Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Intelligent Design
Topic Started: Feb 14 2005, 05:46 AM (363 Views)
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Dan,

Actually there is nothing incongruent with ID and/or evolution and a God, unless you insist that the universe as we know it was created in seven 24 hour days. Evolution may be part of ID.

Only human hubris makes us try to position this insignificant planet in a rather common galaxy as the be all and end all of creation and attempting to define God or the Creator and creation to fit our human preconceptions. It is extremely difficult for finite beings to conceive of an all powerful Being or Force that always is, always was and always will be; to such an entity time would have no meaning.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
From the Behe piece: "The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch..."

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Natural Theology
Quote:
 
"Natural Theology" is the favorite term in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries designating the knowledge of God drawn from nature in distinction from the knowledge of God contained in revelation. This division of theology into natural and revealed had its roots in the scholastic distinction between the two truths, one derived from nature by the use of the Aristotelian logic, subject to the authority of the Church, the other, truth above reason, revealed by God but formulated and taught solely by authority of the Church. The deists relied exclusively on natural theology, on the ground that the being and attributes of God could be exhaustively ascertained from the constitution and course of the world, thus superseding the necessity of supernatural revelation. David Hume, by his theory of knowledge, proved that even this knowledge was too precarious for rational certitude. On the other hand, Bishop Butler (Analogy of Religion, London, 1736) maintained that natural and revealed religion were so far one that the truths of natural theology provided a basis for the characteristic truths of the Christian faith, such as miracles, the incarnation, and redemption. Later, the wisdom, power, and even the goodness of God were held to be demonstrable by the processes of natural theology (Samuel Clarke, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, London, 1-105; William Paley, Natural Theology, ib. 1802). The function and name of natural theology continued in vogue until the latter portion of the 19th century. This habit of thought has, however, been strongly opposed by Ritschl and his school. Relying on Kant's distinction between the pure and the practical reason, they seek the source of the knowledge of God not through the theoretic judgments of science or philosophy, but only through value-judgments to which revelation is addressed. Nature being impersonal can neither receive nor communicate the personal redemptive disclosure of God which man needs for reconciliation with him; this is to be sought ultimately only in Christ and the Christian community.


(Aside, on edit, we have heard it said a number of times here that the distinction between Deists and Christians is Deists believe God created the universe but has since been disinterested. Not exactly true. As this description explains, the difference is between natural and revealed religion.)
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member
Quote:
 
"Actually there is nothing incongruent with ID and/or evolution and a God, unless you insist that the universe as we know it was created in seven 24 hour days. Evolution may be part of ID."


Supposedly, Moses was responsible for the writing of the Book of Genesis. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But, Genesis was written by someone similar to Moses; a follower possibly, who wrote of the stories handed down by Moses. They wrote of "creationism."

How was Moses (or the writer of Genesis) going to explain evolution to the people of that time if he had any idea about it? What did Moses know of evolution and could he conceptualize the time or timelessness it takes for evolution to occur as Darwin suggested it occurred anymore than Darwin himself, or the present day man who thinks he can. Creation in seven days or evolution over time plus more time makes no difference to my way of thinking. Either way, it came by ID, a process by which, as bikeman wrote: that ".. is extremely difficult for finite beings to conceive of an all powerful Being or Force that always is, always was and always will be; to such an entity time would have no meaning." Neither religious experts or expert philosophers will have a provable, definite answer.
Banan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
I agree with the article except for: "Intelligent design proponents....do not doubt that evolution occurred."

I have my doubts about evolution and don't think it has to be a necessary component of ID.

Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
A simple Venn diagram resolves that, as there are variations on ID.

Posted Image
click to enlarge
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986)

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
Chris, you sound like a candidate for their website

Welcome to the home page
of The Brights, an international
Internet constituency of individuals
A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of
supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright
are based on a naturalistic worldview
Link to the Brights' Principles

A Chronology of the Brights' Movement
is Available in the Archived Bulletins
the reason & purpose
Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures. The purpose of this movement is to form an Internet constituency of individuals, the Brights, having social and political recognition and power. There is a great diversity of persons who have a naturalistic worldview. Under a broad umbrella, the Brights can gain social and political influence in a society otherwise permeated with supernaturalism.

Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
Gain public recognition that: persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
Are You a Bright? (Check out the noun, bright)
Think about your own worldview to decide if it is indeed free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. Check the wording in the definition and description (above). If you would like more information on the important terms used in the definition, you can go to the FAQs.

If you decide that you fit the definition, then you can simply say so and join with us in this extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society--the Brights Movement. If successful, these early efforts of ours could have far-reaching effects.

We are a constituency of Brights (persons who fit the definition and sign in on this Web site) for social and political action. This constituency of Brights includes many who are members of existing atheist, agnostic, freethought, humanist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic organizations, and many more who are nonreligious and are not associated with any formal group.

Can the Brights' Network impact society's outlook on the naturalistic worldview? That remains to be seen, but if you are intrigued by the idea, we invite you to explore this Web site and learn more about The Brights Movement.

Selected Essays on the Brights
Richard Dawkins, "The Future Looks Bright" in The Guardian

Daniel Dennett, "The Bright Stuff" in New York Times

Dennett vs. Good, Two "Brights" Side by Side: an open letter by Good
to Dennett, and Dennett's rejoinder

Richard Dawkins, "Let There Be Brights" in Wired Magazine

Marilyn LaCourt, A Look On the Bright Side Of Social and
Religious Issues: as featured in CNI's "At Ease"

Sharon Tubbs, "A Brights Idea" in St. Petersburg (FL) Times

Jennifer Garza, "In a New Light" in Sacramento (CA) Bee

Michael Shermer, "The Big ‘Bright’ Brouhaha: An Empirical Study
on an Emerging Skeptical Movement” on Skeptic.com

Ruth Wajnryb, "The future is oh-so non-adjectivally bright" in The Sydney
Morning Herald
Erik Strand, "Worldview: Nonbelievers Unite" in Psychology Today

Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, Four Essays on the Brights
(Co-Directors' Commentary)

Sign up as a Bright
Confidentiality
When you self-identify as a Bright by signing up on this Web site, your name, e-mail, or address will never be provided to anyone or to any other organization. With the information you provide, we will count you a Bright in your locale, but we will never release your information without your express permission.

Support
We welcome Brights in their varied roles and capacities to participate in and to share their talents with this movement. If you are so enthusiastic about the overall goals and strategies that you wish to volunteer as a "helper," please e-mail to the-brights@the-brights.net and say so. You will be contacted at a later point regarding how you might wish to participate more extensively. Financial support is most welcome, too. The activities page details varied ways you can participate.

Thanks! (and we mean it)
Co-Directors: Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Cruiser, I think I just like to think I think. :eek:
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
passinthru
Member Avatar
John - Gainesville, FL
With all the planets in the universe, isn't it self-centered to assume a day to God is the same as a day on one of the planets He created? After all, our day is determined by the simple rotation of the earth one time around its axis. Can we really limit God to that day?


edited for grammar
Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Or just this planet? Self-centered, and anthropomorphic.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
Member
Quote:
 
Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.


Not quite!!!
Something instead of Nothing?

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.
God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Alan Sandage

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Take that up with the IDers, Cal, I'm just here to post what I find in order to understand what ID is about. Part of doing so is taking into account its origins and its detractors in order to get a well-rounder view rather than a one-sided one.

Be that as it may I would like to continue with an excerpt from the link Alan provided last thread where we started discussing ID. Let me be clear and fair to Alan, I asked and he found, but I do not wish to imply it is his position.


IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A RELIGION?
Quote:
 
Is intelligent design a religion? If so, must its presentation in public schools be prohibited as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? To answer these questions, we must define our terms -- "intelligent design" and "religion."

" Intelligent design" is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features. The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins.

" Religion" on the other hand has been variously defined. The U.S. Supreme Court said in the late 1800's that "the term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).
A typical dictionary definition usually defines "religion," as does the American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed.), as "[belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; a system grounded in such belief and worship."

And in 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court defined "religion" as "beliefs which are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent." United State v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 176 (1965).

It should be apparent that "intelligent design" does not meet any of these definitions of "religion." Intelligent design says nothing about whether a person has or should have a relationship with a creator (if there is one), and says nothing about whether there are or should be any obligations or duties owed to a creator (if there is one). Nor does intelligent design require belief in, reverence for, or worship of a supernatural power. Intelligent design does not suggest that the intelligent is a supernatural intelligent cause. Intelligent design simply says nothing of whether the intelligent cause is a supernatural or non-supernatural intelligent cause. Furthermore, intelligent design does not suggest that all else in life is subordinate to it as a theory of origins or is ultimately dependent on it.

For an even starker contrast between intelligent design and religion, consider for a moment characteristics typically seen in religions -- characteristics which are clearly not seen in intelligent design.

Intelligent design has no liturgy or form of public worship, no clergy or people ordained for religious service, no observance of religious holidays, no sacred text, and no churches or other religious institutions. Intelligent design, unlike religion, takes no position on the existence of God or gods, does not require belief in God or gods, takes no position on any theory of morality or code of ethics, presents no opinion as to an afterlife, and holds no opinion on the ultimate meaning of life or the universe.

Additionally, intelligent design does not teach that the universe was created by God, that the universe was created suddenly out of nothing, that the earth's geology can be explained primarily by the occurrence of a world-wide flood, or that the earth is old or young. For these reasons, it cannot be said that intelligent design is a religion.

Some however may say that even if intelligent design is not a religion, it is consistent with religion and cannot be presented in the public school classroom. That contention is inconsistent with prior decisions of the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the Establishment Clause is not violated simply because government takes some action or position that is consistent with religion. For if the Establishment Clause were violated by government actions that were consistent with religion, laws against murder, theft, and adultery, to name a few, would be found unconstitutional because they are consistent with the commandments 'thou shalt not kill, steal, or commit adultery.'

Is intelligent design a religion? Clearly, the answer is "no."

Would the First Amendment's Establishment Clause be violated by the presentation of intelligent design in the public school classroom? Again, the answer is "no."
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
Just another way for the religious right to get a backdoor entrance to our schools and educational systems.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Personally I think it was ID and the Vorlons did it.


If you aren't a SciFi aficionado you won't know what I am talking about. :P
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
cruiser " Just another way for the religious right to get a backdoor entrance to our schools and educational systems."

And ID does not in any way support that.


Bill "Personally I think it was ID and the Vorlons did it."

Then read on. ID allows for "directed panspermia"
Quote:
 
The idea that life might have been intentionally spread throughout space and seeded on the surface of other worlds by a guiding intelligence. A detailed version of this hypothesis was put forward in 1973 by the molecular biologists Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) and Leslie Orgel.1 The chances of microorganisms being passively transported from world to world across interstellar distances, they felt, were small. The probability of successful seeding would be greatly increased, they pointed out, if the fertilization were carried out deliberately by an existing technological civilization. Their argument depended first upon demonstrating that it was possible for an advanced extraterrestrial civilization to have developed in the Galaxy before life first appeared on Earth. This they were able to do (see extraterrestrial civilizations, ancient). As for the means of dispensation:

   
Quote:
 
The spaceship would carry large samples of a number of microorganisms, each having different but simple nutritional requirements, for example, blue-green algae, which could grow on CO2 and water in "sunlight". A payload of 1,000 kg might be made up of 10 samples each containing 1016 microorganisms, or 100 samples of 1015 microorganisms.


Crick and Orgel further suggested that directed panspermia might help resolve one or two anomalies in the biochemistry of life-forms on Earth. One of these was the puzzling dependence of biological systems on molybdenum. Many enzymes, for example, require this metal to act as a cofactor. Such a situation would be easier to understand if molybdenum were relatively abundant on Earth (see elements, terrestrial abundance). However, its abundance is only 0.02% compared with 0.2% and 3.16%, respectively, for the metals chromium and nickel, which are chemically similar to molybdenum. Crick and Orgel commented:

Quote:
 
If it could be shown that the elements represented in terrestrial living organisms correlate with those abundant in some types of star-molybdenum stars, for example-we might look more sympathetically on "infective" theories.


A second example they give concerns the genetic code:

Quote:
 
Several orthodox explanations of the universality of the code can be suggested, but none is generally accepted to be completely convincing. It is a little surprising that organisms with somewhat different codes do not coexist. The universality of the code follows naturally from an "infective" theory of the origin of life. Life on Earth would represent a clone derived from a single set of organisms.


There might be a variety of reasons why an advanced civilization would wish to intentionally initiate life elsewhere: as an experiment in astrobiology using an entire world as a laboratory; to prepare a planet for subsequent colonization...; or, to disseminate the genetic material of the donor world to ensure its survival in the event a global catastrophe....


It is a narrower view, this is the broader: Panspermia.

Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply