Intelligent Design

[SkepticOfBible]

Most Creationist and "Intelligent Design"try to find holes in the theory of evolution, and then try to say Intelligent Design is better.

 

Yet in all the debates, I have never seen ID advocates propose any evidence which support their theory apart from the fact they say Evolution doesn't provide all the answers.

 

So let's hear your evidence for ID theory?

 

Before you start please also suggest what do you think is the age of the earth and why, because just like christians, creationist come in variety of form.

 

Kind of Creationist

 

I would really prefer that we stick to ID discussions only, but references can be made.

 

From Intelligent design - Wikipedia

 

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

 

* Consistent (internally and externally)

* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

* Based upon controlled, repeated experiments

* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)

* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

* Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

 

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Ssel]

Correct me if I’m wrong in this, but it appears to me that;

 

The proponent of ID is saying that mere accidents can not create such sophisticated life forms as we can see all around, thus such sophistication could only be present due to intentional effort. Intention requires intelligence and thus simply because there IS sophisticated life, there MUST be an intelligence involved in its creation.

 

The evolutionist is arguing that mere accidents certainly CAN cause sophisticated life forms they just haven’t been able to demonstrate it yet. This of course means that it is merely a theory and not hard science as of yet.

 

To settle the dispute;

 

The ID proponent would have to prove that accidents can NOT cause sophisticated life or the evolutionist would have to demonstrate that accidents CAN cause sophisticated life.

 

Proving that something can not EVER happen is a far, far greater task than proving that something CAN.

 

It seems that it is all an issue of proving what accidents CAN do and what they can NOT do.

 

Unfortunately for me, I believe both sides are correct. The resolution is in understanding that accidents are limited as to what they can do (the laws of physics and such) and that due to their limits, they cause intelligence. That intelligence then causes sophistication.

 

Of course to prove this, I would have to discuss exactly what constitutes “intelligence” versus “accidents”. But since neither side of the argument addresses this primal issue, the argument must continue until the evolutionist creates sophisticated life. Trying to prove the contrary, that accidents can NEVER do such, is not reasonable to expect.

 

 

Two questions;

 

1) Have I assessed the fundamental disagreement correctly (disregarding the numerous details)?

2) Is it reasonable to only expect resolution when and if someone addresses what constitutes intelligence or the presentation of a demonstration from the evolutionist?

[Ouroboros]

Ssel, I think your assessment is a bit too simplified.

 

The proponent of ID is saying that mere accidents can not create such sophisticated life forms as we can see all around, thus such sophistication could only be present due to intentional effort. Intention requires intelligence and thus simply because there IS sophisticated life, there MUST be an intelligence involved in its creation.

 

The evolutionist is arguing that mere accidents certainly CAN cause sophisticated life forms they just haven’t been able to demonstrate it yet. This of course means that it is merely a theory and not hard science as of yet.

Evolution doesn't believe that mere accidents creates the sophisticated life forms, but you could say these "accidents" are part of the formula. Evolution is in a sense a guided system, because the natural selection makes it so. It's not a chaotic random system that now and then by "accident" pop up something that is highly complex and developed, but these "accidents" or mutations are extremely small. And the natural selection comes from the environment, physical laws, other species and interaction with your own group.

 

The conflict between ID and Evolution is not that mutations and natural selection does occur, but that there are a few instances where mutations and natural selection are not enough. This is what they refer to when they talk about something being Irreducible Complex, for instance a DNA sequence that is too complex to mutate in gradual steps into its complete form. The development of the eye has been popular as an example, but is not talked about as much since there are new evidence for evolutionary steps of the eye.

 

To settle the dispute;

 

The ID proponent would have to prove that accidents can NOT cause sophisticated life or the evolutionist would have to demonstrate that accidents CAN cause sophisticated life.

As I said above, it's not evolution by accident.

 

The theory of evolution is used as a foundation in medicine today, and even in technology! Every year we get a new wave of a new strain of flu, and the flu vaccine we get is based on predictions of the next strain. In this field they know mutations occur. And if you look at it from the "flu's" point of view, it's evolving to a better and more efficient flu virus.

 

In computer technology we have whole families of network routers that use genetic algorithms.

 

In the oil industry genetic algorithms have been used to control pipelines with better success than regular algorithms.

 

And there are more examples where the theories of "mutation" and "selection" have worked well. It wouldn't surprise me if it's been used in development of new AI technologies.

 

Now, the problem for ID is to prove that something can be so complex and intricate that it not have evolved. That's a difficult challenge, since every time they point to something that hasn't been understood yet, we might eventually do understand how it evolved, and they have to find new examples that later will be proven have evolved. It's a chase where the "unexplained" is the proof of the "unknown", until it gets explained and is not a proof of the "unknown" anymore.

 

Proving that something can not EVER happen is a far, far greater task than proving that something CAN.

 

It seems that it is all an issue of proving what accidents CAN do and what they can NOT do.

 

Unfortunately for me, I believe both sides are correct. The resolution is in understanding that accidents are limited as to what they can do (the laws of physics and such) and that due to their limits, they cause intelligence. That intelligence then causes sophistication.

Personally I don't have a problem with ID as a hypothetical idea, and who knows, maybe mutations are guided by an outside force, but then again we fall into the problem on what it is. Who knows, maybe the "guidance" isn't from a god of any kind, but just from another unknown physical law that can force the mutations in leaps to a more complex construct.

 

Of course to prove this, I would have to discuss exactly what constitutes “intelligence” versus “accidents”. But since neither side of the argument addresses this primal issue, the argument must continue until the evolutionist creates sophisticated life. Trying to prove the contrary, that accidents can NEVER do such, is not reasonable to expect.

 

 

Two questions;

 

1) Have I assessed the fundamental disagreement correctly (disregarding the numerous details)?

I think your assessment it to simplified. But I'm not saying it is completely wrong, just that the conflict is more intricate.

 

2) Is it reasonable to only expect resolution when and if someone addresses what constitutes intelligence or the presentation of a demonstration from the evolutionist?

You got an interesting point here. The ID proponent should first made to explain and prove what intelligence is. I like that idea. Because it first has to account for how our brain works, and be able to prove and identify awareness, free will and this mysterious "soul", before they can claim any "intelligence" in the universe.

[Ssel]

... I would have to discuss exactly what constitutes “intelligence” versus “accidents”.

Hans, you appropriately answered my questions, thank you.

 

I can't argue that if either party feels that the word "accidents" is too simple, then it isn't appropriate.

 

I was under the impression that both had come to terms with the notion that a long complex chain of accidents could cause many of the more complex forms of evolution excluding Irreducible Complexity. I wasn't using the word "accidents" to merely refer to simple random occurrences, but to include any great length of simpler accidents strung together. If another word or set of words is more appropriate, that's fine with me.

 

I intentionally avoided mentioning Irreversible Complexity (IC) because I'm sure pritishd didn't want to start another thread on that topic. I used the word "sophistication" to include IC and any other seemingly too complex notions so as to allow progress to be made.

 

In the long run, it will have to come down to understanding what constitutes intelligence or a demonstration from the evolutionist. This being an online discussion tool, the demonstration is out for a while. That leaves the issue to be either endless arguing or the discussion of intelligence. A progressive discussion of intelligence will lead to a resolution before the evolutionist ever gets around to a demonstration.

 

On the issue of intelligence, I can take you from the ground floor as high as any one here wants to go. This happens to be my technical expertise. That doesn't mean that "I am super intelligent", it merely means that I spent MANY years developing intelligence models from nothing up to what you have been calling "free will". Most of this was in a classified environment, but the fundamental concepts aren’t any great secret. But they are NOT simple minded concepts that can be easily discussed in a hostile manner. They take a serious effort to want to see the truth of them, else like everything, no one accepts anything they don't want to hear. But they are totally independent of Biblical or religious concerns. This allows them to be accepted by both sides.

 

IF such a discussion were allowed to grow, then BOTH sides would learn of the "higher truth" of the other. But neither side has to accept the other until that point becomes clear. Thus no need for faith from either side. Just as my signature indicates, in the long run by CLIMBING rather than merely throwing stones, each side comes to a peak where they BOTH basically say "Oh shit, they were right".

 

But then all of this is predicated on the notion that climbing is worth the effort and throwing stones can be put off for a while. Perhaps picked up again at a higher position on the mountain.

 

If anyone considers it worth the while, then start a thread with what ever question you might have and I'll guide the boat out of port with the fundamental "black box" concept of intelligence then allow everyone to settle on each basic step toward the resolution of the ID vs. Evolution issue.

 

Another detail about me..

When_I_first_read_this_Bible_thing.doc

Let_it_be.doc

[Saviourmachine]

On the issue of intelligence, I can take you from the ground floor as high as any one here wants to go. This happens to be my technical expertise. That doesn't mean that "I am super intelligent", it merely means that I spent MANY years developing intelligence models from nothing up to what you have been calling "free will". Most of this was in a classified environment, but the fundamental concepts aren’t any great secret. But they are NOT simple minded concepts that can be easily discussed in a hostile manner. They take a serious effort to want to see the truth of them, else like everything, no one accepts anything they don't want to hear. But they are totally independent of Biblical or religious concerns. This allows them to be accepted by both sides.

Hi Ssel, what did you do? What's your area of expertise?

 

I like the way complexity is defined in the purple book about Complexity in the article of Francis Heylighen (The growth of structural and functional complexity during evolution):

 

We have tried to clarify why complexity appears to grow during evolution. Although increasing complexity seems intuitively obvious to most observers, it has recently been questioned whether there effectively is an inexorable growth of complexity. By defining complexity as the combination of distinction (variety) and connection (dependency) in at least the spatial, temporal and scale dimensions, we were able to redefine complexification as the combination of differentation and integretation in these dimensions.

 

The fundamental mechanisms of evolution are variation, which produces spatial differentation of systems, and selection on the basis of (relative) fitness, which produces structural integration by creating more and stronger linkages between different systems. Together they produce the growth of structural complexity, characterized by the development of nested hierarchies of subsystems and supersystems. This complexification process tends to be self-reinforcing, because the filling of a niche by an additional system (i.e., the creation of a link) creates further niches (i.e., opportunities for additional linkages).

This combination of variety and dependency does make a lot of sense to me. But I couldn't until now convince anybody about the beauty of this definition.

[Ssel]

..what did you do? What's your area of expertise?

The only thing I'm allowed to say without revealing creditials or exactly who the work was being done for, is that I was involved in the design of technical and mechanical forms of stable intelligence. This work evolves into human intelligence comparisons and concerns (and by default "insanity" as well). This is why I wanted to find seriously logic oriented people, because it doesn't matter WHO reveals logic. Logic stands on its own merit. But, of course, as they announced a few years back, because everyone now accepts something different as "logical", then using logic doesn't work to persuade many.

 

And now I must apologize to pritishd for distracting his thread.

 

 

[Skankboy]

Ssel,

 

I think you've proven the point Pritishd was trying to make.

 

The main contention isn't between deism and evolution, the two can function pefectly fine together. What's up for debate here is how the ID theory fails to live up to the criteria of "science".

 

Remember, disproving any aspect of evolution doesn't prove ID is correct. For ID to be taken seriously as a "science" it needs to propose a positive assurtion of it's own and then give a process by which it can be tested and that test repeated by independant analysis.

 

ID's positive assertion (as best I can articulate) is that the complexity of life we see today is the result of an intelligent agency making conscious changes to the genome. (If this needs to be refined, please let me know).

 

Unfortunately, the ID camp has yet to come up w/a falsifiable way to test this assertion. Irreducible complexity says that life is too complex for evolution to account for everything. This is not the same as saying where the complexity comes from, it's only saying where it can't come from and so isn't a positive assertion.

 

IMOHO,

[Ouroboros]

... I would have to discuss exactly what constitutes “intelligence” versus “accidents”.

Hans, you appropriately answered my questions, thank you.

 

I can't argue that if either party feels that the word "accidents" is too simple, then it isn't appropriate.

 

I was under the impression that both had come to terms with the notion that a long complex chain of accidents could cause many of the more complex forms of evolution excluding Irreducible Complexity. I wasn't using the word "accidents" to merely refer to simple random occurrences, but to include any great length of simpler accidents strung together. If another word or set of words is more appropriate, that's fine with me.

Ok.

 

Unfortunately, the big hang-up between the Evolution Theorist and the ID proponent is exactly the IC.

 

I intentionally avoided mentioning Irreversible Complexity (IC) because I'm sure pritishd didn't want to start another thread on that topic. I used the word "sophistication" to include IC and any other seemingly too complex notions so as to allow progress to be made.

Ok.

 

In the long run, it will have to come down to understanding what constitutes intelligence or a demonstration from the evolutionist. This being an online discussion tool, the demonstration is out for a while. That leaves the issue to be either endless arguing or the discussion of intelligence. A progressive discussion of intelligence will lead to a resolution before the evolutionist ever gets around to a demonstration.

As I said in the earlier post, I really like that approach. First prove or demonstrate what Intelligence is, before even claiming Intelligence or not.

 

 

On the issue of intelligence, I can take you from the ground floor as high as any one here wants to go. This happens to be my technical expertise. That doesn't mean that "I am super intelligent", it merely means that I spent MANY years developing intelligence models from nothing up to what you have been calling "free will". Most of this was in a classified environment, but the fundamental concepts aren’t any great secret. But they are NOT simple minded concepts that can be easily discussed in a hostile manner. They take a serious effort to want to see the truth of them, else like everything, no one accepts anything they don't want to hear. But they are totally independent of Biblical or religious concerns. This allows them to be accepted by both sides.

I've been fiddling around with AI, NN and expert systems a little bit, and would be interested in picking your brain about this. Just because I think it's a fascinating subject. You want to do it in PM or do you want to start at thread for this? I must warn you, I was never good with the math behind it; I only have a laymans knowledge of the concepts and abstracts.

 

IF such a discussion were allowed to grow, then BOTH sides would learn of the "higher truth" of the other. But neither side has to accept the other until that point becomes clear. Thus no need for faith from either side. Just as my signature indicates, in the long run by CLIMBING rather than merely throwing stones, each side comes to a peak where they BOTH basically say "Oh shit, they were right".

 

But then all of this is predicated on the notion that climbing is worth the effort and throwing stones can be put off for a while. Perhaps picked up again at a higher position on the mountain.

 

 

If anyone considers it worth the while, then start a thread with what ever question you might have and I'll guide the boat out of port with the fundamental "black box" concept of intelligence then allow everyone to settle on each basic step toward the resolution of the ID vs. Evolution issue.

 

Another detail about me..

Okay, a new thread about Intelligence. I'll call it "Black-Box Intelligence", would that be good?

 

-edit-

 

Link to the new topic: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=109722

[pitchu]

I wish I understood just how complex something has to be before we're expected to conclude that Intelligence designed it. What is the magic point of intricacy which makes god (and we all know they really mean god) the inescapable agent of its architecture?

 

And why wasn't god, of necessity, the designer of the more simplistic precoursers to the magical point of complexity? If he was, then all we have is the same old "god-made-everything" proposition we've always had.

 

Or, if, indeed, this complexity alone is what now necessitates our capitulation to the ID argument, does that mean god was maybe non-existent until things got complex enough to interest him?

[SkepticOfBible]

Remember, disproving any aspect of evolution doesn't prove ID is correct. For ID to be taken seriously as a "science" it needs to propose a positive assurtion of it's own and then give a process by which it can be tested and that test repeated by independant analysis.

 

I have been going through the apologetic thread on Google regarding this issue. At many time ID propenents agree with Evolution, and then when they start bashing it. They don't propose any positive assertion for their theory.

 

ID discussion on Google Groups

 

I still wait for positive scientific assertion for ID.

[Saviourmachine]

Intelligent Design is not a useless concept.

 

Take investigators that have to decide if a death was natural or a murder. Ruling out all coincidences will lead to the idea that it was a crime, that there was a designer. Nobody knows who this designer is.

Ruling out mutations and other mechanisms as possible natural actors will lead to the same conclusion. That someone committed the crime of which the current existing species are the result. Who is this designer that we can punish him/her!? Relating ID with god does need further analyses, and an unfounded assertion yet.

[essence]

Intelligent Design is not a useless concept.

 

Take investigators that have to decide if a death was natural or a murder. Ruling out all coincidences will lead to the idea that it was a crime, that there was a designer. Nobody knows who this designer is.

Ruling out mutations and other mechanisms as possible natural actors will lead to the same conclusion. That someone committed the crime of which the current existing species are the result. Who is this designer that we can punish him/her!? Relating ID with god does need further analyses, and an unfounded assertion yet.

 

 

Considering that the biblical prophets regarded strangers to their own tradition as animals, "beasts of the fiel", meaning the world, we can see how the first man created in their image and likeness was Adam, the family of Adam. What has this to do with science? Nothing. What should be the argument of debate then?

 

Pagan beliefs and their traditions. Where was the biblical god before the prophets created him in their image and in their likeness of how they wanted their god to be? There were many gods so the prophets invented their own and he was invisible, in their own mind as they perceived him to be in their favor. So the prophets conceived a plan whereby their god would rule through their own mouth as "thus saith the Lord God".

 

ID is merely a new concocted ploy of the Christian Right to impose its one religion into the educational system of American public school systems. (and U.S.government) Not having any answers nor even desiring to find any answers, because that is not the purpose of the Christians Right ideology, unless science argues the tradition of people in the bible as how they were created as a body of people among many other bodies of people, they will lose the fight and Jerry Falwell's "Gawd" will inflict serious damage to the minds of of children through the public school systems throughout America. Just look at what he's already done to the private church school students minds.

 

Science must make its argument through what is preached as creation of man and give that biblical account as tradition of genealogies from Adam to Christ.

This is the only thing that ignorant Christians can relate to and this only way to make ID a worthless concept.

[Saviourmachine]

Considering that the biblical prophets regarded strangers to their own tradition as animals, "beasts of the fiel", meaning the world, we can see how the first man created in their image and likeness was Adam, the family of Adam. What has this to do with science? Nothing. What should be the argument of debate then?

I only recall the story of Nebukadnezar, but that were real "beasts of the field". Where does a prophet relate to humans as such?

 

Pagan beliefs and their traditions. Where was the biblical god before the prophets created him in their image and in their likeness of how they wanted their god to be? There were many gods so the prophets invented their own and he was invisible, in their own mind as they perceived him to be in their favor. So the prophets conceived a plan whereby their god would rule through their own mouth as "thus saith the Lord God".

You're mislead in your idea that there is only one unique concept of "God". I am not indebted to hebrew or christian religion makers to invent the idea that the universe can have an actor or does arise in self-organizing overwhelming power. I don't care about anything. I don't care if design is the contemporary black sheep of science, because some people feel uncomfortable with invented relations with their former religion. For me design is a useful concept, no matter how it used by some particular sect. How wonderful would it be for example that at the end we will turn out to see that the universe is designed by an intelligent specie somewhere in the future! That time is an imaginary concept... That you seem just a bit less ignorant that others, don't give you the right to dimiss intellectual ideas beforehand.

 

ID is merely a new concocted ploy of the Christian Right to impose its one religion into the educational system of American public school systems. (and U.S.government) Not having any answers nor even desiring to find any answers, because that is not the purpose of the Christians Right ideology, unless science argues the tradition of people in the bible as how they were created as a body of people among many other bodies of people, they will lose the fight and Jerry Falwell's "Gawd" will inflict serious damage to the minds of of children through the public school systems throughout America. Just look at what he's already done to the private church school students minds.

I wouldn't care. Firstly, I am not a guy that can read the mind of someone as Behe. I take - maybe naively - as starting point that someone is sincere, that someone thinks, that truth prevails. Secondly, raise your own kids. Why bother of the ones of someone else, especially if they are already christian? What do you think that christian education will add to home schooling? If ID is so stupid as you say it is, only stupid children on these public schools will be trapped by it.

 

Science must make its argument through what is preached as creation of man and give that biblical account as tradition of genealogies from Adam to Christ.

This is the only thing that ignorant Christians can relate to and this only way to make ID a worthless concept.

Let them explore their own hypothesis, and care you about your own.

 

I am really done about this bashing of ID, christians, etcetera. Hell, was nobody a christian or creationist on this site ever before? Patience, nobody can be so smart like you.

[Amanda]

 

Hello Saviourmachine!

 

Thanks for making the point that many people that are NOT fundamentalist, or part of the religous right, and are still open or lean to ID. Just because we may lean towards ID does NOT mean we also have to accept that Adam was the first man, or that the world is 6000 years old. However, I can understand the frustration of people dealing with those that insist on such beliefs as being absolutely true.

[essence]

Considering that the biblical prophets regarded strangers to their own tradition as animals, "beasts of the fiel", meaning the world, we can see how the first man created in their image and likeness was Adam, the family of Adam. What has this to do with science? Nothing. What should be the argument of debate then?

I only recall the story of Nebukadnezar, but that were real "beasts of the field". Where does a prophet relate to humans as such?

 

"beasts" of the field are presented as characterization of men in their social behavior.

Have you not heard of this comparison before? What about the sheep and the goats which are divided in Jesus parables? The wheat and the tares? All these symbolisms tell a story of who is acceptable and who is not, and in accordance to covenant and laws of Israel.

 

Pagan beliefs and their traditions. Where was the biblical god before the prophets created him in their image and in their likeness of how they wanted their god to be? There were many gods so the prophets invented their own and he was invisible, in their own mind as they perceived him to be in their favor. So the prophets conceived a plan whereby their god would rule through their own mouth as "thus saith the Lord God".

You're mislead in your idea that there is only one unique concept of "God". I am not indebted to hebrew or christian religion makers to invent the idea that the universe can have an actor or does arise in self-organizing overwhelming power. I don't care about anything. I don't care if design is the contemporary black sheep of science, because some people feel uncomfortable with invented relations with their former religion. For me design is a useful concept, no matter how it used by some particular sect. How wonderful would it be for example that at the end we will turn out to see that the universe is designed by an intelligent specie somewhere in the future! That time is an imaginary concept... That you seem just a bit less ignorant that others, don't give you the right to dimiss intellectual ideas beforehand.

 

You have your "don't care" opinion just as I have mine as a concerned citizen. Noteably, I care about how children are taught religion in the public schools; for teaching them according to the ideology of the Christian Right they learn to hate, then start pre-emptive wars on other religions of the world. They are made to belief their own religion is a far superior religion and their "Gawd" as the only one which should be worshipped. The "many gods" are still in competition due to the men behind their glorified entities.

 

Intelligent Design presents only one God, and that God is being forced into the public school systems of America. This is not only about ID but the silencing of freedom of speech. It isn't only Atheism being silenced but all non-Christian Right voices. Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and others given enough "right of their way" would eventually demand death to any which should refuse to conform to their ideology.(IMO)

 

I know about ID and I'm well educated in how the CR thinks in its attempt to deceive the public at large.

 

If you're smart, you'll listen to their "preaching" and their political "outreach".

 

 

ID is merely a new concocted ploy of the Christian Right to impose its one religion into the educational system of American public school systems. (and U.S.government) Not having any answers nor even desiring to find any answers, because that is not the purpose of the Christians Right ideology, unless science argues the tradition of people in the bible as how they were created as a body of people among many other bodies of people, they will lose the fight and Jerry Falwell's "Gawd" will inflict serious damage to the minds of of children through the public school systems throughout America. Just look at what he's already done to the private church school students minds.

I wouldn't care. Firstly, I am not a guy that can read the mind of someone as Behe. I take - maybe naively - as starting point that someone is sincere, that someone thinks, that truth prevails. Secondly, raise your own kids. Why bother of the ones of someone else, especially if they are already christian? What do you think that christian education will add to home schooling? If ID is so stupid as you say it is, only stupid children on these public schools will be trapped by it.

 

Science must make its argument through what is preached as creation of man and give that biblical account as tradition of genealogies from Adam to Christ.

This is the only thing that ignorant Christians can relate to and this only way to make ID a worthless concept.

Let them explore their own hypothesis, and care you about your own.

 

I am really done about this bashing of ID, christians, etcetera. Hell, was nobody a christian or creationist on this site ever before? Patience, nobody can be so smart like you.

[Saviourmachine]

"beasts" of the field are presented as characterization of men in their social behavior.

Have you not heard of this comparison before? What about the sheep and the goats which are divided in Jesus parables? The wheat and the tares? All these symbolisms tell a story of who is acceptable and who is not, and in accordance to covenant and laws of Israel.

I just asked for proof. I don't want to rely on some urban legends concocted by you or somebody else. Considering that you thought (in another thread) that "gentiles" came from "uncircumcised genitals" warns me not to take you very serious. You even should now the term "goyim" in your language...

 

You have your "don't care" opinion just as I have mine as a concerned citizen. Noteably, I care about how children are taught religion in the public schools; for teaching them according to the ideology of the Christian Right they learn to hate, then start pre-emptive wars on other religions of the world. They are made to belief their own religion is a far superior religion and their "Gawd" as the only one which should be worshipped. The "many gods" are still in competition due to the men behind their glorified entities.

I am not such a black-white thinker. You are polarizing the situation. I don't think that all these man - or even in general - have the ideology to learn to hate. I don't think the war in Iraq was about religion, I fear its economical drive can neither be neglected in that case.

 

Intelligent Design presents only one God, and that God is being forced into the public school systems of America. This is not only about ID but the silencing of freedom of speech. It isn't only Atheism being silenced but all non-Christian Right voices. Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and others given enough "right of their way" would eventually demand death to any which should refuse to conform to their ideology.(IMO)

Don't be so fearful. Firstly, it's impossible to postulate some particular designer in the scientific community that would prohibit all other kinds of filling that gap. Secondly, the best they can reach is having it as an alternative theory. In that case more research will be done to it and it will be much quicker dismissed. Are these Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and others members of your gouvernment? If some individual has much power it is always dangerous. If they are only some weirdos that have a lot of money, who cares?

 

I know about ID and I'm well educated in how the CR thinks in its attempt to deceive the public at large.

So, do you mind to elaborate on the ways in which CR tries purposely deceive the public at large?

[essence]

"beasts" of the field are presented as characterization of men in their social behavior.

Have you not heard of this comparison before? What about the sheep and the goats which are divided in Jesus parables? The wheat and the tares? All these symbolisms tell a story of who is acceptable and who is not, and in accordance to covenant and laws of Israel.

I just asked for proof. I don't want to rely on some urban legends concocted by you or somebody else. Considering that you thought (in another thread) that "gentiles" came from "uncircumcised genitals" warns me not to take you very serious. You even should now the term "goyim" in your language...

 

You have your "don't care" opinion just as I have mine as a concerned citizen. Noteably, I care about how children are taught religion in the public schools; for teaching them according to the ideology of the Christian Right they learn to hate, then start pre-emptive wars on other religions of the world. They are made to belief their own religion is a far superior religion and their "Gawd" as the only one which should be worshipped. The "many gods" are still in competition due to the men behind their glorified entities.

I am not such a black-white thinker. You are polarizing the situation. I don't think that all these man - or even in general - have the ideology to learn to hate. I don't think the war in Iraq was about religion, I fear its economical drive can neither be neglected in that case.

 

Intelligent Design presents only one God, and that God is being forced into the public school systems of America. This is not only about ID but the silencing of freedom of speech. It isn't only Atheism being silenced but all non-Christian Right voices. Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and others given enough "right of their way" would eventually demand death to any which should refuse to conform to their ideology.(IMO)

Don't be so fearful. Firstly, it's impossible to postulate some particular designer in the scientific community that would prohibit all other kinds of filling that gap. Secondly, the best they can reach is having it as an alternative theory. In that case more research will be done to it and it will be much quicker dismissed. Are these Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and others members of your gouvernment? If some individual has much power it is always dangerous. If they are only some weirdos that have a lot of money, who cares?

 

I know about ID and I'm well educated in how the CR thinks in its attempt to deceive the public at large.

So, do you mind to elaborate on the ways in which CR tries purposely deceive the public at large?

 

________________________________________

Your last statement: "So, you don't mind to elaborate on the ways in which CR purposefully tries to deceive public at large".

 

They preach love in disguise of hate. Hate is the driving force behind the CR so-called "war on terror". This hate is developed from the teaching interpretation that "Ishamel should not inherit with my son Isaac". CR believes this is a condemnation to Islamic people, when in fact Sarah is merely dividing the inheritances of Abraham's sons. Ishmael was already blessed to become a great nation before Isaac was born. Christians Right Wing cannot accept this as they see only Jews as being blessed and called the chosen people.

 

IMO, and from televised statements made, the pre-emptive war on Iraq was constructed before Bush came into office. One of his statements was "my government put me in office to take out Saddam Husein". "My government" was Bush's Republican Party of Right Wing Fundamentalists who hate Muslim people.

 

Using the bible as their crutch in excuse for their open racists attitude, and the parlayed "freedom" campaign, gave way to their insistence not to listen to investigators who found NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (not to mention Bush Sr. had already stated when he decided to leave Iraq in the Gulf War, "Saddam is no longer a threat to the world".

 

Do you think it impossible that your freedom of speech be silenced? Consider the many Christian website forums that you cannot post your opinion about religion. Sure, they will invite you as an atheist to post but if you do not conform to their ideology you will be banned. That pretty much silences your voice doesn't it?

 

What if the CR imposes this same mannerism in the public schools system? Do you believe non Christian Right students would ever have a voice to discuss anything in opposition to the Falwell "Intelligent Design" he has concluded as truth for "Judeo/Christian" America?

 

Will you conform to JF and his "Gawd"?

[Saviourmachine]

They preach love in disguise of hate. Hate is the driving force behind the CR so-called "war on terror". This hate is developed from the teaching interpretation that "Ishamel should not inherit with my son Isaac". CR believes this is a condemnation to Islamic people, when in fact Sarah is merely dividing the inheritances of Abraham's sons. Ishmael was already blessed to become a great nation before Isaac was born. Christians Right Wing cannot accept this as they see only Jews as being blessed and called the chosen people.

I'm very skeptical about such theories. I consider some people in the Islam very dangerous. Maybe it's common practise amongs critizers of Bush and his gouvernment to disregard the event on 9-11. However, that was something not to be taken lightly.

 

IMO, and from televised statements made, the pre-emptive war on Iraq was constructed before Bush came into office. One of his statements was "my government put me in office to take out Saddam Husein". "My government" was Bush's Republican Party of Right Wing Fundamentalists who hate Muslim people.

I don't agree with Bush, but looking at him as some puppet of a fundamentalist organization seems far stretched. He's human and they are human just like you. They got by biological evolution processes that they abhore empathy and other human characteristics. Nothing that you can do about that, they will be human.

 

Do you think it impossible that your freedom of speech be silenced? Consider the many Christian website forums that you cannot post your opinion about religion. Sure, they will invite you as an atheist to post but if you do not conform to their ideology you will be banned. That pretty much silences your voice doesn't it?

No, never will I be silenced. I will learn to speak some extra language when necessary. I'm planning to learn Arabic. And when it's 1984 overhere, I'll move to another country.

 

What if the CR imposes this same mannerism in the public schools system? Do you believe non Christian Right students would ever have a voice to discuss anything in opposition to the Falwell "Intelligent Design" he has concluded as truth for "Judeo/Christian" America?

No, I wouldn't believe they can forbid evolutionary theory.

 

Will you conform to JF and his "Gawd"?

Why should I? You're sketching a situation of gouvernmental pressure. There is none to me.

[Amanda]

They preach love in disguise of hate. Hate is the driving force behind the CR so-called "war on terror". This hate is developed from the teaching interpretation that "Ishamel should not inherit with my son Isaac". CR believes this is a condemnation to Islamic people, when in fact Sarah is merely dividing the inheritances of Abraham's sons. Ishmael was already blessed to become a great nation before Isaac was born. Christians Right Wing cannot accept this as they see only Jews as being blessed and called the chosen people.

Hello Essence...

I'm curious if you believe the CR know they are preaching hate on purpose? I don't think they even know it!

I doubt that Ishmael and Issac have anything to do with people's negative attitudes towards Islamic people. It seems to me during Hitler's genocide attempts, and the Islamic Arab's response to Jews because they reclaimed Israel, many Jewish people migrated to the US. They became absorbed into our country moreso than Islam had, therefore cultivated a closer relationship to US policies perhaps.

IMO, and from televised statements made, the pre-emptive war on Iraq was constructed before Bush came into office. One of his statements was "my government put me in office to take out Saddam Husein". "My government" was Bush's Republican Party of Right Wing Fundamentalists who hate Muslim people.

I think Saviormachine is right, that the numerous terrorist strikes on the US has unfortunately imprinted the perception this is the typical Islamic approach. Could it be that fanatics on both sides project inappropriate representations of what the original spiritual teachings purport?

Do you think it impossible that your freedom of speech be silenced? Consider the many Christian website forums that you cannot post your opinion about religion. Sure, they will invite you as an atheist to post but if you do not conform to their ideology you will be banned. That pretty much silences your voice doesn't it?

No. People who do not wish to participate in such intolerance can choose another site, such as this, or even start one on their own. This seems to me to be far from the ability to silence anyone! Perhaps people eventually migrate to a place of respectful tolerance of anything, diminishing these other narrow minded populations.

What if the CR imposes this same mannerism in the public schools system? Do you believe non Christian Right students would ever have a voice to discuss anything in opposition to the Falwell "Intelligent Design" he has concluded as truth for "Judeo/Christian" America?

Essence, think about this... it is the teachers that teach these classes. Do you think that they are all CR? It does not appear to be that way to me. Teachers, having a formal education, more than likely have no more respect for Jerry Falwell than you or I do.

[SkepticOfBible]

Can we stick towards the topic please.

 

The topic of the thread was "What is the evidence of Intelligent design"

[♦ ficino ♦]

There isn't any positive evidence. ID is an inference from the complexity of living creatures plus some premises that base themselves on assertions of probability.

 

Saviourmachine, by the way, I don't think your murder investigation analogy supports ID. On the contrary, I think it points to how scientific rationalism produces good results. Doesn't forensic investigation presuppose the very naturalistic assumptions that TOE uses? If it did not, murder investigators would be faced with appeals to demonic intervention, witches, "acts of God," etc. I think the sum total of rational forensic assumptions is in fact consistent with those used by biologists who allow TOE to guide their work, don't you?

[Saviourmachine]

Saviourmachine, by the way, I don't think your murder investigation analogy supports ID. On the contrary, I think it points to how scientific rationalism produces good results. Doesn't forensic investigation presuppose the very naturalistic assumptions that TOE uses? If it did not, murder investigators would be faced with appeals to demonic intervention, witches, "acts of God," etc. I think the sum total of rational forensic assumptions is in fact consistent with those used by biologists who allow TOE to guide their work, don't you?

I didn't limit design to supernatural design. A naturalistic intelligent designer is perfectly fine for me.

[Amanda]

I didn't limit design to supernatural design. A naturalistic intelligent designer is perfectly fine for me.

 

Saviourmachine, it seems to me that because of the 2LoT, there has to be input from somewhere into our system, or we would cease. If one says that originally there became mixtures that had interactive catalytic effects in perpetuating itself to go on, as in abiogenesis, why doesn't that have to be with the this same 2LoT? If one says the interdependency of primitive organisms collectively forming larger organisms brings more self sufficiency, then doesn't this same 2LoT have to apply? Why doesn't 2LoT prove that there has to at least be an outside source... whatever we want to call it or not call it?

[crazy-tiger]

Saviourmachine, it seems to me that because of the 2LoT, there has to be input from somewhere into our system, or we would cease. If one says that originally there became mixtures that had interactive catalytic effects in perpetuating itself to go on, as in abiogenesis, why doesn't that have to be with the this same 2LoT? If one says the interdependency of primitive organisms collectively forming larger organisms brings more self sufficiency, then doesn't this same 2LoT have to apply? Why doesn't 2LoT prove that there has to at least be an outside source... whatever we want to call it or not call it?

I'm gonna make an attempt at answering this...

 

Put simply, 2LoT says that entropy increases... it cannot decrease... which puts a crimp on the development of organisms or, as you said, we would cease. (and that's the point that Creationists stop trying to understand 2Lot)

Using a bit more detail, 2LoT says that overall entropy increases but local entropy can decrease... Taken on it's own, the entropy of the Earth would increase without fail. But the Earth isn't on it's own... it's part of the solar system which has, at it's center, the Sun... a giant ball of flaming gas that pours energy out in all directions.

The Earth collects some of this energy and it's local entropy decreases as a result. The 2LoT isn't violated by this, but is followed perfectly. Reason being, while the Earth is collecting this energy, an absolutely huge amount is being shot out into space... The general entropy of the solar system is increasing, but Earth is "borrowing" some of the energy the Sun losing.

 

Until the Sun reaches the point where the fraction of the energy being released that the Earth collects becomes lower than the amount of energy the Earth needs to decrease entropy, then life continues... Once it's past that point, local entropy will also increase and life dies out...

 

 

What does this have to do with anything? Well, there is an input from somewhere into our system... it's called the Sun.

 

This is the reason any arguments using 2Lot to "prove" there must be a "god" are doomed to failure... especially since any god would violate 2LoT simply by existing.

 

 

 

 

I realise I may not have put this that clearly... if not, I appologise and hope someone else will be able to do a better job.

[Amanda]

I realise I may not have put this that clearly... if not, I appologise and hope someone else will be able to do a better job.

 

Crazy Tiger, you did a great job!

 

You made it so easy to understand, it makes me look....

well we won't go into that.