|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: intelligent design, right and wrong | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
peter writes: The OP suggested that without 'Intelligent Design' therecould be no right and wrong and we may as well kill someone as eat an icecream. This is exactly where ID theory becomes IDC theory. If ID was truly pure science, not only would they admit that there is no immediate replacement for evo (if evo has been refuted), they would not say that ID ends materialist philosophy and replaces it with a teleological philosophy that contains "moral answers to everyday problems". It's as if they found some chinks in the armor of evo theory, raced to the conclusion that evo is no longer good, continued sprinting to their next conclusion that things must then be designed, then leaped (the same leap of faith Behe talks about) to an idea that it must be a deity type (extra-material)designer, then leaped again to what morality that deity had intended for us... conveniently that deity must be the Xtian god and had a son which died on a cross for all man's sins. All that from some unanswered issues in evo theory? Normally I'd prefer to eat ice cream, but with neoconservatives pushing IDC watered down definitions of science into government documents, and changing educational requirements to foist their "new think" on unsuspecting children, sometimes killing some people looks just as tasty.(heheheh... just kidding) ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
The IDC forum site bears as its motto, "Retraining the Scientific Imagination to See Purpose in Nature." I suppose it's nice to know what you're looking for, and it's to be expected that IDC will be able to recognize it when it sees it.
However, I agree with holmes that the IDC strategy reveals motives not nearly so noble. If scientists perform experiments and publish papers that challenge the reigning orthodoxy, there should be Nobel prizes and massive grant money in their future. Then I would imagine that school curricula would change to reflect the shift in scientific perspective. IDC's complete lack of success in building a realistic research program or constructing a scientific methodology to replace what they consider the inadequate naturalistic model has not prevented its proponents from claiming that IDC comprises a scientific alternative to Darwinism. Their attempts to force IDC into the schools despite its lack of impact in the lab seem premature at best, and irresponsible at worst.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It may not be as easy to think that "grant" money translates so simply based on knowedlge transmission in the case of biology as it historically was different than physics SINCE biotech has not established it self (as in physics,comptuer science, or engineering or even chemistry for that matter) and for me it is far from clear that some change whether provoked by religious influence or actually discovered anew is not needed before such knowledge is not a guess on yours or my part but a consensus regardless of who pays for the tuition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
I hope IDC will be as unsuccessful in its quest to renew culture as it has been in its efforts to revolutionize science. Let's not forget one thing that the Intelligent Design Creationists say that Design thinking will recognize: that societies and social behavior have also been designed for certain purposes. Am I wrong in wondering if anything at odds with this perceived social purpose will not be tolerated?
Daniel Dennett has argued that the Darwinian revolution frees us from the deterministic dead-end of mind-first philosophy. While we understand that most distinctions (life, species, language, consciousness, etc.) are more accurately seen as differences of degree than as differences in essence, we can make distinctions when they are useful to us. For example, we understand that all languages are part of a continuum in which distinctions can't be made with complete certainty. However, a traveler to Paris can buy a French phrasebook based on the fact that certain oversimplifications are necessary in life. In the same way, morality without mind-first philosophical baggage is not doomed to utter subjectivity. Just because we don't have the convenience of an essentialist doctrine that declares that 'right' and 'wrong' are mutually exclusive universals does not mean that anything goes. We can determine the fitness of certain behavior or moral choices in their context, and declare certain ethical distinctions that we feel are necessary. Intelligent Design Creationism wants us to acknowledge purpose in Nature. If we fail to see it, that simply means our imaginations have to be 'retrained.' Imagine what's in store for us if we fail to acknowledge the grand purpose in human society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Peter,
You say"[I think] the problem is that ID provokes very little thought [...]" I would rephrase that thusly:"The problem is that ID is the result of very little thought." "What claims does ID theory actually make?"That the complexity of life can only be explained by assuming an intelligent designer. (And that some geezer called Paley found a watch somewhere.) "What evidence supports such claims?"None whatsoever. "How could such claims be refuted?"They cannot. Cheers. P.S. Peter, have you read Daniel Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"? In it, he eloquently argues that there's design in living nature, but that this doesn't necessarily imply an intelligent agent. So we can meet the ID-ers halfway: there's design, yes. But intelligence? Nope, there's no need for it. (Now lash out with Occam's Razor...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 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'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Daniel Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' is probably my all-time favorite book. I'm a voracious reader and I've read some amazing books, but that one is truly staggering.
Intelligent design creationism asserts that where there's design, there must be a designer, even when we're looking at living things. What they forget is that in our experience, intelligence has never been responsible for the design of living things. Dennett says the cranes of natural selection have done the design work, and the ingenuity of these purposeless processes is a wonder to behold. Whether the raw material for the Darwinian algorithm is genetic, statistical, or philosophical, the output is always determined by fitness functions alone, and never any moral or teleological absolutes. In that case, is right or wrong merely an illusion, like the intelligence people try to see in undirected natural processes? Not necessarily. The Darwinian framework frees us from the obligations to discern divine purpose and enforce God-mandated absolutes. We're free to set our own standards (to determine the fitness functions ourselves, as it were) and allow the program to shape society in a way we consider rational and just. ------------------Quien busca, halla
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I actually support in this regard the more conservative ICR position than ID's GOD. I was not able to gain any more BIBICAL CREATIONIST motivation from trying to read what I did of ID technically than I could with dealing with say AD WHITE on Miracles and Morris' approach. I do not think Kantianism need be excluded at all. On NAIG some one recently suggested the correct approach to ID aka information gain or loss vs chance but there is no scientific creationist CHANGE of Biblical Creationist INFORMATION on any ID in my pinned tag of the thought and as I personally could no gain by using ID literature I for myself short of disscuing to this much with others have dropped this creation science for the science of conflicts with atomic mentality that seems to inhibit theory in evolution elite itself!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Brad McFall writes: On NAIG some one recently suggested the correct approach to ID aka information gain or loss vs chance but there is no scientific creationist CHANGE of Biblical Creationist INFORMATION on any ID in my pinned tag of the thought and as I personally could no gain by using ID literature I for myself short of disscuing to this much with others have dropped this creation science for the science of conflicts with atomic mentality that seems to inhibit theory in evolution elite itself! OK, the way I see it, there are several possibilities here:
More alternatives, anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Stop beating around the terebith book and accept me for who I really am. I am not GOD. your ears are closed to the truth and that is just what I said so you have no excuse. Perhaps your lens are too heavy.
I know how to use the following:Biblical Creationism Scientific Creationsim Creation Science and I did ON AIR, Live with CAll ins. Try being a fair producer no matter which camera the director TAKES and you will soon realize that this is language that will remain the the public square no matter that marxist ethics is MORE controversial and a worse offendor of lingo extrodinar. I HAD a Chrisitan upbringing thta allowed me a larger veiw of biology than was ALLLOWED at cornell. It had nothing to do with religon it had to do with Marxist PERCEPTION. Perception as your post noted is ONLY 1/2 of the reality. If you learn to READ creation literature as I was helped out by the book beyond the Day (see BookNook) you will find that such is not offensive to seculars only they have not actually been taught to READ it. One letter at atime my friend. Intelligent Design refers to GOD like it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Brad McFall writes:
I would if I understood what you're on about.
Stop beating around the terebith book and accept me for who I really am. Brad McFall writes:
Of course not. You exist.
I am not GOD. Brad McFall writes:
I'm sorry, I don't hear too well through my lenses.
your ears are closed to the truth and that is just what I said so you have no excuse. Perhaps your lens are too heavy. Brad McFall writes:
Well, if it's a matter of who talks funniest, then I guess you might be right.
I know how to use the following:Biblical Creationism Scientific Creationsim Creation Science and I did ON AIR, Live with CAll ins. Try being a fair producer no matter which camera the director TAKES and you will soon realize that this is language that will remain the the public square no matter that marxist ethics is MORE controversial and a worse offendor of lingo extrodinar. Brad McFall writes:
Didn't do your spelling much good, though.
I HAD a Chrisitan upbringing thta allowed me a larger veiw of biology than was ALLLOWED at cornell. Brad McFall writes:
Sometimes, as in your case, perception has no relation with reality whatsoever.
It had nothing to do with religon it had to do with Marxist PERCEPTION. Perception as your post noted is ONLY 1/2 of the reality. Brad McFall writes:
Am I to understand that 'READING' is something else then 'reading'? It sounds very profound and all, but I suspect it just comes down to interpreting creation literature. I've seen it before and it doesn't impress me in the least.
If you learn to READ creation literature as I was helped out by the book beyond the Day (see BookNook) you will find that such is not offensive to seculars only they have not actually been taught to READ it. Brad McFall writes:
Takes too long, 'my friend'.
One letter at atime my friend. Brad McFall writes:
Of course it does, we all know that. It's just that there is no Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design refers to GOD like it or not. Brad, I just came up with another possibility:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do you suppose you might, at least for a minute, entertain the possibility that you're picking on someone with a very real cognitive disorder? Isn't that "dirty cricket", as they say across the Pond?
Maybe a little (or a lot) less Brad-baiting would be in order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Crashfrog writes:
I'm sorry, but how am I to know? Anyway, I'm entertaining that possibility all the time. He's not the only candidate, you know.
Do you suppose you might, at least for a minute, entertain the possibility that you're picking on someone with a very real cognitive disorder? Crashfrog writes:
I wouldn't know, I live beyond the next pond.
Isn't that "dirty cricket", as they say across the Pond? Crashfrog writes:
I may have overstepped a line, I believe. If so, I'm sorry. Would you care to fill me in on Brad?
Maybe a little (or a lot) less Brad-baiting would be in order.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024