I do not understand why those who advocate ID do not carry their logic further.

There argument is very simple: A complex creature like a human being cannot just happen. Such a creature must have been designed by an iintelligent entity.

Assuming their argument has some merit, who designed the ID? Surely a designer is more complex than the object/entity he/she designed. Hence there must be a meta ID who designed the ID. If so, then who designed the Meta ID?

The argument for the existence of an ID leads to an infinite series of Intelligent Designers. Is this what advocates of the ID believe? If not, why not?

Unlimited designers, each of whom are dumbing down. What will we design? Something worse than ourselves. This is not good.

I do not understand why those who advocate ID do not carry their logic further.

There argument is very simple: A complex creature like a human being cannot just happen. Such a creature must have been designed by an iintelligent entity.

Assuming their argument has some merit, who designed the ID? Surely a designer is more complex than the object/entity he/she designed. Hence there must be a meta ID who designed the ID. If so, then who designed the Meta ID?

The argument for the existence of an ID leads to an infinite series of Intelligent Designers. Is this what advocates of the ID believe? If not, why not?
No, this isn't true...

God is complex in one way, but simple in another way....so simple that he's so complex......

Atheists ignore all the evidence for design in the universe and will choose any other conclusion besides there being an intelligent cause....you know why? Because they just have to refuse anything that contradicts their faith-based belief system....so they rule out all possibility of an intelligent cause...

No, atheists like myself have refuted all the evidence theists have given us.

Stop being an ignorant jackass.

No, atheists like myself have [i]refuted all the evidence theists have given us[i/].

Stop being an ignorant jackass.

Yeah, the reason they refute it is because they don't want to even admit the possibility of God....in other words atheists will accept ANY conclusion besides there being an intelligent cause...

Take for instance the anthropic principle which shows how everything in universe just happened to be perfectly fined-tuned for intelligent life (us), so fine-tuned that even a small change in any of the principles behind reality would cause intelligent life to no longer exist. Instead of saying well there could be an intelligent cause behind reality, the atheists using faith says "no it just can't be, there must be a multiverse"....so the atheists are willing to accept the many-worlds interpretation (of which there is no empirical evidence for) over an intelligent cause.....all of a sudden "ahh I don't need no f*cking evidence for anything, I can just blindly believe it, its better than believing in an intelligent cause, so who cares"

Then there's abiogenesis, which says that the first species of life came from inorganic matter...this theory was great up until the genetic revolution, when biologists realized that there was "data" within each cell that was read, interpreted, translated, etc....the simplest forms of life have all these design features typical of an intelligent cause....bioengineers find that it has a lot similar with computers.....now biologists go into labs and say "well lets put some chemicals together and see a cell form" but no luck...over 50 years pass and still no empirical evidence supporting abiogenesis.....so the atheist says "oh well, it just can't be an intelligent cause....the natural cause is just unknown, who really cares if there's no empirical evidence to support an undirected naturalistic cause, I'll take any conclusion besides an intelligent cause"

Then there's all the theories which say that consciousness exists independently of the brain like the space-time consciousness theory and the many-minds interpretation. There's also the many problems neurologists face when trying to explain consciousness as the result of just chemical reactions. Now the atheist says "yeah who cares, I some how know everything and can thus conclude that consciousness is only the result of brain activity, anything else is just an imaginary fantasy delusional fools believe in"

So basically the atheist will believe and take ANY conclusion besides an intelligent cause...

Yeah, the reason they refute it is because they don't want to even admit the possibility of God....in other words atheists will accept ANY conclusion besides there being an intelligent cause...
Wrong.

Take for instance the anthropic principle which shows how everything in universe just happened to be perfectly fined-tuned for intelligent life (us), so fine-tuned that even a small change in any of the principles behind reality would cause intelligent life to no longer exist. Instead of saying well there could be an intelligent cause behind reality, the atheists using faith says "no it just can't be, there must be a multiverse"....so the atheists are willing to accept the many-worlds interpretation (of which there is no empirical evidence for) over an intelligent cause.....all of a sudden "ahh I don't need no f*cking evidence for anything, I can just blindly believe it, its better than believing in an intelligent cause, so who cares"
If that's what you think atheists say then you have grossly misunderstood both the Anthropic Principle and the "Many Worlds" theory.

Then there's abiogenesis, which says that the first species of life came from inorganic matter...this theory was great up until the genetic revolution, when biologists realized that there was "data" within each cell that was read, interpreted, translated, etc....the simplest forms of life have all these design features typical of an intelligent cause....bioengineers find that it has a lot similar with computers.....now biologists go into labs and say "well lets put some chemicals together and see a cell form" but no luck...over 50 years pass and still no empirical evidence supporting abiogenesis
Oooh, "over 50 years" big f*cking deal. How long "should" it take? Of course there's empirical evidence supporting abiogenesis - we're here.

.....so the atheist says "oh well, it just can't be an intelligent cause....the natural cause is just unknown, who really cares if there's no empirical evidence to support an undirected naturalistic cause, I'll take any conclusion besides an intelligent cause"
Because there IS no empirical evidence of an intelligent cause maybe?

Then there's all the theories which say that consciousness exists independently of the brain like the space-time consciousness theory and the many-minds interpretation. There's also the many problems neurologists face when trying to explain consciousness as the result of just chemical reactions. Now the atheist says "yeah who cares, I some how know everything and can thus conclude that consciousness is only the result of brain activity, anything else is just an imaginary fantasy delusional fools believe in"
Name ONE atheist that says "I know everything".

So basically the atheist will believe and take ANY conclusion besides an intelligent cause...
Because there is no evidence for an intelligent cause.

Wrong.

If that's what you think atheists say then you have grossly misunderstood both the Anthropic Principle and the "Many Worlds" theory.
What do you mean explain?



Oooh, "over 50 years" big f*cking deal. How long "should" it take? Of course there's empirical evidence supporting abiogenesis - we're here.
50 years is a lot in modern history times....



Because there IS no empirical evidence of an intelligent cause maybe?
no undirected naturalistic cause + deisgn features = intelligent cause....take for instance a TV, the Great Pyramids, etc...



Name ONE atheist that says "I know everything".
They don't say it they assume it...



Because there is no evidence for an intelligent cause.
Yes there is, lots of evidence for design, consciousness, faith, etc...

Its a shame you're blinded by your great atheistic faith...

What do you mean explain?
The Anthropic principle doesn't say anything about the universe being tuned for "intelligent life", it's about it seemingly being tuned for us. Specifically. If the numbers had been different then something else may have arisen.
The "Many Worlds" theory is to do with quantum physics and photon/ electron/ etc wave/particle duality.
Learn some science before you argue against it.

50 years is a lot in modern history times....
Yes it is. And the origin of life is a massive mystery. You want ALL the answers in your lifetime? How egocentric.

no undirected naturalistic cause + deisgn features = intelligent cause....take for instance a TV, the Great Pyramids, etc...
You keep trotting this out and you keep ignoring the answers. The pyramids and TVs are NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with anything. We KNOW they were designed. We do not "know" life was designed. The opportunities/ ways for it to arise number in the millions(?) Given the right conditions it could have gone any way.

They don't say it they assume it...
Incorrect. You assume they assume it. Atheists just say "no evidence" And a genuine atheist will also add "if evidence arises I'll gladly alter my view".

Yes there is, lots of evidence for design, consciousness, faith, etc...
No evidence for design. Obviously evidence of consciousness, (except in some SF posters), exists and faith undeniably exists, as evidenced by the posts on SF.

Its a shame you're blinded by your great atheistic faith...
And you are blinded by the fact of your faith into being totally incapable of understanding that someone can live without faith. There is no faith required for atheism.

The problem is, ID is not science. It is an idea, not a scientific theory, which has roots in all things not science. Going against the scientific process, which looks at evidence and gathers conclusions, ID "Theory" starts off with a conclusion and seeks for evidence, most of which is refutable or backed by circular logic, or by no logic at all.

Intelligent Design is a crock, and its not scientific whatsoever and has no evidence besides the presupposition that complex things must be created. While there is no evidence for that (thus it being a presupposition and not a fact).

You can call me an idiot, a stupid atheist, an ignorant evolutionist, but unlike most, if not all ID'ers, I do not deny the possibility that evolution is wrong and that, say in 100 years, there will be a different, better scientific theory explaining things.

What people don't get is that Evolution does not explain how the Universe came to be, nothing does with utter certainty, however there is evidence suggesting the Big Bang. Even so, no one can be sure what was before the Big Bang. So all you god lovers can still say whoever or whatever created everything, but once you start suggesting that a creator, something of which there is absolutely NO evidence for, is part of science, then you have crossed the line and will be attacked for it.

Intelligent Design has absolutely no evidence backing it up, and until I see some truly scientific evidence, along with the rest of the majority of the scientific community, ID will never be taken seriously except by Evangelical Christians (a good majority of ID'ers) in the Bible Belt wanting to teach it in public schools (Kansas).

Also, to suggest that a creator does not have a creator because the creator is simple suggests that you can prove that statement. Unless you can prove that a creator is simple in nature without using faith, but hard science, the statement that a creator does not have a creator is baseless and complete bull.

Show me some damned evidence for ID.

[Side note] However, we all REALLY know both Evolution and ID are wrong, and FSMism is right.

how convenient this must be for you.

I don't really see how this helps in the discussion at all. :bugeye:


isn't this the very definition of "the supernatural"?

Not the very one, but it can surely be compared. Your point? :shrug:

For something to be supernatural, it means it has no scientific evidence, only circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted and misinterpreted, misidentified, and made-up entirely. Plus, the moment someone admits it is supernatural, it doesn't belong to science, which eliminates the entire debate placing ID outside of science classes and only in theology classes which they won't do, because Creationism is so much easier to teach!

That evidence being?

And they meaning most theology teachers teaching... well... theology.

And so you admit it must take something supernatural, which thus kills the argument of whether ID should be taught in Science Class (but I suppose the argument of which is correct can still stand... for now) ?

The Anthropic principle doesn't say anything about the universe being tuned for "intelligent life", it's about it seemingly being tuned for us. Specifically. If the numbers had been different then something else may have arisen.
The "Many Worlds" theory is to do with quantum physics and photon/ electron/ etc wave/particle duality.
Learn some science before you argue against it.
I find this funny, the way you defined the anthropic principle was almost exactly the way I did (I even put in parenthesis "us"). I already know a lot about the many-worlds interpretation.

Also what I find funny is that atheists consider that the many-worlds interpretation could be true, without empirical evidence, but all the other theories supporting consciousness existing independently of the brain, evidence for design, etc..they just don't consider can be true.....don't you get it? anything that goes against atheism they just can't accept...its like a faith-based belief system...



Yes it is. And the origin of life is a massive mystery. You want ALL the answers in your lifetime? How egocentric.
No but how long before you consider an intelligent cause? I'm guessing that even in 1000 years if biologists are unable to produce the first species in labs, others like you will say the samething "who cares, the natural cause is unknown, lets ignore the possibilty of an intelligent cause"



You keep trotting this out and you keep ignoring the answers. The pyramids and TVs are NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with anything. We KNOW they were designed. We do not "know" life was designed. The opportunities/ ways for it to arise number in the millions(?) Given the right conditions it could have gone any way.
Hahaha, another funny response...

You see there is no way for us to "KNOW" that the first species were designed like you can for TVs, and Great Pyramids, therefore we have to look at the design features....and so the conclusion is no undirected naturalistic cause+design features = intelligent cause.....tell me how can you "KNOW" if the first species were designed or not?

There's lots of ancient structures that we don't know who built, or how it was built...so why don't we conclude it was just a natural formation? Its because, no undirected naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause...



Incorrect. You assume they assume it. Atheists just say "no evidence" And a genuine atheist will also add "if evidence arises I'll gladly alter my view".
Yeah, but you still deny and reject any evidence provided...therefore you DENY the evidence...



No evidence for design. Obviously evidence of consciousness, (except in some SF posters), exists and faith undeniably exists, as evidenced by the posts on SF.

And you are blinded by the fact of your faith into being totally incapable of understanding that someone can live without faith. There is no faith required for atheism.
What do you mean no evidence for design? Whats the anthropic principle then? Whats with gravity, the nuclear force, and all the other principle forces behind reality being so perfectly tuned just for us to exist? Thats not design? I guess your atheistic faith is blinding you again...

Not the very one, but it can surely be compared. Your point? :shrug:

For something to be supernatural, it means it has no scientific evidence, only circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted and misinterpreted, misidentified, and made-up entirely. Plus, the moment someone admits it is supernatural, it doesn't belong to science, which eliminates the entire debate placing ID outside of science classes and only in theology classes which they won't do, because Creationism is so much easier to teach!
So how can someone gather evidence of the supernatural? This is typical of atheists, ask for evidence of the supernatural but deny any type...

So you agree it requires the supernatural, which cannot be proven by science, and thus ID "Theory" should not be taught in Science classes?

And I dont "deny any type" of evidence for the supernatural, because there is none. To say something is supernatural is to admit there is no direct scientific evidence for it. Science only proves the natural.

So you agree it requires the supernatural, which cannot be proven by science, and thus ID "Theory" should not be taught in Science classes?

And I dont "deny any type" of evidence for the supernatural, because there is none. To say something is supernatural is to admit there is no direct scientific evidence for it. Science only proves the natural.

Well tell me how can I gather evidence of the supernatural? You obviously won't accept anything, so what will you accept?

How is it "obvious" I wont accept anything? You assume, because I'm "a foolish Atheist" that I will just block you out. And I just told you, you cannot prove things outside of nature with science, because science is "limited" to the natural world. So, back to the question you haven't answered:

[So you agree it requires the supernatural, which cannot be proven by science, and thus ID "Theory" should not be taught in Science classes?]

How is it "obvious" I wont accept anything? You assume, because I'm "a foolish Atheist" that I will just block you out. And I just told you, you cannot prove things outside of nature with science, because science is "limited" to the natural world. So, back to the question you haven't answered:

[So you agree it requires the supernatural, which cannot be proven by science, and thus ID "Theory" should not be taught in Science classes?]
So then you are saying your claim is unfalsifiable? First you say "there is no evidence of the supernatural", then I ask how can you gather evidence of the supernatural and you say "its outside of science", therefore your claim is completely unfalsifiable....you say there is no evidence, refuse any evidence, say gathering evidence is impossible, then ask for evidence...great strategy...

Pretty much... yes. It's not a strategy, look up what Science is. it concerns merely the "physical world" not the spiritual and/or supernatural world. So... yes... there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural because its impossible to get any. So, asking me how to do it is redundant, for its impossible. A Creator cannot be proven or disproven through science and *everyone* knows that.

I'm not using some roundabout strategy to "win", I'm simply stating the fact that Science and the Supernatural do not, in anyway, go together. In a scientific sense, my claims and your claims are both unfalsifiable.

And again, do you agree or disagree that ID cannot be proven or disproven through the science and thus should not be taught in science classes?

Please, answer the question. If you disagree with me, say so, but saying I have some sort of strategy isn't really answering it. If you think it can be proven by science, say so and show me the evidence.

Again, for the second time, you assume I will automatically ignore it. Trust me, I'm going to look at it.

First of all, what is the point of teaching Intelligent Design? The student cannot strive to find the root of it, nor can they ask any questions regarding it, because the answer will always be one of faith: "God did it". You can't explore Intelligent Design anywhere but in the Bible.


principle forces behind reality being so perfectly tuned just for us to exist? Thats not design? I guess your atheistic faith is blinding you again...

In what way are these things specially designed for us? We weren't the first on this planet. The only reason Humanity is here at all is because of asteroid impacts which killed off the dinosaurs, and allowed small Mammals to develop.

If you're talking life in general, how are we supposed to know the answer to that question? At best, our current technology is attempted to recreate the conditions during the first second of the universe's existence, not determine what caused the universe. I don't imagine that we'd be able to ever reach a conclusion on that.


There's lots of ancient structures that we don't know who built, or how it was built...so why don't we conclude it was just a natural formation? Its because, no undirected naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause...


No. The reason we know that rocks being piled up in a certain design is man-made is because we can see rocks in their original state. We know where the stones for the pyramids came from, and could reasonably assume that people must have built them. We don't see these "design features" in any other state than the way they are, so we have no reason to believe anything other than that's just the way they are! Why just leap into the belief that something created us?

You are making the common mistake of "We can create things, so something must have created us."

Anyway, that's just foolish. Why believe that it didn't just happen?

Oh, and conditions won't be "perfect" for long. Eventually, the moon will escape, and that will make it very hard for us to be here. And eventually, the sun will expand and destroy the planet. So to say that we were designed is kind of foolish, seeing as so much has come before us, and so much will come after us. We are just a little blip on the map, man.

And one last thing...why would a designer have to be supernatural? Size is relative, so I don't see how it would take anything supernatural to create us...it would only take something bigger. Perhaps our universe is in a labratory somewhere?

Which would be sort of cool, I mean, the discovery that we were in a lab and all. Not the fact that someday they may shut down (whoever they may be) the "Universe" experiment.

None of the believers in ID have addressed the problem of who designed the Intelligent Designer.

Is your argument for the existence of the ID not applicable to the ID? If not, why not?

Mock science class teaching different methods of life coming to be.

Teacher: One possible explanation is creation. If you'll open up your bibles and turn to page (whatever the hell page this is on), you'll see that right here it says 'and God made the universe' and voila, life!

Now, close your bibles, another explanation is ID. This theory states that something made us that is better than us.

The third explanation is evolution, take out your 1000 page biology books and flip to the 3 chapters describing evolution. Your homework tonight will be to read and understand all three chapters, we will discuss this tomorrow.



That^ is why they shouldn't teach anything other than evolution in school. To teach creation or ID, you say one sentence. That's it, that's how you were made, there's nothing else. [Something else stirkes me as being odd, for those who don't like evolution because they don't like the fact that we came from those vile, dumb, utterly simple monkeys, it seems like this is a pretty simple concept that describes how we came here.]

Also, would someone like to explain to me how you would get out of the ID paradox of every creator being created by another creator and so on, without eventually ending up at, 'And then it just kinda happened, everything came together in just the right conditions to make the first creator.

In truth, Science cannot explain either the existence of the universe or the existence of life. And not a single Faith on this earth can prove what it teaches by faith about these two subjects either.

This should mean, to a truly open minded person, to a person who is seeking truth, that all ideas regarding these subjects should still be, at least, considered and discussed with respect.

Why is it not appropriate to teach our children this simple point of view?

It's fine to teach to children, just keep it in Sunday school. Science class is science class, and within science class we teach, guess what? science! That's why only evolution should be taught, because it at least has proof behind it, even if it's not pertaining to the origins of life. We all know why every time the cold comes around, we always get it; because it changes and evolves in the time that we don't have it.

Leopold, you said this:


who's they?

my point is that it would take the supernatural, something outside of nature, to get life to form on this planet. the evidence i have seen would seem to suggest that.

The way I read this, maybe I am wrong with interpretation, is that you said it would take something supernatural to explain ID.

If you are saying that, then, as I've previously stated, it has nothing to do with Science and should not be taught in Science classes.


i believe the truth should be taught in our high schools.
and before you ask "what truth should that be?" let me ask "how is this process of evolution and the origins of life dealt with in our schools?

I don't really understand the question to be honest... could you rephrase it? Sorry, sometimes I don't understand wording :(

I'll answer the question, if I can, but I will also address that you want the truth to be taught in high schools. Well, I agree, but,and this has been stated and restated, by me and others, since ID "Theory" is not scientific in nature, it should not be taught in Science Class. ID can be taught in any Theology class everywhere for all I care, but it is not scientific in any way.

SetiAlpha6 said this:


In truth, Science cannot explain either the existence of the universe or the existence of life. And not a single Faith on this earth can prove what it teaches by faith about these two subjects either.

This should mean, to a truly open minded person, to a person who is seeking truth, that all ideas regarding these subjects should still be, at least, considered and discussed with respect.

Why is it not appropriate to teach our children this simple point of view?

This is true. Science does not explain the existence of the universe, and is not designed to. This isn't in the debate at all. What the Id vs Evolution debate is all about is whether ID should be taught in Science class. By your own wording, since ID tries to explain the origin of life, something science cannot explain, then ID is not a part of science.

Now, what exactly is there to explain about the existence of the Universe? Why is it here? That's not provable at all by anyone and frankly, its unimportant. If it can never be proven and there can never be a shred of evidence explaining the reason of Big Bang, people should take the agnostic view on it and see that there are an infinite amount of ideas that could explain it, and thus, since all have the same amount of merit behind them and since an infinite amount of ideas is impossible to teach, we should just trash the idea of teaching it altogether. Schools want to teach facts, not ideas, with the exception of Theology, Philosophy, and of course, Theories. Scientific Theories, mind you, which are as close to a fact as we can get.

Faiths try to explain the questions, yes, and they are allowed to. But not in Science classes. Churches, Mosques, Sunday School, Theology Class, yes. Science class? No.

Now to anyone who supports ID, since the question I have asked 4 times STILL hasn't been answered, I'll ask again: Does ID take a supernatural creator or not? If so, it is automatically outside the realm of science and thus the argument does not go any further--it should not be taught in science classes. If not, then it is within the realm of science and to be taught in science classes it must have supporting, scientific evidence. Show me the scientific evidence. If you cannot answer that, then ID is baseless and should not be taught in science classes.

Any takers?

how was you taught evolution and the origins of life in high school?

... It was an extremely brief course which explained absolutely nothing whatsoever.

I learned most of my stuff through the series of tubes.

I do not understand why those who advocate ID do not carry their logic further.

There argument is very simple: A complex creature like a human being cannot just happen. Such a creature must have been designed by an iintelligent entity.

Assuming their argument has some merit, who designed the ID? Surely a designer is more complex than the object/entity he/she designed. Hence there must be a meta ID who designed the ID. If so, then who designed the Meta ID?

The argument for the existence of an ID leads to an infinite series of Intelligent Designers. Is this what advocates of the ID believe? If not, why not?

the main reason that ID ends with god is that we (or any other subsequent created intelligence) cannot claim to be fully independent - when you start talking about a personality that is eternal on whom all other energies and forces are contingent, then you have reached the end of the trail of ID'ers

That^ is why they shouldn't teach anything other than evolution in school. To teach creation or ID, you say one sentence. That's it, that's how you were made, there's nothing else. [Something else stirkes me as being odd, for those who don't like evolution because they don't like the fact that we came from those vile, dumb, utterly simple monkeys, it seems like this is a pretty simple concept that describes how we came here.]


If you're talking grade school (young kids) and up through high school, then yes, only the theories that have solid supporting evidence, the ones that can be discussed at length and debated about and studied further, are the ones that should be taught. I'm starting to believe that because our brains are capable of so much (abstract thought is such an amazing concept, for example) that learning is going to be what makes our species evolve further.

The idea of creation (Intelligent Design is just a pretty way of dressing up the notion that "God Did It") curbs that learning process. Instead of searching, and trying to learn things about our universe, people who promote Creationism and ID (if there's a difference) are shutting the whole process down. Dumbing-down our nation, and discouraging learning.

You can't ask questions in religion. Yes, obviously, you can ask about Jesus and God and things of that nature, but there is no learning involved. Instead, those people take this word as Gospel (pun totally intended), and don't seek alternatives. They are closed in to this belief system, and there are no other answers.

And let's be fair here...if there really is a God, and we already have all the answers in this book...what's the point of living? What is the point of trying to continue the species? If all that were true, then we'd already know everything we need to know! What...is...the...point? To serve that god? To live for him? Are you kidding me? That is a slap in the face of life itself.

If we just accept that God made everything, there would be no reason to search out more answers, to look up and try to figure out how everything works.

So no, we shouldn't teach ID in schools. There is no benefit to teaching it, even if it were the truth.

the main reason that ID ends with god is that we (or any other subsequent created intelligence) cannot claim to be fully independent - when you start talking about a personality that is eternal on whom all other energies and forces are contingent, then you have reached the end of the trail of ID'ers

Right, but IDers would have no reason to think that there was an intelligent designer had their vision been clouded by their religious text of choice. If there had been one bit of scientific evidence that support the idea of Intelligent Design, then everyone would listen. But there isn't, and the agendas of those who push this idea are clear.

I think it's laughable that people who push Intelligent Design are accusing people who don't support it of having a "belief system" when it comes to their scientific approach, as if the practice of scientific research was done with one eye closed to every possibility than the ones they already believe...it's laughable because the people who support ID are the one's who aren't open to anything other than what they claim to be true. If you were to show a scientist legitimate proof (show a legitimate scientist, I should should say) of Intelligent Design, then that scientist will listen. But show a supporter of ID the evidence against ID, and they balk.

[QUOTE]
The idea of creation (Intelligent Design is just a pretty way of dressing up the notion that "God Did It") curbs that learning process. Instead of searching, and trying to learn things about our universe, people who promote Creationism and ID (if there's a difference) are shutting the whole process down. Dumbing-down our nation, and discouraging learning.
its not clear how working with the notion that god created the world curbs curiosity since you have hundreds of years of scientific history that worked out of such a paradigm


You can't ask questions in religion.
why not?


Yes, obviously, you can ask about Jesus and God and things of that nature, but there is no learning involved.
no learning?
why?


Instead, those people take this word as Gospel (pun totally intended), and don't seek alternatives. They are closed in to this belief system, and there are no other answers.
at the very least, if there is no body of evidence to suggest that the answer is wrong, why is the position of your argument more valid?


And let's be fair here...if there really is a God, and we already have all the answers in this book...what's the point of living?
perhaps you need to learn a bit more about the nature of spirituality to find the answer to this pertinent question of yours


What is the point of trying to continue the species?
I am not sure how many people why are about to engage in sexual acts fix their resolve at continuing the species


If all that were true, then we'd already know everything we need to know! What...is...the...point? To serve that god?
certainly


To live for him?
why not?


Are you kidding me?
no


That is a slap in the face of life itself.
living a life separate from god is one series of slaps in the face followed by another series of slaps in the face


If we just accept that God made everything, there would be no reason to search out more answers, to look up and try to figure out how everything works.
at the very least, as previously indicated, scientific history disagrees with you - interestingly enough, the field of science that deals with reason is philosophy, and well over 50% of all philosophers can be determined to possess some theistic inclination


So no, we shouldn't teach ID in schools. There is no benefit to teaching it, even if it were the truth.
only if you take chemical evolution as gospel
;)


Right, but IDers would have no reason to think that there was an intelligent designer had their vision been clouded by their religious text of choice. If there had been one bit of scientific evidence that support the idea of Intelligent Design, then everyone would listen. But there isn't, and the agendas of those who push this idea are clear.
there are no historic lineages of personalities and disciplines that claim direct perception of god's nature?


I think it's laughable that people who push Intelligent Design are accusing people who don't support it of having a "belief system" when it comes to their scientific approach, as if the practice of scientific research was done with one eye closed to every possibility than the ones they already believe...

experts (even in the field of science by persons not directly affiliated with religion)disagree

"Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects."
Albert einstein ("Out of My Late Years" 1936)


"Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything."
Benjamin Wooley ( "Virtual Worlds" 1992)

etc etc


it's laughable because the people who support ID are the one's who aren't open to anything other than what they claim to be true. If you were to show a scientist legitimate proof (show a legitimate scientist, I should should say) of Intelligent Design, then that scientist will listen. But show a supporter of ID the evidence against ID, and they balk.

I think you are erroneous as indicated by Wooley.
Perhaps not you personally, since the lack of philosophical foundations in contemporary science is quite established


"This leads us to the second point: today's scientists are not shy about tackling philosophical questions yet they are not trained in philosophy and, as Wolpert admits, they follow a rule that all scientific ideas are contrary to common sense.* Here's an example. Wolpert puts forward the oft-heard argument that a scientific theory ultimately counts for nothing if it does not measure up to what can be observed in nature.* Yet he approvingly quotes Albert Einstein as saying that a theory is significant not to the degree it is confirmed by facts observed in nature, but to the degree it is simple and logical; and he quotes Arthur Eddington as saying that observations are not to be given much confidence unless they are confirmed by theory.* Common sense tells us there's a contradiction here. Wolpert admits it: Scientists have to face at least two problems that drive them in opposite directions.* The first problem is that science postulates causal mechanisms to explain why the world appears as it does to us. The second is that since a fundamental cause is always before its visible effect in the form of the bodily objects of this world, the cause cannot be perceived as a bodily object can be. In other words, the objectivity of a scientist is restricted by his material body. Thus from his embodied standpoint, he has a difficult task proving that his postulated fundamental cause is real. But prove it he will try, starting with what Einstein termed free fantasy."

in otherwords your very demand to materially verify something beyond your current scope for material verification is completely absurd

Oli hit the nail on the head, As did the other users. I don't believe I have to waste my typing rebuking your madness.
If you'll excuse my acerbic attitude towards you, but you deserve no less for your refusal to accept how things are with Atheists such as myself.

and you don't find that dishonest of science?

I really don't see how it is dishonest of "science". It was my class, and my class was a very rushed one after Katrina because we had to condense a year's worth of biology into a semester, so every course was extremely brief, except for when we did lab experiments.

Also, not a single one of you has answered my question yet, and I've asked it five times already:
Now to anyone who supports ID: Does ID take a supernatural creator or not? If so, it is automatically outside the realm of science and thus the argument does not go any further--it should not be taught in science classes. If not, then it is within the realm of science and to be taught in science classes it must have supporting, scientific evidence. Show me the scientific evidence. If you cannot answer that, then ID is baseless and should not be taught in science classes.

ruling out a possibility because you don't want to deal with it is the height of unscientific ethics

What needs to be said has been said: ID is not science - just like how to treat irritable bowel syndrome is not religion and thus tends not to be discussed in church.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "not wanting to deal with it", it just simply is not science. That's why ID, the fsm and his noodly appendage and santa claus do not find their way into science class or textbooks, (or at least have no actual right to).

Leopold, are you just ignoring my question? And I have only been in one high school, I don't know about the rest, and American schools in general suck extremely, I cannot comment on them for I don't know anything about them.

Now PLEASE answer the god damned question already.

And there are differences between scientists and science teachers. Major differences. One is a scientist, one is a teacher who cant teach worth a crap. Or at least here, but in New Orleans the public school system is, for what I understand, the worst in the nation.

Again, since you will probably quote a small section of this... ANSWER THE QUESTION. Its not like its really complicated either.

they didn't even have the time to make known a few simple statements?
it isn't just your high school class, i am talking about high schools all across america.

sounds to me like you are making excuses.

when it comes to the "unexplainable" science is hard pressed to explain common notions about science.
i am not about to bash science but i do believe the people that are responsible for high school biology classes should be objective about the matter.

ruling out a possibility because you don't want to deal with it is the height of unscientific ethics


No one is ruling out any options, they're just not saying them. Biology doesn't try to explain how life first came about, it discusses what life is like now and how it functions, hence ID not being taught in biology class. Evolution on the other hand, even if it wasn't how life originally came about, we can prove beyond a doubt that evolution is happening right here, right now. We've done it to viruses, we've done it to bacteria, we've observed it in larger species; we KNOW that evolution happens and that it is absolutely irrefutable.

That is why it is being taught in Bio class and not ID. I had Bio last semester, I know what they teach and why they teach it.

Does ID take a supernatural creator or not?

That's the question he wants answered. So far you haven't answered it. I don't think it's that hard to type 'Yes' or 'No'.

Not in Bio class, no. Bio class is about what people know happens; they know that evolution happens, they don't know that ID ever happened. If I wanted to learn about something that no one has any idea whether it happened or not, then I'd go to church.

the dishonesty by scientists in our high schools is more that enough reason to consider alternatives, regardless of what you think.

I don't know of any scientists working in high schools. Could you name a few and what their specific "dishonesty" is?

The problem with ID and the undereducated masses that accept it as a genuine "alternative" is that it isn't. It doesn't provide a single, viable line of discovery nor any explanation that has any testable veracity. Evolution, however, has an abundance of evidence, is testable and repeatable, and provides an explanation that offers lines of discovery that predict results.

ID has been shown time and again to be a dishonest and cowardly attempt to interject the religious superstitions of the deluded into public school. If there's "dishonesty" at work in our public schools, it has to do with the nutbars that hold creationism to be a valid explanation for life on this planet.

Invariably, these nutbars start whining about "life from non-life" BS -that same old argument from ignorance that demonstrates their under-education and willingness to completely make up an explanation from thin air rather than accept those explanations that refuse to rely on supernatural BS. This is intellectual cowardice and complete dishonesty in and of itself, since said creationist nutbars don't pay any attention at all to the mountain of evidence that suggests the universe exists precisely as one might expect if it were caused by a series of gradual changes over billions of years. Rather than obtain educations on this (freely available in public libraries), they stick to their argument from ignorance: "science can't prove it, therefore magic is the answer." What utter and complete BS.

But the issue at hand isn't abiogenesis, which is a favorite straw man argument (logical fallacy after logical fallacy among the IDiots) but so-called "intelligent" design. Proponents of this pseudoscience claim that it is an answer to the explanation of evolution, in spite of the fact that not a single shred of evidence has ever been provided by creationists that propose this pseudoscientific "alternative." And not a single line of discovery has been established because of it.

Intelligent design is pseudoscience. The favored "alternative" of creationist nutbars that can't stand the fact that science doesn't support their wacky, ridiculous, and BS superstitious beliefs.


Does ID take a supernatural creator or not?

That's the question he wants answered. So far you haven't answered it. I don't think it's that hard to type 'Yes' or 'No'.

I'll answer for him: Yes. "Intelligent" design proponents believe the universe was designed by their god. Not anyone else's god. Their god. Period. They like to pretend they are open to whom this 'designer' is, but in the end it's about codifying their religious superstitions on the rest of the world in the form of Christianity: a superstition that originated in Bronze and Iron Age mythologies and should be tossed in the rubbish heap for its failure to adapt appropriately to scientific discovery.

In the interest of keeping the thread on-topic, I've deleted repeated requests by Dark520 which ask, "Does ID take a supernatural creator or not?" to leopold99. The answer should be a simple "yes" or "no." Discussion could, of course follow from there. I've actually answered the question. Since I'm not an ID proponent, however, it's fair for Dark520 to insist the question be answered by one.

No further requests for the question to be answered are necessary. No further questions as to "what was the question" are necessary. They will be deleted. Should no answer be forthcoming, mine should stand for the ID proponents.


science doesn't support a natural explanation for life on this planet either but guess what . . .

Please cite an example in the peer-reviewed literature of intelligent design that demonstrates this. If you like, I can provide several hundred citations to the contrary in the peer-reviewed literature of real science.

Yes No, altogether took me less than 5 seconds to type that.

Well, at least I finally got a direct answer to the question, but not a definitive one. Oh well, I should just be happy with that for today.

the dishonesty by scientists in our high schools is more that enough reason to consider alternatives, regardless of what you think

A) As stated by Skinwalker, you wont generally find scientists in high schools.

B) You seem to have an issue with dishonest scientists but then don't seemingly realise that if they were to teach ID in a science class that would be dishonest, (because it's not science).

C) The alternatives can be considered... in the appropriate place. One does not ponder on whether football is a better alternative to rugby in English class, nor does one ponder on whether ice creams taste better than doughnuts in maths class. There is a specific reason for that, and before arguing further you need to figure out why...

Regardless to what you think.

science has been unable to create life from the elements under natural conditions. good enough?

A completely under-educated answer. And exactly the point I was making. The issue at hand isn't abiogenesis. It's evolution and the pseudoscience of "intelligent" design, which dictates that everything living today exists just the way the christian god wanted it to. Many of the arguments put forth by "intelligent" design proponents include that complex systems were created to be just as they are, rather than designed (so-called irreducible complexity).

Abiogenesis is an entirely different subject and is off-topic. But it is a frequent and cowardly straw man used by creationist nutjobs (present company excluded, of course) to argue since they have absolutely no argument at all that they could hope to win against the mountain of evidence called evolution. Evolution is what is taught, rightfully so, in public schools as the best explanation to date for life as we know it today. Abiogenesis, if mentioned at all in a high school class is presented only briefly to provide context and to demonstrate that there are simply many things left to learn and understand about how life began. But evolution and 'intelligent' design are a science and pseudoscience about how life exists today.

All other references to abiogenesis will either be deleted or moved to the correct thread.

The thing with science is, that the answers aren't just 'right there'. We have to give enough time for people to develop the techniques to find the answer. For example, flight. People have been trying to fly since at least the middle ages and probably far before that. I took everyone until the early 1900's to figure out how to do it. It took them hundreds of years. It's the same thing here, we could find out how to do it tomorrow or a hundred years from now, it doesn't matter, science will still figure it out.

This is the absolute last word on abiogenesis in this thread. Its off-topic and a deliberate strawman. I'll delete all other references to it, so don't waste your time. Fair warning.


i don't know of any either but i'm sure that high school biology curriculums are approved by scientists.

Actually, they're approved and dictated by school boards and state advisory committees that rarely include actual scientists.


how many times have you personally corrected someone in regards to evolution and the origins of life being two different concepts?

Every single time it comes up. And if it comes up again in this thread, I'll delete it.

knowing the students will follow the evolution train of thought and apply it to the origins of life.


No, they won't. Evolution deals with, in no way, the origin of life, and that should be clear, and IS clear.

But let me ask you...why, if these "scientists in high schools" are such liars, and so dishonest, are you only concerned with them? Where are your complaints about the IDers, who are trying to push their lies on people in school?

Or is it that you only care about your own viewpoint, and wish to eliminate everything that opposes it?

In light of all this bickering, I think we've kinda missed the point of the topic:
If an ID has to create life, then doesn't that ID have to have been made by another ID? If so, then who is the other ID and how did he come about?

To answer your question, logic would state that yes, our maker would require a maker of its own. And so on and so forth.

Indeed, an 'intelligent' designer must, by definition, be complex enough to create complexity. Therefore, such a complex being must have had a designer. This, then, creates a paradox of infinite regress.

A more viable solution is that the universe evolved slowly over time due to just the right conditions that existed to begin the process of evolution. There may be billions upon billions of universes in a multiverse; or this may be the billionth upon billionth cycle of a universe that continually expands and contracts. Either way, the conditions are right in this universe -the laws of physics are such that evolution is possible.

Intelligent design, therefore, isn't logical nor is it viable.

I have no idea what is going on... but all i know is, Leopold, I didnt see your answer to my question, so do you mind showing me it? I don't see it. it's not a matter of what I want, I'm simply asking you a yes/no question: Does ID require a supernatural being? If so, then its not science, if not, then for it to be taught in science classes it needs evidence. Where is the evidence?

He seid he doesn't know a few post up, too lazy to quote.

Wow, and SkinWalker deleted all his posts...anyways, he did say he doesn't know.

Indeed, an 'intelligent' designer must, by definition, be complex enough to create complexity. Therefore, such a complex being must have had a designer. This, then, creates a paradox of infinite regress.

A more viable solution is that the universe evolved slowly over time due to just the right conditions that existed to begin the process of evolution. There may be billions upon billions of universes in a multiverse; or this may be the billionth upon billionth cycle of a universe that continually expands and contracts. Either way, the conditions are right in this universe -the laws of physics are such that evolution is possible.

Intelligent design, therefore, isn't logical nor is it viable.
But God by definition is causeless, eternal, etc...thereby falsifying everything you said to the highest degree....

Intelligent Design makes so much sense....

But God by definition is causeless, eternal, etc...thereby falsifying everything you said to the highest degree....

Why? I could say, for the same reason, that the universe by definition is causeless, eternal, etc. Therefore, your nonsense is thus discarded as a viable explanation since we have evidence for the existence of the universe but none for your god.


Intelligent Design makes so much sense....

Only if you're predisposed to accept a delusion about gods or other supernatural and untestable poppycock.

Okay, Vital One, answer the question I posed to leopold:

Does Intelligent Design take a supernatural "being"?

Why? I could say, for the same reason, that the universe by definition is causeless, eternal, etc. Therefore, your nonsense is thus discarded as a viable explanation since we have evidence for the existence of the universe but none for your god.
Why is it easy for atheists to accept all the other concepts in science that are causeless, eternal, etc...? I know why, it doesn't contradict their faith-based belief system...



Only if you're predisposed to accept a delusion about gods or other supernatural and untestable poppycock.
You can go ahead and believe that nature-did-it and some how the genetic system just magically formed (even though there's no empirical evidence for this)....its all your choice....causeless chance is the solution to all the atheists problems...

Okay, Vital One, answer the question I posed to leopold:

Does Intelligent Design take a supernatural "being"?
No not directly....

ID only proposes some type of intelligent cause to solve the problem of abiogenesis....

But God by definition is causeless, eternal, etc...thereby falsifying everything you said to the highest degree....

This is why there's no place for people like this in a discussion. There is no debate to be had here...just one side saying "Nope, don't care about evidence" while the other side pulls their hair out one by one.

Why is it easy for atheist to accept all the other concepts in science that are causeless, eternal, etc...? I know why, it doesn't contradict their faith-based belief system...

I didn't say I accepted it. Indeed, I don't know. But I'm not the kind of person that imagines explanations when faced with the unknown. The explanation above is more plausible than yours for the simple reason that evidence for the universe existing is apparent. Evidence for the existence of [insert favorite god(s)] isn't. So, not having any faith-based system to rely on, I stick to explaining the nature by using that which can be observed or truly experienced. One might argue that one's imagination is "an experience," however, I'm referring to those experiences that can be quantified and qualified with our senses not our fantasies.

I don't know if the universe is eternal or if its one of an infinite number in a greater set of multiverses. Maybe there's only one universe and it has an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. Perhaps during these infinite cycles or among the infinite universes of a multiverse, we live in the only one that conditions are capable of creating life as we know it. Maybe the laws of physics were different in different universes or cycles and a different kind of existence occurred.

All I know is that it makes no sense whatsover to suggest that this universe was created by a benevolent, omniscent, and omnipotent being who has apparently abandoned us and left absolutely no trace of its existence. Indeed, such a complex creature must, if 'intelligent' design nutbars are true to their beliefs, have a complex and 'intelligent' designer. And there must, therefore, be an infinite regression of designers.


You can go ahead and believe that nature-did-it and some how the genetic system just magically formed (even though there's no empirical evidence for this)....its all your choice...

The cowardly and intellectually dishonest, argument from ignorance fallacy again. I wasn't expecting it.

Can we all agree that ID has no place in a Science class or am I missing something?

Can we all agree that ID has no place in a Science class or am I missing something?
Yeah, ID has no place in the classroom...even the Discovery Institute says so....

Can we all agree that ID has no place in a Science class or am I missing something?

Yes

Then where should ID be taught?

Sunday School.

I rest my (and Dark520's) case

I rest my (and Dark520's) case
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the thread...not even to the slighest extent...and is thus unnaturally useless to the this entire thread topic...

the Evolution vs ID debate arose as whether or not ID should be taught along side Evolution in science classes as an alternative. Since ID has nothing to do with science, we silence that debate right away. I think it has a use in this thread because we can see that, after realizing that ID is unscientific, it is just a cleverly-designed mock-up of Creationism with just as much proof.

Refute that statement with evidence of some sorts.

the Evolution vs ID debate arose as whether or not ID should be taught along side Evolution in science classes as an alternative. Since ID has nothing to do with science, we silence that debate right away. I think it has a use in this thread because we can see that, after realizing that ID is unscientific, it is just a cleverly-designed mock-up of Creationism with just as much proof.

Refute that statement with evidence of some sorts.

Well maybe you should start another topic....

ANYTHING supernatural CANNOT be in science by definition, it has a natural bias....

Not true. If it has evidence, can be investigated, observed, etc, it can be very scientific. ID definitely isn't one of those things.

ANYTHING supernatural CANNOT have ANY evidence to exist WHATSOEVER

Can we all agree that ID has no place in a Science class or am I missing something?

I agree with that.

That isn't to say, however, that if some shred of real evidence for Intelligent Design was to be uncovered, that we shouldn't discuss it and bring it to our education system.

If NASA says tomorrow, "I was just looking up last night...and I swear I saw an arm, dude..." then I'll believe that ID has merit. But until then, it will remain as a sneaky, dishonest cover for religious groups to convert people.

ANYTHING supernatural CANNOT be in science by definition, it has a natural bias....

Then that would classify it as magic, pretty much, wouldn't it? And what purpose would it serve to teach something in our schools that can't be discussed or learned further? A kid can't grow up and get into the ID field, because, as you said, it is beyond the realms of science. Teaching it in schools would pretty much be like saying "This is the complete answer. There's nothing more to it. Don't even bother being interested, because you can't explore this matter further."

Yeah, let's teach something that not only is complete BS, but also encourages kids to not bother asking questions.

Kid: "So...what was this creator?

Teacher: "We don't know."

Kid: "Well, can I find out? Can I become a scientist and discover it for myself?"

Teacher: "No, because the Designer is supernatural, and therefore incapable of being studied."

Kid: "Oh...got any weed?"

Teacher: "Of course, if I didn't, I wouldn't teach this crap."

Teacher: "Oh, I'm fresh out of rolling papers..."

Kid: "Shucks...oh, wait, I'll just tear a page out of one of those Bibles you gave us!"

I find this funny, the way you defined the anthropic principle was almost exactly the way I did (I even put in parenthesis "us").
But we are here BECAUSE of the conditions in the universe, not "the conditions of the universe are the way they are so that we could be here". Cause - effect, not vice-versa.


I already know a lot about the many-worlds interpretation.
But not enough...

Also what I find funny is that atheists consider that the many-worlds interpretation could be true, without empirical evidence,
Many Worlds has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or anything remotely impnging on religion. It's a possible explanation for the wave/ particle duality. And it's an interpretation, not theory. One of many. It's not taken tremendously seriously, except by a few physicists (Deutsch is the only one springs to mind).

but all the other theories supporting consciousness existing independently of the brain
No supporting evidence

evidence for design
How do you distinguish between evidence of design as opposed to evidence of natural selection?

There's lots of ancient structures that we don't know who built, or how it was built...
Really? We have no explanation at all of how they were built? Name some, name just one.

Yeah, but you still deny and reject any evidence provided...therefore you DENY the evidence...
What evidence?

What do you mean no evidence for design? Whats the anthropic principle then? Whats with gravity, the nuclear force, and all the other principle forces behind reality being so perfectly tuned just for us to exist? Thats not design?
Cause follows effect, not vice versa.

I guess your atheistic faith is blinding you again...
And you still persist in your stupidity. I have no faith. It is not required.

Can everyone stop the damn logical fallacies? ID has no proof, and quit the damn "YOU REJECT THE PROOF!" bs and stop assuming I do. I haven't even been shown "proof" given by ID'ers. SHOW ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER PROOF, STOP SAYING I'M SOME DUMB ATHEIST (which has nothing to do with the debate) and show me the damn evidence! Don't ask me a stupid question, questions aren't evidence. I want E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Not logical fallacies which sidestep the debate.

Can everyone stop the damn logical fallacies? ID has no proof, and quit the damn "YOU REJECT THE PROOF!" bs and stop assuming I do. I haven't even been shown "proof" given by ID'ers. SHOW ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER PROOF, STOP SAYING I'M SOME DUMB ATHEIST (which has nothing to do with the debate) and show me the damn evidence! Don't ask me a stupid question, questions aren't evidence. I want E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Not logical fallacies which sidestep the debate.


Sorry, here are a few more "stupid" questions...

Provita, have you ever seriously considered the Irreducible Complexity argument? As far as I know, Michael Behe still holds that his theory is valid, even after many challenges to it. Do you know differently?

Also, is a peer review system really always going to produce the truth? Does that kind of system work perfectly in religion, or politics, or anywhere else on this earth? Does it not, at least sometimes, result in compromise or even in the manipulation of the truth, instead of truth? I know in religion this can easily happen, why not in Naturalism? Does it not, at least sometimes, involve egos, reputations, biases, peer pressure, or even the threat of loosing one's job if you disagree with the status quo?

I would appreciate your insights!

Peace

If i recall irreducible complexity correctly, its premise assumes that evolution is composed of chance mutations. The theory of evolution has extremely little (if anything at all) to do with mutations. As a matter of fact, mutations would be regarded as the exception to the rule (in evolutionary theory), which means, as an alternative to evolution, the IC argument fails.

Additionally, this argument has been found legally discredited as anything but a variant of creationism in the Kitzmiller v Dover School district (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) case. It therefore matters very little if Behe still thinks he's right.

If i recall irreducible complexity correctly, its premise assumes that evolution is composed of chance mutations. The theory of evolution has extremely little (if anything at all) to do with mutations. As a matter of fact, mutations would be regarded as the exception to the rule (in evolutionary theory), which means, as an alternative to evolution, the IC argument fails.

Additionally, this argument has been found legally discredited as anything but a variant of creationism in the Kitzmiller v Dover School district (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) case. It therefore matters very little if Behe still thinks he's right.


Yes, I am aware of that court case, but I don't know if that really proves anything or not. A court case does not always equal scientific fact, mon capitan.

A court once determined that dropping a can of orange juice can cause breast cancer.
("The Interdependence of Science and Law," Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Supreme Court of the United States, Address at the 1998 American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 16, 1998)

Yes, I am aware of that court case, but I don't know if that really proves anything or not. A court case does not always equal scientific fact, moi capitan

Correct, but the court case established (if it's the one I'm thinking about) that there was sufficient scientific (reda "overwhelming") evidence to destroy ID's case (all of which had been ignored by Behe & co when putting forward the original hypothesis).

(should be "mon capitan" :D )

I'll go with Enterprise on this one, since I'm not entirely learned on IC honestly. However, peer review, as far as I know, doesn't create compromise. A scientist states he has received certain results in an experiment and says how he did it. Other scientists try to duplicate the experiment, and if they find he did something wrong, or if they get different results, they inform the rest of the scientists about it. You have thousands of scientists worldwide doing the same experiment and if each and every time the same result occurs, they gather an agreed-upon solution. Granted, the solution can be wrong, and everyone knows that, but its the closest answer people can get until technology advances and our understanding of specific things ... well... advance.

And no, I wouldn't consider that a stupid question at all.

However, if I believe so myself, I have read quite a few articles explaining how IC was not a valid argument because the examples posed by Behe were reduced by several scientists who claimed that Behe was just ignorant in the fields of biology. I don't know if this is true or not.

And IC is evidence, according to you, right? Then you did answer my question ;)

I'm off to research IC!

I'll go with Enterprise on this one, since I'm not entirely learned on IC honestly. However, peer review, as far as I know, doesn't create compromise. A scientist states he has received certain results in an experiment and says how he did it. Other scientists try to duplicate the experiment, and if they find he did something wrong, or if they get different results, they inform the rest of the scientists about it. You have thousands of scientists worldwide doing the same experiment and if each and every time the same result occurs, they gather an agreed-upon solution. Granted, the solution can be wrong, and everyone knows that, but its the closest answer people can get until technology advances and our understanding of specific things ... well... advance.

And no, I wouldn't consider that a stupid question at all.

However, if I believe so myself, I have read quite a few articles explaining how IC was not a valid argument because the examples posed by Behe were reduced by several scientists who claimed that Behe was just ignorant in the fields of biology. I don't know if this is true or not.

And IC is evidence, according to you, right? Then you did answer my question ;)

I'm off to research IC!


I do not know if it is good evidence or not! Let me know what you think about it.

Thanks

In an attempt to bring a tiny bit of balance or at least controversy to the force…

This was found at the following web site ( http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php)

SEATTLE--In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series "Evolution" that begins tonight, 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy center, compiled the list of statement signers (attached). Among other things, the long list may help to answer the contention of designated spokespeople for the series "Evolution" that "virtually all reputable scientists in the world" support Darwin's theory. Institute officials charge that officials of WGBH/Clear Blue Sky Productions have used that contention to keep any scientific criticism of Darwinism from being acknowledged or examined in the eight-hour series. "They want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today is from religious fundamentalists," said Discovery president Bruce Chapman. "They routinely try to stigmatize scientists who question Darwin as 'creationists'."

Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."…

…"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.


A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

There should always be "careful examination". That's what learning is all about. Nobody should just accept Darwin's theories at face value; they should delve into it, learn it for themselves, pick it apart, question every single aspect of it, and come to their own conclusions based on the evidence. On the evidence. Again...on the evidence.

That isn't to say, however, that ID supporters should start hooting on their chairs. This isn't support of Intelligent Design, this is a criticism of Darwin's theory...and more accurately, it is a criticism of how Darwin's theory is accepted as fact, with little to no argument.

But to me, all I see is skepticism. I don't see "Here's the alternative... ", rather, I see "Hey, can we please take a look at this, instead of just accepting it as gospel?"

So...let's see some careful examination, and hear some alternatives! But again, seeing as ID isn't based on anything...I don't want to hear from them until they have some evidence. Oh wait...they already said they can't prove it, because "it's supernatural!"

The "list of 'scientists' who dissent" that is occasionally presented by anti-science organizations like Discovery Institute is a complete fallacy. Its an appeal to authority and a bit of a non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow that because they can must a few (and I stress: a few) names, most of whom aren't in the field of biology, and many of whom aren't even scientists, that this implies there is any significant "dissent" against the fact of evolution.

There simply isn't any real dissent by scientists against the Darwinian model of evolution. Evolution is an accepted fact and one that is nearly completely supported by scientific consensus.

To illustrate the complete and utter insignificance of the list of names above, image if you will what it would mean if a list could be mustered of scientists that support evolution. But let's not stop there. Let's err on the side of caution and restrict the list to only scientists with a single first name. If such a list could be created, which excluded every scientist except those that had a single first name; and if such a list easily surpassed any list created by creationist nutters in both quality and quantity -wouldn't this indicate the fallacy of the list quoted above.

The list was created and it only includes scientists with the first name Steve.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp

Currently the list of scientists named Steve who agree that "evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological [and geological] sciences" numbers about 807.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html

According to data from the U.S. Census, approximately 1.6% of males and approximately 0.4% of females -- so approximately 1% of U.S. residents -- have first names that would qualify them to sign the statement. So it is reasonable to infer that at least 22,000 scientists would agree with the statement. ("At least" because the statement was quietly circulated to a limited number of people.) As of December 28, 2005, there were 688 signatories, corresponding to 68,800 scientists.

And "irreducible complexity" was demonstrated by science to be anything but irreducibly complex. It is a notion of pseudoscience and one to which Behe has been taken to task on repeatedly. Not a single assertion Behe made about IC held.

Yeah, the reason they refute it is because they don't want to even admit the possibility of God....No. I'm an Atheist and I admit the possibility of a God or many Gods exists but I do not think Gods exist.

A couple questions:

1) Do you admit that the possibility exists that God does not exist?
2) Do you believe God does not exist?

3) Do you admit that the possibility exists that many Gods do exist?
4) Do you believe many Gods exist?


Michael

After reading posts to this and other threads on the subject, I wonder about the overall view of those who are pro-ID & Creationism and anti-evolution.

There are two aspects of evolution.The facts of evolution consisting mainly of the fossil record, with other facts relating to DNA analysis, various dating methods, and scientific techniques. It is the fossil record which is most pertinent. The fossil record shows various species, including many which are now extinct. It shows a time line for vertebrates: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. For modern horses there is a fossil record starting (I think) with a creature called an eohippus. For primates, there are various fossils including some creatures very similar to modern humans but with ape-like characteristics. While there are many gaps, the fossil record shows a progression of related species. In most instances, the older fossils indicate less complex creatures than the later ones.


The second aspect of evolution is the Darwinian explanation of the facts from the fossil record: Random mutations culled by natural selection.Do those who disagree with the modern Darwin-like explanation disagree with the facts of evolution? If so, how do they explain the facts using ID or creationism?

I have seen claims by creationists that all has taken place in less than 20,000 years, with dinosaurs contemporary with modern man. This view disputes scientific dating methods. There is a creationist museum being built in Kentucky which advocates this view. This view, for example, explains the Grand Canyon as being due to the flood described in the bible.

What is the view of the ID’ers on the facts of the fossil record? Do they take a creationist view which disputes the dating methods? Do they believe that the ID makes up new species every once in a while?

Side question brought up by Dinosaur... is it even possible for a world-wide flood to have carved the Grand Canyon considering its pretty small compared to the rest of the world? And is it even possible for water to make specific grooves like that... wouldn't it just make a sea bed or something?

Sorry for the digression.

Helloooo ... VitalOne??

A couple questions:

1) Do you admit that the possibility exists that God does not exist?
2) Do you believe God does not exist?

3) Do you admit that the possibility exists that many Gods do exist?
4) Do you believe many Gods exist?


Michael

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Hesitantly, due to my answer to question 2, Yes.
4) No.

Helloooo ... VitalOne??

A couple questions:

1) Do you admit that the possibility exists that God does not exist?
2) Do you believe God does not exist?

3) Do you admit that the possibility exists that many Gods do exist?
4) Do you believe many Gods exist?


Michael

Hey, sorry for not replying, I forgot about this thread....

1) No, its not possible, its only possible that God exists,
2) No, I don't enjoy believing in lies
3) Yes, many "gods", "angels" or "devas" really do exist
4) Yes in one way, but who they call the Father, God himself is the origin of all, reality itself, all things come from him, including the higher beings (gods, angels, etc..), so there's really only one real God, the other so-called gods are not really "God" and are just designed for ignorants to worship because they are deluded....

Hey, sorry for not replying, I forgot about this thread....

1) No, its not possible, its only possible that God exists,
2) No, I don't enjoy believing in lies
3) Yes, many "gods", "angels" or "devas" really do exist
4) Yes in one way, but who they call the Father, God himself is the origin of all, reality itself, all things come from him, including the higher beings (gods, angels, etc..), so there's really only one real God, the other so-called gods are not really "God" and are just designed for ignorants to worship because they are deluded....

Your best post ever!

Vitee...do you come up with these definitions ad hoc? Or do you just jump from tale to tale, cherry picking fables that seem to answer questions? This is the first time I've ever seen any theist say that other gods exist purposefully so that delusional humans can worship them instead of your one true fatherly god.

4) Yes in one way, but who they call the Father, God himself is the origin of all, reality itself, all things come from him, including the higher beings (gods, angels, etc..), so there's really only one real God, the other so-called gods are not really "God" and are just designed for ignorants to worship because they are deluded....Do you have evidence that these other gods don't exist or are you relying on "pure blind atheistic faith"?

Vitee...do you come up with these definitions ad hoc? Or do you just jump from tale to tale, cherry picking fables that seem to answer questions? This is the first time I've ever seen any theist say that other gods exist purposefully so that delusional humans can worship them instead of your one true fatherly god.
Well, they don't really exist just for delusional humans to worship...just think of it this way say people like us travel back in time to the caveman era with our higher knowledge and technology, we'll appear as gods to the people, and they will worship us out of ignorance...


Do you have evidence that these other gods don't exist or are you relying on "pure blind atheistic faith"?
No, they exist...do you think extraterrestials exist in the universe?

There was a time when Kassapa (one of Buddha's disciples) was questioned by an atheist:
Once everyone was seated, Prince Payasi said, "Reverend Kumara, I maintain that actions do not have consequence. I believe that there is no life after death, no world beyond our own. I think that angels and demons are things from a child’s dream." (Payasi Sutta)

This is the view that most atheists have in modern times....Kassapa went on to explain:

"Hmm. Well, prince" Replied Kumara, sounding rather like a doctor diagnosing a patient, "Your point of view is unique, for I’ve never encountered one who bandied about so. Hmm. I think I should put some questions about this to you. What do you think, Prince? Does the Sun and Moon exist in this world, or apart from it? Are they humans? Or are they some celestial non-human beings?"

"Reverend Kumara, they exist outside of this world, and they are celestial and non human."

"Well then, Prince, should you not then consider that other worlds can exist, that angels and demons are not the things of dreams, and that actions bear consequences?" (Payasi Sutta)

Payasi went on the seek foolish proofs, just as modern day atheists seek proofs in foolish ways (FSM, Invisible Pink Unicorn). Kasssapa then went on to condemn atheists:
"In the same exact way, Prince, just as the child used a foolish way to seek fire, you use foolish ways to seek proof of other worlds! Give up these evil views, Prince, or it will cause you great grief in the future!" (Payasi Sutta)

These foolish atheists, even Buddha's disciple condemns them...when will they realize that they're trapped in a delusional world....

What a ridiculous argument. The Sun and Moon exist, therefore so do angels and demons? We know a great deal more about such celestial bodies than those in the past. Buddha never wanted us to accept holy texts dogmatically, if indeed he was even responsible for their content.

What a ridiculous argument. The Sun and Moon exist, therefore so do angels and demons? We know a great deal more about such celestial bodies than those in the past. Buddha never wanted us to accept holy texts dogmatically, if indeed he was even responsible for their content.
What are you talking about....Kassapa's argument was simply that other worlds exist so there are other beings on other worlds...

Also, Buddha wanted us to accept holy texts dogmatically, but these hippie-types like Alan Watts and others have portrayed it differently...its a common myth just like how people believe that we only use 10% of our brain...

These myths propounded by the hippie-Buddhists in the 1960s are evidently myths if you read the Buddhist scriptures...for instance Buddha says believe in him or go straight to hell:
"Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.13 Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell" (Maha-sihanada Sutta, 21)

That quote often referenced to by these hippie Buddhist atheists is often taken out of contexts...that scripture was meant to address the non-believers, those who had not already accepted Gautama Buddha as the teacher of gods and humans......these hippie Buddhists tried everything to portray Buddhism as a good, perfect, atheistic religion, and succeeded...now the West is deluded...if only you read the Buddhist scriptures...

Well, they don't really exist just for delusional humans to worship...just think of it this way say people like us travel back in time to the caveman era with our higher knowledge and technology, we'll appear as gods to the people, and they will worship us out of ignorance...

So they exist but are mortals from the future who wield their knowledge and technology to grab an audience from a god who's actually immortal, magical and more deserving of attention? :shrug: