Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 181 of 302 (372075)
12-24-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by DrJones*
12-24-2006 7:30 PM


Care to substaniate this?
When you check the vehemence of a large public section of the US who oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design, it should be obvious.
"Keep God OUT! Tell us about Evolution in place of an Intelligent Creator."
Would you like to do a clever dance for me and pretend they have other motives? I'm just going by their own words and their own suspicions.
A good number want to exactly replace God with Evolution - right down the line.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by DrJones*, posted 12-24-2006 7:30 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by DrJones*, posted 12-24-2006 7:52 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 184 by platypus, posted 12-25-2006 1:41 AM jaywill has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 182 of 302 (372078)
12-24-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by jaywill
12-24-2006 7:45 PM


When you check the vehemence of a large public section of the US who oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design, it should be obvious.
Yes it is obvious that they want science taught in science classes, those godless heathens.
Keep God OUT! Tell us about Evolution in place of an Intelligent Creator
wanting science to be taught in science classes in place of mythology isn't anti-god, its pro-science.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2006 7:45 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2006 7:47 PM DrJones* has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 183 of 302 (372087)
12-24-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jaywill
12-24-2006 7:17 PM


jayhill writes:
evolution is a replacement for an intelligent Creator.
No! Evolution is a replacement for ignorance and superstition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2006 7:17 PM jaywill has not replied

platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 184 of 302 (372132)
12-25-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by jaywill
12-24-2006 7:45 PM


quote:
"Keep God OUT! Tell us about Evolution in place of an Intelligent Creator.
Evolution isn't replacing anything, it is science. For evolution to act in place of an intelligent designer, the intelligent designer would have to be in the classroom in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2006 7:45 PM jaywill has not replied

platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 185 of 302 (372134)
12-25-2006 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by RAZD
12-24-2006 2:37 PM


Re: My God
Yeah, you can count me in the Deist category. It's a shame that the 18th century Deists were anti organized religion, probably lead to the breakdown of their own viewpoints since they were left with no means to perpetuate their beliefs. But I think they pretty much analyzed the religious situation accurately, and my beliefs tend to follow theirs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2006 2:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2006 10:58 AM platypus has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 186 of 302 (372163)
12-25-2006 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by jaywill
12-24-2006 7:35 PM


basics of social animal behavior? new topic?
So you prefer your world without any final accounting or justice?
It always amazes me the way fundamentalists (all stripes) want to abrogate their common sense social duty for morals and ethics.
Tell me what your standard provides as guidance against racial discrimintation, sexual discrimination, child abuse, or as guidance for equality, liberty, freedom, basic human rights for respect and individual dignity, and you MIGHT have an argument.
The "accounting" and "justice" are social issues that are set by the social community - whether theistic or secular, autocracy or democracy or somewhere in between.
Or is it that only when you're on the harmed side of the wrong doing that you'd want some final authority to correct the injustice?
I certainly would not want justice to have to wait for some hypothetical possible afterlife to be realized when it can be done in the here and now, judged by one's peers, and realized to the point where future generations would have less incidents of injustice and individual devaluing based on bias and prejudice.


But this thread is NOT about certain theistic ideological concepts, but whether some kind of Intelligent Design can answer for reality, and whether that ID concept must be based on compassion, indifference, or maliciousness.
Curiously this implies our impression of the morals and ethics of such a designer, rather than standards for out behavior. How can we do that with a moral and ethic standard that is derived for a designer?
So the question is, if you posit an Intelligent Designer, is there a basis for deducing a moral standard from that concept, or are we left with what we, as a cognitively aware social species, can develope from rational consideration of the need of such a society of cognitively aware social individuals for the operation of that society and the individuals that comprise it?
I suspect that this should be a new topic -- one that may be of some substantial interest (as other moral and ethic threads have been) with this new twist of deriving them from an ID perspective.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2006 7:35 PM jaywill has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 187 of 302 (372164)
12-25-2006 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by platypus
12-25-2006 1:44 AM


Re: My God
It's a shame that the 18th century Deists were anti organized religion, ...
I think it follows directly from the precepts - we cannot know, therefore each person will have to find their own path, make their choices without the need of crutches.
... since they were left with no means to perpetuate their beliefs.
Education, specifically in philosophy, comparative religion, and American History would/should be sufficient. It is not a sect or belief that dies out with proponents, as it seems to recur with new generations, based on logic and rational evaluation of evidence at hand, in the same way that atheism and agnosticism recur.
Thanks

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by platypus, posted 12-25-2006 1:44 AM platypus has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 188 of 302 (372165)
12-25-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by limbosis
12-22-2006 11:50 PM


Re: hypothesis ready for testing? not yet it seems ...
That's right. And, how do we know that it's not being mistaken as speciation?
Furthermore, do we know for a fact that whenever a new strain gets "far" enough away from its species of origin so as to become sexually isolated, that speciation has taken place?
Because it fits the definition of speciation as used by evolutionary biologists.
Again this goes to the argument in Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
quote:
If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science.
If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science.

All you need is a competing explanation to rule out that certainty.
Here, let me just make one up for you (as if it's difficult at all).
Just making up a hypothesis from thin air is NOT the same as making a scientific theory.
Criteria for a scientific theory are (1) that it explain ALL the existing data at least as well as the current theory, and (2) that it leads directly and rationally to new views of existing data that then pose a test for the concept: if {A} happens then theory {NEW} explains things better than theory {OLD} and if {A} does NOT happen then theory {NEW} is invalid.
Let's say there's a feature that's coded into the very syllables of genetic sequencing that eliminates the possibility of taking a line of "aggressive" hybridization too far away from its original species.
Let's look at the genetic level: any mutation that causes any change within a species is a change to the basic structure of DNA, likewise any change that causes speciation. There is no fundamental difference between one level of change within species and change that results in speciation.
Likewise, once speciation has occurred, there is no way to mix changes that occur in population {A} and population {B} that are now seperated by the species barrier, yet changes within each species is still just a change to the basic structure of DNA, and again so is any further change that causes any subsequent speciation.
There is no mechanism for there to be a limit or restriction on what these changes to the basic structure of DNA can be -- other than that for the changes to propogate the individual carriers must survive and reproduce (which applies at all levels leading to this point as well).
Thus to just ad hoc posit a barrier is no good scientifically, when there is NO evidence of such a barrier.
... I'm going to arbitrarily concede to the shot-in-the-dark known as "speciation" myself, in the interest of advancing my own idea. The core of my theory doesn't rely on the absence of speciation, anyway.
That screeching sound was the sound of moving goalposts, accompanied by the screams of denial.
So, now that we have eliminated speciation as a test for your hypothesis, what are you left with from your original test? What was it again?
Message 94
Now RAZD, what we can do to test a clear distinction between this and evolution is as follows:
We can try to make a single new animal species, on our own, through artificial selection.
Now that speciation is not an issue this test is void.
I repeat: do you have another test? or are we into rampant denial and the moving of goalposts to dance around the issue instead of admitting that the "test" was run and the concept was invalidated, or that the "test" was ill-considered and inadequate as a true test of the concept?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by limbosis, posted 12-22-2006 11:50 PM limbosis has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 189 of 302 (372210)
12-25-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by DrJones*
12-24-2006 7:52 PM


Yes it is obvious that they want science taught in science classes, those godless heathens.
No that's not it. They want only ONE opinion on the science taught.
You're not the only one who can be sarcastic. The "pro-science" crowd is afraid that teaching Intelligent Design will result in final exams of reciting "Hail Marys" for graduation.
Maybe their afraid that if Darwinian orthodoxy doesn't keep every other opinion out they'll be passing the offering plate and singing hymns in the cafeteria by lunch time.
wanting science to be taught in science classes in place of mythology isn't anti-god, its pro-science.
Right. If the brain didn't arise out of random accident and "selection" but was intelligently designed, hey, that's NOT science.
Of course detecting intelligent signals from outerspace from extraterrestials is science [SETI]. That is just as long as when we communicate with them they support our New Age philosophies which we already cherish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by DrJones*, posted 12-24-2006 7:52 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2006 8:26 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 199 by platypus, posted 12-25-2006 11:43 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 190 of 302 (372212)
12-25-2006 8:05 PM


Whose Trying to Keep God Out ?
Let's be fair now. The pro-science supporters of Evolution really are quite respectful of other views. We certainly could not charge them with any kind of bigotry as we would be accustomed to do with religious fundamentalists.
An example of their fine accomodating attitude is witnessed in Richard Dawkins' quotation below.
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)"
- R. Dawkins From a 1989 New York Times Book Review
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 12-25-2006 8:26 PM jaywill has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 191 of 302 (372213)
12-25-2006 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by jaywill
12-25-2006 7:47 PM


Why should ID be taught in science classes, when there are a thousand other fringe-scientific theories and ideas that have been pushed for far longer than ID. Surely, if science teaching is going to open to multiple opinions, we should give them first crack before ID?
For example, back around 1990, a researcher from the Maharishi university produced work showing how all divine principles and their interconnections with our chakras were manifestly portrayed by the Lagrangian of N=8 SuperGravity (a potential theory of everything at the time). I still have the paper. If true, this would have a profound effect on our view of spirituality and would lead to the possibility of making actual calculations of our spititual condition.
When not teaching the conventional science syllabus, how much time should be apportioned to ID and how much to the Maharishi's work? Also, how much time should be applied to advanced astrology (the 'scientific' variety, not the daily horoscope of course)? On what basis would you make these apportions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2006 7:47 PM jaywill has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 192 of 302 (372214)
12-25-2006 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by jaywill
12-25-2006 8:05 PM


Speaking as a Christian, what is wrong with Dawkins quote?
jaywill writes:
Let's be fair now. The pro-science supporters of Evolution really are quite respectful of other views. We certainly could not charge them with any kind of bigotry as we would be accustomed to do with religious fundamentalists.
An example of their fine accomodating attitude is witnessed in Richard Dawkins' quotation below.
who then provides the following quote:
quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)"
- R. Dawkins From a 1989 New York Times Book Review
I'm not sure why you might object to that quote. It certainly seems accurate. Can you think of any other possibilities?
It's likely that the majority of folk that believe in stuff like Intelligent Design are just ignorant, but the people who are pushing it, the folk at ICR and DI quite frankly seem to be just conmen out to take money from gullible Christians.
You can't really fault the suckers for being conned, but you certainly can fault the snake oil salesmen that take their money.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2006 8:05 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2006 8:43 PM jar has replied
 Message 194 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2006 8:48 PM jar has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 193 of 302 (372216)
12-25-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by jar
12-25-2006 8:26 PM


Re: Speaking as a Christian, what is wrong with Dawkins quote?
I'm not sure why you might object to that quote. It certainly seems accurate. Can you think of any other possibilities?
Jar, I can always count on you to verify this kind of bigotry.
It's likely that the majority of folk that believe in stuff like Intelligent Design are just ignorant, but the people who are pushing it, the folk at ICR and DI quite frankly seem to be just conmen out to take money from gullible Christians.
Can I also involve in a little bigotry and suggest that evos are just interested in their loose sex lives? Hey, you want to make blanket statements? What goes around comes around.
Late Evolutionist Julian Huxley on the Merv Griffin show said this:
"The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is becasue we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores."
So you charge all people interested in ID with wanting your money. Can I charge all the Evos with just wanting Darwin to allow them justification to sleep around with multiple sex partners?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 12-25-2006 8:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 12-25-2006 9:10 PM jaywill has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 194 of 302 (372218)
12-25-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by jar
12-25-2006 8:26 PM


Re: Speaking as a Christian, what is wrong with Dawkins quote?
I have to agree. Ignorance is always taken as some kind of insult, rather than our natural state about any particular topic. I am immensely ignorant concerning most things. Most people are immensely ignorant concerning evolution. It is no insult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 12-25-2006 8:26 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by johnfolton, posted 12-25-2006 10:12 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 198 by fallacycop, posted 12-25-2006 11:39 PM cavediver has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 195 of 302 (372219)
12-25-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by jaywill
12-25-2006 8:43 PM


Re: Speaking as a Christian, what is wrong with Dawkins quote?
So you charge all people interested in ID with wanting your money.
Not at all. I have never made such a claim. I believe that most of folks the believe in ID are quite sincere, simply ignorant. It is the preachers and pastors and fold at ICR and DI that are after the money. They are a small number, mostly Televangelists and other snake oil salesmen.
Can I charge all the Evos with just wanting Darwin to allow them justification to sleep around with multiple sex partners?
Certainly you can. It will show your total ignorance about Evolution, but that is already known. As both a Christian and someone who supports Evolution I can simply laugh at any such ridiculous ideas and consider the source.
Where do you see bigotry? For example in Message 8 I pretty well demonstrated that if there is a Designer it is not an Intelligent Designer.
However, IDist and Biblical Creationists when faced with the overwhelming evidence that supports both the FACT that Evolution happened and the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for what is seen, find that all they can do is to pull out absurd old chestnuts like "supporters of evolution do so because they don't want a GOD" or "they do want multiple sex partners".
The facts are that the issues are not related. I and many other folk that support Evolution also believe very strongly in GOD, the Christian GOD. We also have no more than the normal desire for multiple sex partners, either sequential or concomitantly, particularly those of us that fully understand the costs of a relationship.
There are many areas where all of us are ignorant. That is neither an insult or reason to suspect bigotry.
It is something you can cure.
But those who should and do know better, The Hovinds and Morrises, and Meyers and Gishs and Wells are just Snake Oil Salesmen. They know that so many of the Christian Fellowship have been trained and indoctrinated not to question. They make easy targets and the folk at DI and ICR take advantage of their gullibility.
Edited by jar, : add spallin arrers

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2006 8:43 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024