Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 09/13/2005 4:20:14 PM PDT by rob777
Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?” There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.
The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the
science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at intelligentdesignnetwork.org ...
Scientific? ID? In the same sentence?
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Lolololololololololololololololololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!
It's all a little too convenient...like the misguided "active principle" theory. It all goes up to a certain point and says, "Well, that was God's work! End of discussion!"
That is the antithesis of science.
And between you and me, I don't want Leftist union schoolteachers trying to explain the Divine in a science class. I've seen what those suckers have done with math. It ain't pretty.
And reading! Don't forget reading!
An "oh no, not another one" ping.
Kinda like how the public schools teach biology. You don't have to go much farther than these threads to see that evolution isn't even taught.
ID is not scientific. Here it is in a nutshell: "It's too complex, so God did it" (read: the Christian god, not Allah, Zeus, Odin, etc).
I ain't gonna ping for this thing. Unless you can convince me that this thread has some significance.
Nonsense.
Genesis is a wonderful story handed down by God and simplified by man's limited grasp of the Creation. If anything, science has upheld far more of the Genesis tale than you realize.
And God said, "Let there be Light." (Big bang)
God created Eve from Adam's rib. (Cloning with a remarkable on-the-fly alteration.)
...and that's just two off-the-cuff examples.
But if you wanna be closed-minded about it, that's your deal.
Tell me how that is not theological.
I'm here.:) Not anymore...:)
Thanks for the reasoned response, Tired. Not always the case on these threads.
The problem is just as you have stated it. If it is beyond our knowing, and we can't prove or disprove it, don't you think this takes it out of the realm of science?
Let's try a thought exercise. The entire universe was created with all of its past intact: fossils, light streaming from distant galaxies, as well as your memories of high school and last month's TV shows.
So how do you know when the universe was created? Last Thursday? A week ago Thursday, at 9:00 AM (EST of course)?
What evidence will you be able to bring to discussion of this question?
The problem you have is that you can only work with (1) your belief (perhaps 4004 B.C., October 23rd at 9:00 AM), or (2) facts and theories. You can choose one or the other.
You see the problem? If you go with belief, then whose belief? I post many great Native American creation stories, which you probably do believe. But I know people who do believe them. But CS and ID are not about that. They are about the bible and its creation story. But there is a lot of argument about exactly how that transpired--young earth or old earth, etc. So even within the creation realm there is no unaninimity.
On the other hand, if you go with science there are simply no data available to address this question!
Faith deals with belief and certainty, while science deals with facts and theories. Facts are added all the time, and they are sneaky, stubborn little guys; a stubborn fact has ruined many a good theory. Hence theories evolve through time to fit the facts. But at least there is data there, with the expectation of more data in the future. And there are theories (explanations), with the expectation of better theories in the future. Science is a process, not an absolute, and the results are explanations (theories) not "proof."
Those seem to be the choices. Belief and certainty vs. facts and theories, with no common data to share between the two. As such, it would be nice if the two could be kept separate as they are really different worlds (or as I was advised earlier today, different world views).
So from my viewpoint, your belief does not constitute scientific data or theory. I don't doubt that you feel the same way about science and its methods and results.
Lets keep the two in their own domains, eh?
Exactly the opposite. Liberals are proof that evolution is a fraud. Survival of the fittest??? Puh-leeze.
The authors describe "Intelligent Design" as a big tent that apparently accommodates Young Earth Creationistism. If "Intelligent Design" is compatible with Young Earth Creationism, it is, incompatible with findings from geology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, physical anthropology, astronomy, physics and archaeology.
The authors claim that "Intelligent Design" is not religion, but throughout the article, and in the final paragraphs, it is clear that the appeal of "Intelligent Design" is in its religious implications.
"Intelligent Design Theory" is not science.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
You have it backwards. ID is agnostic on the age of the earth. It's not a matter of ID being compatible with Young Earth creationism. It's the other way around. Young Earth creationism by its very nature accepts the concept that creation was designed. And I agree with you that ID is not science. Neither is macro evolution for that matter. Both are philosophy.
"It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts, which evolution does quite nicely."
That's because it's a _measurement_. A thermometer can't predict or explain new biological facts, either. That's because it's doing it's job measuring energy. Likewise, design detection is a measurement -- it measures the design within a system.
I know what you mean by this, but it is not undetectable.
However, it is interpreted in many different ways, by people doing their best to understand it.
One of these ways led to the world's religions.
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.