Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Intelligent design - going away?

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by Oli, Nov 16, 2005.

  1. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    New Scientist's current issue reports on the results of the latest court case in the US.
    Headline:
    ID has been declared (legally) as being non-scientific and having a
    And is therefore not to be taught as an "alternative theory".
    Hooray for common sense :grin:
     
  2. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    But surely then they must also be forbidden to teach Creationism.
     
  3. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Non-scientific just because it includes the possibility of a creator?

    This world is eager to see God go eh?
     
  4. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    what use of a theory with no other views?That'll only make us narrow-minded!

    So it is a legal thing then....I don't see the common sense in this.
     
  5. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky - AFAIK they are - in science classes. The whole thing came because ID was put forward as a "scientific theory" to get creationism taught as an alternative to evolution and plate tectonics/ earth sciences in science class.
    Creationism may be taught in religious classes, and ID is now consigned there.
    Kaiser - The point is that ID is not scientific but they were trying to get it taught in science clas when, as has no been shown in court, that it is a religious concept.
    It's not non-scientific because it includes the possibility of a creator, it is non-scientific because it states, ultimately, that there are things we will never know BECAUSE "God did it" - therefore making any scientific investigation impossible and worthless.
    It was never a "theory" in the scientific sense and should not have been put forward as such, it was more an attempt at subverting science....
     
  6. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    But what is your personal view of it then if it were not a scientific theory?

    But i would assume that just because God did it doesn't mean scientific experiments be stopped?i find it a totally sweeping statement and even offensive to think that people who believe in god isn't capable of scientific research
     
  7. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    If the answer is "God did it" then there is no point in a scientific investigation becuuse there will, probably, be no logical chain of events to follow from cause to effect.
    If, say, the basic origin of life was divine intervention then science MUST come to a halt at that point in the investigation of life - there is nothing we can do to investigate further along that line of inquiry.
    If the answer to everything turns out to be "God did it because that's how He wanted it to be" then there is no point at all in scientific chain-of-logic-and-events investigation.
    Why do apples fall to the ground - God wants them to, forget any equations describing how fast they accelerate, God might alter the value tomorrow.
    Why do chemical reactions take place the way they do - God wants them to, and there's no point investigating particle physics to see if quark-antiquark interactions account for valency....
    etc etc
    My personal view? That ID is a religious explanation posited by people who are either A) scared of science or B) fundametalist religious types who can't bear to see themselves losing some of their personal authority as someone in touch with God. Or a mix of both.
    Personally, science and (every day) religion have no conflict. The conflict comes with fundamentalist types who see every single word in the bible as true, and science disagrees with that.
    Basically if there is a God then He gave us our intelligence and curiosity. And He created the universe, AS IT IS, with its laws and behaviour for us to investigate using the tools He gave us. If it comes down to it having no actual rules that we can investigate and understand, then, in my opinion, it is a very sick joke on His part.
     
  8. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    Intelligent design follows the sixth Proof of God (Teleolotical argument I):
    http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
     
  9. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    No Oli,what you have just made is a sweeping statement.

    We christians(yes the editorial we) do believe Science to help in answering some of life's question.

    For example,God made the sun rise.How? Oh because*a long explanation of the celestial movements* and our response would be,"WOW!Ain't God wonderful?" It may sound silly to you but Science does and do recouncile God with us. The Bible is full of wonderful wisdom and science to those that does read it.

    Just a suggestion,to all atheist and whatever,does firmly rejecting the idea of God or/and God in science make you any open-minded?I can't speak for the others but while i still can,i speak for myself and if anyoneis willing to trust my integrity,then i must say i view science as a companion to remind me of the complex ways of God.So i don't think that just because "God did it" doesn't warrant a scientific research.That belongs to extremists in a physical sense.

    It does not makes sense for believers to know nothing.

    And Christian,as a side and no offense meant,doesn't your name torment you?(unless of course you are a christian)

    And as another aside, I.D requires faith.It cannot be taught as a science lesson and that i concede.However,it must be made as some kind of companion to evolution to let people know of the flaws of evoution.Such assumption that evolution is the absolute truth is as much the same as extremist and radicals going,"Burn all heretics"

    Ps:Ever wondered why there are increasing numbers of folks who goes new age and buddhist and how the public is so keen on rejecting God?
    *The End is coming*
     
  10. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Can we not say the same of your rejection of the notion that god might not exist? Why should we be open-minded and not you?

    I admit to being firmly closed to the idea of religion, but this is because of very reasonable arguments and facts, not because I just believe there is no god and refuse to accept any other views. Ricky will probably testify that I am not exactly a fanatical with eyeflaps on...

    No, because it doesn't threaten anyone's life to believe in Evolution.

    Ahem, I have no doubts that the current number of Christians in the world is the greatest amount ever in history.
     
  11. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Well roel,for the same reason that you do not believe. But i do ask if you have actually seen creationist theories?
    The open mindedness i am asking of you is not to believe in god,but rather read and understand the theories and reason behind it like how i choose to read up a bit on evolution.

    It is to my amusement that you took it literally. :wink:

    The world population is also the greatest amount in history.NEw Age is definitely on the rise.Notice i said increasing?
     
  12. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Aren't creationist theories just the theories presented in such religious works as Genesis? I know of them, can't say I know the exact words (particularly not in another language!) but I know what their foundations are, yes.

    Yes, and? There were religions around before Christianity too, and yet the world did not end before Jesus came along. For millennia since the death of Jesus, Christians have claimed that the prophesized end was nigh, but even so, it has not come. In fact IIRC it says in the Bible that Armageddon would come in the lifetime of the apostles, and yet... Nothing.
     
  13. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    roel wrote:

    Well now, it's one thing to state that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a does diety exists but something again to state that there is convincing evidence that a supreme being doesn't exist.

    I would like to hear some of that evidence :wink:
     
  14. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    When you accept the world as one truth, you will see several facts. Amongst others is that there is are no gods in the traditional sense. I always avoid the word 'believe', as the truth is not about beliefs. The one truth only allows 'is' or 'is not', there is no existance of tangible items through belief (though, interestingly enough, this also means that gods exists in the mind of those who believe, since the belief is factual, even though no gods exist in the tangible world - this is why religion is such an effective mean of mass manipulation).

    This also means that open-mindedness is an illusion. While one can be respectful of others opinions when talking to them, this doesn't change the fact that there is only one truth. There is one truth which can be accepted, the rest can only be respected (not for their persistance, but for their effort, just like the many scientists throughout the ages, who have failed trying to solve so many difficult problems by following the wrong paths should also be respected for their effort).

    Christian is a very common name in Denmark, being the name used by most of our kings.
     
  15. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    In the Same way Chritian,you are dekluding urself isn't it?Though there are convincing arguments for evolution,but it is not factual in that it is called theory and not LAW of evolution.Therefore,there exists two truths.

    About religion as pmass manipulation,i agree with you.But know that it is not a "always"
     
  16. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Roel,Science is a complement to creationist theory.Just because it's religious doesn't mean Science is excluded.
     
  17. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Guys,Have you ever wondered why perfectly logical person like Grieg and Ricky believes in a God?
    I think the whole main point is that at some point,they must have experienced God(sounds corny).If they are traiditonal Christians from a Christian family,then without experiencing or seeing something which has been their faith,they would be likely to fall out anyway but at Grieg's age,he hasn't.

    Now Evolution doesn't let us experience something.For to wholeheartedly believe in something,one needs to see and feel.But Evolution mostly lets you see and those sights are sometimes flawed.I do not dobt your integrity but all i asked is have you ever tried,in one way or another,actively seek to pursue a God you never knew? If not,then your denial in a God is at best partial and not comp[lete,for only when one does try and fails to experience,imho,then he completely not believe in a God
     
  18. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Kaiser wrote
    And not for the first time. Check out why so many Eurpoean churches and cathedrals have half-built portions. Hint: Joachim Fiore and the year 1260.

    Science is NOT a complement to creationism. Science seeks to explain how and why things happened. Creationism says the "God did it, and that's all the answer you're gong to get"
    Science is basically removing the "need" for God in the universe (in a physical sense, not spiritual).
    The big bang and gravitational agglutination etc created the Earth, not God, etc etc and so on throughout the entire gamut of things.
    The only questions really left to answer are:
    what caused the difference nbetween non-living and living things
    what caused the big bang
    why is the universe the way it is (IIRC a 1% difference in the charge of the electron would have made life-as-we-know-it impossible - hence the rise in anthropmophism in physicists).

    I don't DENY God, I just say that the evidence so far is slim to non-existent and therefore there is insufficient cause for belief.

    As for Grieg and Ricky's beliefs, check out some of the threads on Sciforums, we had one on there where we discussed (philosophically) whether or not religious people should be given technical jobs since belief in and of itself is scientifically invalid and holding a belief demonstrates irrationality and unscientific thinking at source. We even had one guy state that his technical credentials were second to none and he should not be denied a job on the grounds that he believed in God, and then went on to say that if he came across a conflict between scientific evidence and his beliefs he would go for the belief solution. Would you let him design a bridge? :eek:
    Why should I "actively seek a God I don't know"? There's enough in life to be getting on with, without haring off searching for wills-o-the-wisp. There was, IIRC, a school of religious thought that went along the lines of "if there is a God and He wants me, He'll let me know. Until then I'll get on with my life as best as possible". Although I believe they were declared heretical :grin:
     
  19. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    There is only one truth. This truth can never be known to its full extent, since it would require more space, than exists in the universe, to record it. There are no gods as factual existances within the truth. Since the full description of evolution, through miniscule influences, is different from the truth only in purpose, evolution cannot be described. We can therefore only know an estimation of evolution, and the accuracy of this is determined by the amount of knowledge compiled on evolution.
    So far, while we have some concept of evolution, the entire process is still generally unrecorded. This does not make evolution any less true, or any less a part of truth, but it doesn't mean that any conflicting ideas are true either.

    So, by your logic, God is proof of God?
     
  20. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Common misconception, and underlines a major difference between science and religion.
    ALL scientific thinking is a theory (in science the word theory does not mean what it does in everyday life, it is far stronger), similarly all laws are descriptive not prescriptive, ie they are not laws in the legal sense. Just they they have not yet been observed to be broken....
    Science will look at evidence and re-write, if necessary, its theories and laws. Because science is about what we currently know about how things work - with the assumption that there is most likely something else to learn which may or may not support the current thinking. If there was an area on the Earth where apples fell sideways then gravity would have to be revised (or at least some explanation for the anomaly found). All scientific laws and theories have the unspoken addendum "under the conditions normally appertaining to how we know and see things"
    Religion says this is how things were, are and forever will be.
     

Share This Page