|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: intelligent design, right and wrong | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
There IS no right and wrong in a an absolute sense.
You are implying with this that atheists go about killing,raping, pillaging etc. Our upbringing and genetic predispositions affect how we asindividuals stick to the socially constructed right's and wrong's of the culture in which we live. People often bringing up 'killing' in this context, and yet thereisn't a culture in the world (not individuals but cultures) that doesn't justify killing in some circumstances (and that includes killing humans) [Except perhaps strict budhists]. Laws are constructed to control the masses, and religious systemsput forward a morality that had the same intent. Laws are backed up by prison or execution.Religious systems are backed up by concepts of eternal suffering in one sense or another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Humans didn't come about by random chance and accident.
Humans came about via millions of years of selection amongstvarious traits that gave a survival advantage in particular circumstances of environments. Many of these traits are modified at random ... effectively by an error in the genetic copying process. There is nothing random about the process of evolutionary change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
You can indeed do whatever you want ... that doesn't make it
right if there is no right/wrong. It makes it behaviour. We govern ourselves based upon how we were socialised aschildren and adolescents. Personally I would be a little scared of someone whose onlyreason for not killing out-of-hand was the belief that some diety would punish them after death. I'm an atheist, yet my personal view of right-wrong (shapedby my parents and the society in which I was raised) tend to lead me in a 'christian-compatible' path. That's because I was rasied in a society that has been influenced by christianity for the last thousand years or so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No. The first life that developed, did so with the sun (more-or-less)where it is now. All major biological systems then evolved from this first 'life form' (be that a single entity or a number of different ones). [This message has been edited by Peter, 05-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Sorry to butt in, but I think you may have misunderstood
or misread what was said ... becuase I think you are saying more or less the same thing. ID does not insist that the IDer was any known god or gods(which you said & so did the person you are answering). Literal belief in the Bible means a belief that God createdlife the universe and everything ... by an act of intelligent design. Therefore to believe in the Biblical creation account makes one automatically accept ID ... but put forward God as the IDer. No-one is saying that ID is classical creationism, but a classicalcreationist might use any evidence of ID to support their claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
What elements of ID theory would a biblical
literalist need to reject?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So ID is more attractive to the evolutionary creationist
or the OEC who believes that God has put the 'information' in place and perhaps tinkers with organisms on occasions ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I opened a thread on intelligence behind design,
where I suggested that the output of an evolutionary process would look like a 'designed system'. Partly the idea stems from genetic algorithms used todesign electrical circuits. If design does not require 'intelligence' nor a 'designer'then evidence of design cannot be used to infer anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Is this thread kinda off-track and dead ... or is it
just me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
The OP suggested that without 'Intelligent Design' there
could be no right and wrong and we may as well kill someone as eat an icecream. That's what I meant by off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Yes .. thankyou
Now ... why would an IDist hold such an opinion in thefirst place? My opinion is fear ... but then that's why I thinkanyone would want to believe in a diety ... so that dieing (sp??) is less scary. [Or deity even ... I don't beleive in diety becuase I tooprefer to eat icecream [This message has been edited by Peter, 07-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I think the problem is that ID provokes very little
thought, because it is not formalised in a testable manner. What claims does ID theory actually make?What evidence supports such claims? How could such claims be refuted? Perhaps laying these out in concise points may helpto clarify the IDist position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I'll have to dig that out ... thanks. The separation of 'intelligence' from 'design' has been pointedout in threads here .... with very few takers from the ID supporters ... they seem to get stuck on 'design' and drop the 'intelligence'
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024