Creationism/Intelligent Design

inpraiseoffolly wrote: All in all, intelligent design is a thinly veiled version of biblical creationism put forth by a bunch of crackpots who are holding on to unfounded beliefs.Last time I checked, I am not a crackpot.  I don't mind if you are religious, even though I'm not, but don't try to force religion on science. Also, intelligent design's main "evidence" touted by its followers are gaps in the fossil record.  Well, just because we don't understand something now, doesn't mean we'll never understand it. Same with creationism/intelligent design. Honestly, we used to believe that the earth was flat, but now we know better. I'd just like to point out that it says in Isaiah that the earth floats in space and orbits the sun, totally different to the view at that time that the earth was held up by a huge animal.  I'm sorry if I insult any of you in what I will say next, but it needs saying.   I honestly cannot trust the intelligence of anyone who seriously believes that just because we don't know everything means that everything we do know is wrong. Same with Intelligent Design/Creationism. This is sheer impatience and shows a supreme lack of the ability to approach problems with an open mind. I concur. This belief is an incredible insult to all scientists, who make their livings discovering things that, according to proponents of this atrocious mindset, aren't true because we don't know them yet.   And all these people who fly in the face of evidence would be perfectly happy to accept science as valid if it proved that God existed, or that prayer worked, or that evolution was false.  This hypocrisy is disgusting, and intelligent design simply isn't a valid belief.  If any evidence were found that proved that evolution were false, if one irreducibly complex organ were discovered, I would be one of the first to abandon the belief... but only AFTER it was found that that organ truly was irreducibly complex. Would the brain count? I mean look at the things they do for blindness, the electrodes that determine what we see is electrically transmitted by the tongue. The brain realizes this is sight and thus makes the person see what the electrodes are saying that person is seeing. Very complex in my opinion.

I am not offended by your comments. They are a bit harsh and your impatience with people who agree with Intelligent Design / Creationism is shown.

inpraiseoffolly wrote: ^^^   And since it's highly likely I'll be asked to delete a lot of that post, just read Richard Dawkins, who explains all I've said with more elegance and less anger than I've done.

I don't mind anger, though i think reason is more convincing to me.

Same as for The Evolution theory Creationism stands or falls with the discovery of the origin of life.

The evolution theory can be proven if we discover the first living organism, and are able to recreate the creation of life from unliving material in a controlled envirement (ergo, when man becomes God)

Creationism can be proven if we discover god, and ask him upfront and personal, why did you create us, and he answers back, and explains how he creates life. (ergo, when Man trully becomes God's apprentice as was meant to be).

But if neither are found, all theories and hypothesis can be correct, and believe plays an important aspect of the foundations of the different theories, either you believe in chance, or you believe in a creational force. Both are belief systems.

scientific theories are easier to find indications of possible truth for than religious beliefs, for God doesn't show himself all too often directly to man, but the facts of life (possibly how god created it) are always the same, and give an aura of scientific value.

well something like this.

inpraiseoffolly wrote: bluetailfly wrote: Logos wrote: Creationism as a science is a joke.   Who claims it's merely a science?   Creationism is a scientific hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong.   And since, at least to me, there is no God, there is nothing more than science that it could be.

Ah, dismissing a theory based on your personal beliefs. You, my friend, would make a ridiculously horrible scientist.

progismylife wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: All in all, intelligent design is a thinly veiled version of biblical creationism put forth by a bunch of crackpots who are holding on to unfounded beliefs.Last time I checked, I am not a crackpot.  You're right, that was a bit harsh.  If you advocate it as a scientific alternative to evolution, that would make you a crackpot in my mind.  If you believe in it as religion and discount evolution because it disagrees with religion, well, I think you're quite silly, but that's not nearly as bad.  I don't mind if you are religious, even though I'm not, but don't try to force religion on science. Also, intelligent design's main "evidence" touted by its followers are gaps in the fossil record.  Well, just because we don't understand something now, doesn't mean we'll never understand it. Same with creationism/intelligent design.  Ah, but evolution theory doesn't base its sole evidence on this type of argument, as creationism/intelligent design does.  Honestly, we used to believe that the earth was flat, but now we know better. I'd just like to point out that it says in Isaiah that the earth floats in space and orbits the sun, totally different to the view at that time that the earth was held up by a huge animal.  I'll have to check that and get back to you.  I made up the floating on an animal part, however.  Most believed the world was flat at that point.  I'm sorry if I insult any of you in what I will say next, but it needs saying.   I honestly cannot trust the intelligence of anyone who seriously believes that just because we don't know everything means that everything we do know is wrong. Same with Intelligent Design/Creationism.  Same as before, evolution bases itself on hard evidence, creationism/intelligent design on the argument that just because we don't know now, we'll never know, and therefore it must have been God.  This is sheer impatience and shows a supreme lack of the ability to approach problems with an open mind. I concur. Well, that's good.  This belief is an incredible insult to all scientists, who make their livings discovering things that, according to proponents of this atrocious mindset, aren't true because we don't know them yet.   And all these people who fly in the face of evidence would be perfectly happy to accept science as valid if it proved that God existed, or that prayer worked, or that evolution was false.  This hypocrisy is disgusting, and intelligent design simply isn't a valid belief.  If any evidence were found that proved that evolution were false, if one irreducibly complex organ were discovered, I would be one of the first to abandon the belief... but only AFTER it was found that that organ truly was irreducibly complex. Would the brain count? I mean look at the things they do for blindness, the electrodes that determine what we see is electrically transmitted by the tongue. The brain realizes this is sight and thus makes the person see what the electrodes are saying that person is seeing. Very complex in my opinion.  True, it is very complex, as is all life.  However, irreducibly complex simply means that it couldn't have evolved as a series of steps.  I guarantee you that with an organ as important as the brain, there have been many tests showing that the brain is not irreducibly complex.  In fact, I can reasonably say that fossil evidence show how the human brain came from the brains of earlier human forms (now extinct).  Also, our brains contain some parts that, say, fish brains do not, because ours have evolved out of fish brains, and have had to adapt to life on land, which requires different brain functions.  I am not offended by your comments. They are a bit harsh and your impatience with people who agree with Intelligent Design / Creationism is shown.

Scapler wrote: stonebeard wrote: I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology. Then both should be taught. Neither of them are provable, and there are big names in science throughout history who support both. Remeber, refusing to include something you deem may have religous signifigance in a class is not secular, it is making science a religion in a way.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

sleeper wrote: Scapler wrote: stonebeard wrote: I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology. Then both should be taught. Neither of them are provable, and there are big names in science throughout history who support both. Remeber, refusing to include something you deem may have religous signifigance in a class is not secular, it is making science a religion in a way. No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

To me, creationism and intelligent design hypotheses are just philosophical/metaphysical possibilities. We'll probably never find out, but our minds still continue to pose these possibilities in the hope that we might get closer to something like the "truth" or maybe just a more startling higher awareness of an "awsome symmetry"...

sleeper wrote: Scapler wrote: stonebeard wrote: I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology. Then both should be taught. Neither of them are provable, and there are big names in science throughout history who support both. Remeber, refusing to include something you deem may have religous signifigance in a class is not secular, it is making science a religion in a way. No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

Well then both would not be taught as both are theories and are not provable but one is seen as more likely than the other.

sleeper wrote: Scapler wrote: stonebeard wrote: I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology. Then both should be taught. Neither of them are provable, and there are big names in science throughout history who support both. Remeber, refusing to include something you deem may have religous signifigance in a class is not secular, it is making science a religion in a way. No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

Prove evolution to me, I dare you




Edited by Scapler - January 24 2007 at 17:18

progismylife wrote: stonebeard wrote: I should rephrase: I don't care necessarity if religious perspectives were incorporated into teaching, becase religion is a huge force in our world, whether we believe or not. We all know which religion would be taught though, and it's wouldn't be Wiccan. I'd prefer science to be "the religion" per se of the scientific classroom, because that way we avoid all the inner conflicts of having to give EVERY RELIGION's perspective on scientific matters, which is impractical and silly. Keep to the known facts, not the disputed theories imo.

Facts are disputable and interpretable, so even facts aren't as solid as you want them to be.