The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[balrog666]

A day may come when the promoters of Intelligent Design wish they had left well enough alone.

[balrog666]

Ping time.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 370 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[trashcanbred]

Unlike the Creationists of 20 years ago, proponents of ID no longer refer to biblical passages. Instead, they invoke skepticism and cite alleged faulty evidence as reasons to teach students alternatives to evolution. True, they produce little or no evidence to support their own position... Their target is the millions of onlookers and voters, for whom the battle is as emotional and symbolic as it ever was.

This is so true of the Id'ers... and I have told a number of ID'ers on FR that pushing ID is going to open a Pandora's box to "other theories" being pushed (well funded cults like Scientology). They don't care nor do they think it is a real issue.

[AdmSmith]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[shuckmaster]

Let all sides present their evidence and students will decide for themselves!

Give students an education in real science and they have the rest of their lives to decide what to do with it.

[Elpasser]

Wait, help me out here. Intelligent Design "collapsed" because one man in a black robe in PA -- of unknown personal biases -- rejected it as an endorsement of religion?

I wonder if you'd be so quick to declare that evolution had "collapsed" if the same judge had ruled the other way.

The alleged "mountains" of evidence in favor evolution turn out on closer examination to be speculation, hypotheses, and guesses piled impossibly high. Every observation is inserted into the evolution paradigm somehow to support the theory.

Even in today's news -- backwards evolution (Darwin's finch). In reality, nothing evolved at all. The finches with longer beaks predominated, then fell into the minority, then resumed predominance. The genes were there in the population mix all along. They didn't mutate or evolve in any evolutionary sense.

[gobucks]

In what must be taken as sincere flattery, these tactics appear to acknowledge just how deeply the inner lessons of science have pervaded modern culture.

"ID is flattery" "ID is flattery"

I suspect that the Philosophical Materialists, your typical Darwinist, think if they chant this long enough, the inroads ID folks have made in getting attention will be paved over or even better, torn up completely and planted w/ trees instead.

Especially the kind of trees that can be hugged.

[Paddlefish]

The article mentions irony. But how ironic is it that the ID'ers, rather than relying on God's truth and that His will be done, choose to use deception, misleading statements, and PR to promote their perception and interpretations of the Bible and against science. As Christians, we are supposed to tell the truth and rely on God to handle it as He wills. Instead, now the ID'ers are denying their Christian beliefs in the humanistic belief that this will promote Christianity in the long run.

[furball4paws]

I'm going out and hug a tree.

[gobucks]

Science has repeatedly and scientifically proven that evolution has taken place. The incredible number of lab experiments that prove it .... it is just breath taking.

[Elpasser]

What truth? What deception?

Will you agree that either evolution is true or it isn't?

And if it's not true, then isn't the answer, necessarily, intelligent design?

In my view, even if you're a committed evolutionist, an examination of ID keeps evolutionary science honest and rigorous, and avoids the pitfall of "assumed" truth.

[DannyTN]

"Guided evolution - This is the deist compromise most commonly held by thousands — possibly millions — of working scientists who want to reconcile science and faith. "

Implies that YE Creationists don't seek to reconcile science and faith, which is not true. We look for ways to reconcile both, we just don't give 200 years of human scientific thought equal footing with the Creator. When there is a conflict, unless we've misunderstood the Creator, our money is on the Creator. Most of the time though we see a bias in Science that ill serves science and it's not really that hard to reconcile once that bias is recognized for what it is.

"I doubt that the promoters of Intelligent Design really want to see a day come when every biology teacher says: “Okay, you’ve heard from Darwin. Now we’ll spend a week on each of the following: intelligent design, guided evolution, intelligent design of intelligent designers, evolution of intelligent designers, the Hindu cycle of karma, the Mayan yuga cycle, panspermia, the Universe as a simulation…” and so on. "

We don't fear other ideas being presented. But some ground rules other these strawman ones like equal time for all should apply.

• The theories should be presented with the appropriate evidence and logical arguments for each.
• Time given to theories should be somewhat proportionate to the popularity of the theory adjusted.

  There is no reason to give equal time for Hindu and Mayan cycles, if there is no evidence and hardly anybody in this country believes that anyway.

  But certainly present intelligent design, guided evolution and evolution.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

I'm willing to admit that their are elements of both history and faith in my support for Biblical Creationism. If only the Darwinian secularists were as honest.

SFS

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's not clear that Azathoth is intelligent in the usual sense of the word, althouth it's obvious that Azathoth did create all the ensuing Gods, Beings, &ct.

[The Shootist]

I wonder if you'd be so quick to declare that evolution had "collapsed" if the same judge had ruled the other way.

Let me see if I can keep it simple. Evolution is based on facts as they are understood. Creative design is based on faith which cannot be understood.

[Wormwood]

It's not clear that Azathoth is intelligent in the usual sense of the word, althouth it's obvious that Azathoth did create all the ensuing Gods, Beings, &ct.

Which is why I support the theory of Eldritch Design.

Teach the controversy, human cattle!

[Elpasser]

Look at the intricate design all around you. Do you realize, for example, that a bat's sonar is so sophisticated that we don't fully understand its mechanism? Evolution says this is a random mutation -- from inorganic matter to boot.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Which is why I support the theory of Eldritch Design.

Rather than using a chainsaw for carving, you use an Eldritch Cleaver?

[Paddlefish]

What I am specifically talking about is the fact that ID'ers, in order to promote their fundamentalist creationist agenda, try to deny their true purpose in order to "wedge" their way into a science curriculum. Just admit it and rely on the Lord. I mean, ID'ers now go to great lengths to deny a religious purpose and deny any relationship to creationism. But, sometimes, not every ID'er gets the memo to mislead, to wit the U. of Oklahoma Creation Science club announcement that they were now to be known as the IDEA club.

"Welcome to the University of Oklahoma IDEA Club website! We are no longer the Creation Science Society. Our new name is Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness Club. That's IDEA Club for short"

Creation Club Changes to ID Club