Posted on 11/11/2005 4:47:36 PM PST by Wolfstar
The underpinnings of intelligent design are science.
What are ID's 'underpinnings'?
I think the answer to your question about exclusion is to be found in being able to explain rationally the scientific basis for the theory. I think people such as the person you reference should be able to do so, and THAT is the information I was hoping to see on this thread.
This is a rather lame variation on the old "how could a loving God allow such suffering" thing. Your flaw is in assuming that the designer desires every specimen to be perfect.
uhhh?
The underpinnings of ID are science (do you prefer scientific?).
I didn't call you a liar. That is your choice of words. I only note that you are not in receive mode on this or any other thread I have seen you post on. The intent is clearly to start an argument and not so you can be enlightened. If pointing that out makes you feel like a liar, that is your issue, not mine. Even your choice of the word "liar" is to provoke a hostile situation, not to persuade anyone of anything, nor to be persuaded. Time and your behavior will tell if I am right. So far I am looking pretty good.
I also suggest you read Behe's sworn testimony under oath in the Dover DASD trial that ended just last week. Transcripts can be found here http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
This website says they promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design, not religious theories.
The cupholders in my Grand Am are situated such that any drinks placed in them block access to the heat & air controls. Reconcile this defect with the claim that automobiles are intelligently designed.
It's not an easy topic to bring up (judging from the various types of posts)...although I believe the direction of this thread was predicated upon the format of the initial question...but that's, of course, already done.
These are profound questions. I have an inquiring mind.
I can offer you my opinion, however I need to first state that I am not much involved in the ID theory stuff. I had a personal experience with God and therefore I have no doubt to His existence...so I know He is the creator and never really worried too much how He went about it (but still, I do read a range of materials).
It is interesting how this thread jumps between a ID design question and a theological question. They aren't precisely the same. I believe that an ID advocate would respond something along the lines that someone already has in this thread...that is that a design can be correct and yet something can go wrong with any given instance of that item. They used the example of a car that was designed correctly, but one might be a lemon or may just experience failure along it's lifespan. Interestingly, when people have offered responses strictly from the ID issue leaving out any specific concept of God someone comes along and shifts it to the competence or intelligence of that designer. That sort of comment is founded in a number of assumptions such as that the designer intended a perfect design, that the designer would make sure (through intervention is necessary) to eliminate any variance from a presumably perfect design, that quality of life and value of life are intertwined with physical condition...in essence, those arguing against ID are making it an issue of theology...why would God allow X to happen.
Personally, I'm much more comfortable discussing in the theological realm and could address that angle. But if one wishes to discuss it exclusive of any particular concept of God then why do the anti-ID'ers assume the designer is perfect? or has good intentions...that shifts from the topic of ID to one of meanings and intentions.
When one backs the creation/evolution question to the point of origin it really comes down to choosing one of two eternals...one is eternal matter that behaves without cause or a creator who is eternal (with a nature that we can have very little comprehension of given our finite nature and the infinite required for such an eternal creator). But I realize that is not the focus of your question...although, ultimately, I think the question always begs that creation question.
It is a rare individual indeed who would separate the so called "religious" elements from ID. If you want the question answered from a strictly scientific standpoint, then "reconciliation" is a bad word, because it carries the baggage of intent, purpose, and all that leads to theology and philosophy.
You: The underpinnings of intelligent design are science.
Me; What are ID's 'underpinnings'
You: uhhh? The underpinnings of ID are science (do you prefer scientific?).
This is usually called an evasive response.
What is easy for me to say?
Birth defects are not by design, they are defects in the building process. Anything a human can design can be built improperly. A complex computer can have a hardware "glitch" in the manufacturing. A single car out of many can have been built wrong though the design is sound.
I have never heard a genetic specialist say that birth defects were from "bad design". It almost always happened because of some external environmental issue or because there were certain recessive genetic traits that ended up showing up.
Given how complex human life forms are it is amazing it doesn't happen more often...
I'm always amused by people who substitute implied threats for argument.
Please increment your 'I've been condemned again' counter by one.
The matter of intelligent design is so self-evident to me as to make it preposterous that one might indulge science under the illlusion reality is an agglomeration of chanceful forces.
Science cannot take place without intelligent design. It is hardly a stretch to deduce that intelligent design has a place in bringing science itself into existence.
Why would the given of intelligent design entertain the improbable and philosophical notion of some unguided cause? It must have something to do with money.
I hardly think
it's a matter of inc
rements.
I like the way folks bring up Pascal's wager in so many creative ways, then try to weasel out of it.
Are you implying that anyone thinks GM cars are intelligently designed?
It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein
The only problem with ID being intrinsic to discussion of theology is this: People are pushing for ID to be taught in the public schools either alongside evolution or as a replacement for it. Whether or not I personally may agree with it, case law in this country is quite clear about keeping religion out of the public classroom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.