Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,603 Year: 4,860/9,624 Month: 208/427 Week: 18/103 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4271 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 76 of 204 (448184)
01-12-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Beretta
01-12-2008 11:37 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta
No not so, they are actually motivated by the truth and the misrepresentations and undue extrapolations of evolutionary wishful thinking.There are enough examples of ID proponents -Anthony flew and Michael Behe for example that have no religious affiliations but find the evidence for major evolutionary change by chance and random mutation unconvincing at best.
There is no more proven truth in ID than in evolution without ID.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:37 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 5:38 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 77 of 204 (448188)
01-12-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
01-12-2008 10:25 AM


Re: Stop repeating falsehoods.
The Topic happens to be "Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?"
A equally appropriate question would be "Is evolution religion in the guise of science" -it takes far more faith and ignorance of evidence to believe that blind chance produced us I would say.Is your brain operating according to natural chemical reactions or is there a reason for your rationality?
Who is the Designer?
Personally. I'll go with the God of the Bible but the actual overall point of the debate is "can blind chance and mutation produce everything we see? Can it account for this world and everything in it?" The debate is about scientific evidence and the fact that I believe in the God of the Bible is another argument altogether.I believe the evidence points to a supernatural intelligence and only then can I measure the evidence of the different religions and decide who I believe the creator is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 01-12-2008 10:25 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 01-12-2008 11:54 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 79 by Organicmachination, posted 01-12-2008 12:19 PM Beretta has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34055
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 78 of 204 (448189)
01-12-2008 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Beretta
01-12-2008 11:51 AM


Re: Stop repeating falsehoods.
A equally appropriate question would be "Is evolution religion in the guise of science" -it takes far more faith and ignorance of evidence to believe that blind chance produced us I would say.Is your brain operating according to natural chemical reactions or is there a reason for your rationality?
Irrelevant since that is not the topic.
I'll go with the God of the Bible but the actual overall point of the debate is "can blind chance and mutation produce everything we see?
No, the point of the thread is "Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?", so it appears your answer is "Yes, ID is religion.
Thank you for playing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:51 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-12-2008 12:23 PM jar has not replied
 Message 83 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 3:37 AM jar has replied

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5792 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 79 of 204 (448196)
01-12-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Beretta
01-12-2008 11:51 AM


Re: Stop repeating falsehoods.
A equally appropriate question would be "Is evolution religion in the guise of science" -it takes far more faith and ignorance of evidence to believe that blind chance produced us I would say.Is your brain operating according to natural chemical reactions or is there a reason for your rationality?
First of all, to believe in a theory vehemently because it is backed with all of the natural evidence we have uncovered is not religion, but common sense. To back a theory vehemently because you are too stupid to understand evolution and therefore can only believe that some supernatural guy in the sky did it is absolutely religion. Guess which side you're on.
Personally. I'll go with the God of the Bible...only then can I measure the evidence of the different religions and decide who I believe the creator is.
You are completely proving our points that ID is religiously motivated here. That was a wrong move admitting you believe the creator is a diety, because now you have brought religion into it. If you, some average joe living in some average town correlate Intelligent Designer with God, I wonder how many others in this country do so as well. If that number is as high as it is, which it probably is, then ID is religion in disguise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:51 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 4:02 AM Organicmachination has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3680 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 80 of 204 (448198)
01-12-2008 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
01-12-2008 11:54 AM


turn out the lights
Beretta:
Personally. I'll go with the God of the Bible
Which makes ID a religion.
The OP question is answered. Judge Jones and Jar got it right.
Looks like we're done here.
________
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 01-12-2008 11:54 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 5:04 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 81 of 204 (448218)
01-12-2008 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Beretta
01-12-2008 5:56 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Beretta,
There is much in your post that is in error, and some of it is spectacularly offensive, but I will settle for pointing out that not a word you have said refutes my point, i.e. that Darwin was a Christian first, evolutionist second. Your characterisation of the ToE as atheist propaganda is disproved, and isn't going to get any truer for your endlessly repeating it.
Beretta writes:
There are lots of reasons for incompatibility. The Bible for one says sin brought death.Evolution says death was there long before man so that would make the Bible a fairytale. That would also make Jesus' death on the cross 'for the sins of mankind' and 'to overcome death' completely unnecessary.
Either God created man and sin caused the fall of man or evolution is our creator.I call that completely incompatible.
Certainly evolution is incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible, but that's not the only reading possible. Plenty of Christians, and folks of other religious persuasions, manage to believe in God and evolution.
Congratulations though, on being honest enough to admit that the mysterious "designer" is God. Perhaps in future, you will simply refer to "intelligent design" as "biblical creationism". After all, if you're going to be honest about it, why not drop the pretence and call a spade a spade?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 5:56 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 4:47 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 01-13-2008 8:28 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 82 of 204 (448232)
01-12-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Beretta
01-12-2008 11:30 AM


Re: Evolutionary hot air
Yes and then when the weather changed and the food supply then they reverted back to the mean but that would destroy the story -you need to imagine that given a lot of time and adding up the hypothetical more and more gradual changes, they would eventually change into something clearly different in a meaningful way that would allow us to imagine the macro possibilities.
Which is actually the topic of Dogs will be dogs, so feel free to drop over and defend this allegation from incredulity. Meanwhile you are confusing the finches Darwin saw with the finches observed and studied by the Grants.
However the evolutionary status of these finches has little to do with ID in general and whether ID is a religion or not, in specific.
Personally I say it fits all the definitions of religion that are necessary to include Deism, which is defined as a religion, and therefore it is without question a religion.
The fact that it is a religion that contradicts some christian and creationist beliefs is amusing to me.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : topic
Edited by RAZD, : and
Edited by RAZD, : restored link

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 74 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:30 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 83 of 204 (448356)
01-13-2008 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
01-12-2008 11:54 AM


ID is not religion
Beretta writes:
I'll go with the God of the Bible but the actual overall point of the debate is "can blind chance and mutation produce everything we see?
No, the point of the thread is "Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?", so it appears your answer is "Yes, ID is religion.
Your reasoning is unsound.Since there are a higher percentage of atheists that are evolutionists than atheists in the general population does that mean that evolutionism is the same as atheism (a religion)? As I have stated before, there are more than enough ID proponents that have no religion, are agnostics whatever so do we then say that ID is not a religion on that basis? As there are Christians that believe in evolution (lots of them), does that mean that evolution is a religion? Is that a logical argument?
My stating what I believe in is purely in the interests of truth and remaining straight forward in everything I say on this forum -it was rather obvious what you were aiming to achieve by getting me to admit my personal affiliation but since I have mentioned my own personal beliefs all over this forum, I assume you are trying to be clever in front of a wider audience.
What is your personal belief? Lets see what clever conclusions we can draw about evolution on the basis of what you believe.
How about try disproving ID on the basis of facts rather than using the 'ID is religion' avoidance plan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 01-12-2008 11:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 01-13-2008 10:12 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 103 by reiverix, posted 01-13-2008 10:51 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 84 of 204 (448359)
01-13-2008 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Organicmachination
01-12-2008 12:19 PM


Religion or Science
First of all, to believe in a theory vehemently because it is backed with all of the natural evidence we have uncovered is not religion, but common sense
But is it backed by all the natural evidence or did the worldview of 'matter is all there is' dictate the terms of the engagement.
Evolutionists absolutely cannot allow for God on the basis of their own self serving definition of science which cuts God out of the equation a priori.
So you start by not allowing for God no matter what the evidence shows and then no matter how the evidence refuses to fit your belief in evolution, you just keep jamming the evidence in to make it fit.
If that is what has been happening, then that is religious - an a priori commitment to naturalism or materialism precedes the evidence.
To back a theory vehemently because you are too stupid to understand evolution and therefore can only believe that some supernatural guy in the sky did it is absolutely religion.
Except that that is not what is happening -the vehemence belongs to the committed evolutionist who tries to keep the supernatural guy in the sky out of the picture no matter how impossible the pure naturalistic viewpoint looks.
You are completely proving our points that ID is religiously motivated here
See reply to jar above -you are as confused as he is. Try sticking to the evidence rather than making unsubstantiated accusations. Crying 'ID is religion' is not going to make it go away because it is actually science -do you even know what their argument is? If you did you would understand it as science.
Do you know that for 5000 years of earth history, the belief in God as the creator of all was the predominant worldview.There was a worldwide flood which is a common factor in all the world's cultures. Evolution took over as an alternative to the explanation that the people wanted to reject. Its amazing what you can do and justify if you write God out of the equation.
Whether evolution or creation happened is an historical matter - you look for historical records, cultural narratives and the scientific evidence to see which worldview all of these things fit better -creation or evolution?
Evolution is the man-made alternative to the creation story. The evidence doesn't fit evolution, it is made to fit.
As Sir Arthur Keith put it "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." -pretty religious comment, wouldn't you say???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Organicmachination, posted 01-12-2008 12:19 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Organicmachination, posted 01-13-2008 12:19 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 85 of 204 (448361)
01-13-2008 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Granny Magda
01-12-2008 3:33 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Certainly evolution is incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible, but that's not the only reading possible. Plenty of Christians, and folks of other religious persuasions, manage to believe in God and evolution.
Granny dear, if I offend, I'd like to know how -if the truth is offensive well that's another thing altogether.The Christians that think evolution and Christianity are compatible do so only through the brainwashing they have received through secular education.They also have to graunch the obvious words of the Bible into what makes it compatible with evolution. For example 'the first day' means 'an indeterminate long period of time' -in their dreams. Do you think God couldn't have said "And in that first long age...etc." Were there no Hebrew words to indicate a long period of time? I think there were plenty but they were not used. Why? If every other incidence of 'day' with a number was meant to convey a 24-hour literal day and if the 'first day' was qualified by saying "the morning and the evening -the first day " etc. then I suggest that a literal day is the absolute meaning and only graunching would make it into the required long period of evolutionary time required by the evolutionary faith.
If Jesus body was in the tomb for three days, must we suggest that that was actually a few million years? Did the Hebrews wander in the desert for 40 years or was it 40 million + years? Why change it to say what you want it to say -believe it or don't but changing it to say what it clearly doesn't say is pure wishful thinking.
The pharisees changed the Bible's meaning to fit their purposes -does that mean theistic evolutionists are some type of pharisee?
I'd personally rather be an out and out deceived evolutionist than a so-called Christian that doesn't even believe the Bible.
Congratulations though, on being honest enough to admit that the mysterious "designer" is God. Perhaps in future, you will simply refer to "intelligent design" as "biblical creationism".
If it were that simple, I would indeed admit it but my belief is not the general belief of the ID proponent so I cannot speak for them all. Some are agnostics, some belong to different religions, not Christianity, some are Bible believing Christians. The only thing they are clearly not, is atheists, because they have reason to believe that a supernatural creator of some sort is responsible for life rather than the pure materialism of the atheist religion.
Rather than try to force all ID proponents to be Biblical creationists, believe me on this one. A lot of them believe in a common ancestor and millions of years which I do not and neither does the Bible if you take the time to read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2008 3:33 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Granny Magda, posted 01-13-2008 9:23 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 86 of 204 (448362)
01-13-2008 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Archer Opteryx
01-12-2008 12:23 PM


Turn on the lights
Beretta:
Personally. I'll go with the God of the Bible
Which makes ID a religion.
So if other Christians believe in evolution does that mean evolution is a religion? If non-Christians believe that ID has a point, does that mean it is not a religion? Does what I personally believe make ID unscientific? Do you understand the controversy at all?
Judge Jones and Jar got it right.
In that they are equally confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-12-2008 12:23 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:58 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 1:09 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 121 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-15-2008 7:34 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 87 of 204 (448365)
01-13-2008 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by bluescat48
01-12-2008 11:48 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
There is no more proven truth in ID than in evolution without ID.
In that they are both historical concepts and all our facts exist in the present, yes that's true, neither can be proven.
So the question is, since we have the same facts, which one is a better interpretation of the facts and why?
Is it conceivable that random variation and mutation has a creative capacity? It is certainly not provable and genetic research in general seems to point away from that possibility since the majority of mutations are either neutral or negative in effect.
Did the genetic code with all its complexity arrange itself by chance and natural laws or was intelligence necessary?
If dogs give rise to dogs that give rise to dogs, it is possible that long ago and far away, something that was not a dog acquired the genetic information to become a dog. Why doesn't science just stick to empirical, factual, repeatable, observable science rather than forcing all the evidence into the possibly completely imaginary evolutionary box?
If science wants to play around with historical concepts such as origins then ID is the alternative explanation to random evolution.
So you see this is a scientific argument not a religious one by any stretch of the evolutionary imagination.
ID is not trying to get rid of evolution -they wish to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads and to feel free to present alternative possibilities in accordance with the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2008 11:48 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 204 (448369)
01-13-2008 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Beretta
01-12-2008 11:37 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta writes:
quote:
Michael Behe for example that have no religious affiliations
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Have you not read Behe's "extracurricular" writings?
He's a staunch religionist. He's one of the big players for the Discovery Institute and ARN. He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (part of the DI)
As he wrote in "The God of Science: The Case for Intelligent Design":
evidence against Darwinism does count as evidence for an active God
As he said at a lecture sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ, Chi Alpha, and the Dallas Christian Leadership:
I certainly do think that the designer in all likelihood is God
To claim that Behe has no religious affiliation is to show that one hasn't done any research into his background at all. Oh, Behe is careful in his very public statements, but that isn't all he says.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:37 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 8:54 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 89 of 204 (448378)
01-13-2008 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Granny Magda
01-12-2008 3:33 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
Granny Magda writes:
There is much in your post that is in error, and some of it is spectacularly offensive, but I will settle for pointing out that not a word you have said refutes my point, i.e. that Darwin was a Christian first, evolutionist second.
The first time you made this point back in Message 64 you phrased it unambiguously, so I just wanted to make clear to people that you're not saying that Darwin's priorities were Christianity first and evolution second, but that he was a Christian before his scientific investigations and in particular the death of his daughter caused him to lose his faith. Supposedly one of the reasons he delayed publication of his ideas for so long was because he knew it would cause his wife anguish if she learned he no longer believed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2008 3:33 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2252 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 90 of 204 (448379)
01-13-2008 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Theological arguments
quote:
Wouldn't a simple way to deal with this be to say, "if your theory is called intelligent design, then we will discuss intelligence and we will discuss design but we will not discuss theology"?
Sure, let's discuss the theory.
What is the positive evidence?
What are the potential falsifications?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM sinequanon 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