own system for separating the wheat from the chaff. If you can demonstrate it repeatedly, it's wheat. If you can't, it's chaff. Your philosophy is chaff.

I only need to demonstrate it once.

I didn't really expect anything different.

Time factor more than anything else ...

 

[Iacchus]

What a great response. It fits no matter what you are responding to! Or rather, fits equally well, which is to say it doesn't fit at all. Kinda like ID.

Seriously, re-read the post you pretended to respond to. Do what scientists do every day: challenge your own beliefs. See if there might be another explanation. Hey, maybe you will disagree with what I said. Fine by me--but I would really rather you actually read it and responded to it, rather than what you did.

I think you will find that those of us here who disagree with you--even those who disagree very strongly--actually make the effort to understand what you are saying. Please have the decency to reciprocate.

Science does nothing but speak to us about that which is temporary. So what? ...