| 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: |
| Intelligent Design | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 14 2005, 05:46 AM (361 Views) | |
| bikemanb | Feb 15 2005, 08:47 PM Post #31 |
|
Liberal Conservative
|
Chris, ....but do you know who the Vorlons were? I have seen some of the works on panspermia, who knows given the scale of the universe anything is possible.
|
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 15 2005, 09:41 PM Post #32 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Science fiction somethings I'm sure--did they invent velcro?
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| bikemanb | Feb 15 2005, 09:58 PM Post #33 |
|
Liberal Conservative
|
Short history on Vorlons Ugly suckers except when they came out of the encounter suit every race saw them as their version of what an angel looked like.
|
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Feb 15 2005, 10:14 PM Post #34 |
|
Member
|
I believe in the concept of Intelligent Design. But, believe evolution is part of it. I don't believe the concept supports literal interpretation of creationism. I do believe that life didn't just happen when conditions were right. But, was designed by someone or something other than mankind as we know it. I could be wrong, but we will find out for sure when their star ships land. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 15 2005, 10:21 PM Post #35 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Bill, looks familiar, maybe an exgirlfriend. Tom, I don't know either. I think evolution, contemporary evolutionary theory the best possible scientific explanation; variations on ID worthy philosophical explanations for the unknown, the creation stories in the Bible good religious explanations. People are free to decide for themselves. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 15 2005, 11:55 PM Post #36 |
|
Member
|
Are we trying to redefine intelligent design? Does not intelligent design mean designed with intelligence? All we have to do to see intelligent design is to look around us each day. Could all this happen by chance? Would intelligent people believe this? If we don’t know some “thing” arose or began and that “thing” exhibits features that indicate action of an intelligent cause, can we not say it came into being as a result of an intelligent “act” or perhaps an action by an intelligent “being?” Many “things” show pattern or features that point to intelligence. Such features must be signs of intelligence. Shouldn’t intelligent design be defined as the science that studies these signs of intelligence? Biologically speaking, the complex structures of biology are detectable as intelligent causes because observable biological features can be distinguished from natural causes by scientific means. Forensic science is just one scientific field that has the ability to eliminate chance causes. Scientists say intelligence leaves characteristic trademarks or signatures that are called “specified complexity.” It is said an event exhibits specified complexity if it is complex and therefore not readily repeatable by chance and if it is specified because it exhibits an independently given pattern. Just because it is improbable however is not enough evidence to eliminate chance. You can flip a coin long enough and see a highly improbable event but that is not enough reason to say it was anything other than chance. Paley's watchmaker argument says the watch is the product of intelligence because it tells time. Paley is the one who produced the best-known design argument in 1802 when he drew conclusions about the existence of a designing intelligence responsible for the features of the natural world by identifying the intelligent designer as the God of Christianity. Trying to discuss intelligent design without religion is difficult. People want to talk of intelligent design without mentioning a beginning but therein lies the problem., There HAD to be a beginning. If each effect had a cause then that cause had a cause and that cause had a cause and an infinite chain of events would stretch back in time---with no beginning. One must either accept this infinite regression or an infinite God. Scientifically one can conclude that there was a beginning; that is no infinite regression. A far simpler task is to believe the first three words of the Bible. I know, I know I will be accused of bringing creation into this argument but I believe the argument of intelligent design is no argument at all. There had to be intelligent design. The real argument is who provided the intelligence. |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 16 2005, 06:28 AM Post #37 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
And here we have a very familiar voice in these origins discussions. Cal, the words you quoted were from a group of IDers who have as one purpose advising schools on what ID is. What they are saying is ID is not about religion. Most of what you say is exactly what IDers argue. But you're insisting "Trying to discuss intelligent design without religion is difficult." is the only attempt here to redefine ID. Here are a few more examples of your redefining ID: Cal "People want to talk of intelligent design without mentioning a beginning but therein lies the problem., There HAD to be a beginning." ID, unlike evolution, is about beginnings. ID does not disagree with evolution, just says that there is something more needed to explain what we see. Cal "If each effect had a cause then that cause had a cause and that cause had a cause and an infinite chain of events would stretch back in time---with no beginning. One must either accept this infinite regression or an infinite God. Scientifically one can conclude that there was a beginning; that is no infinite regression." You're argument limits God to a finite entity. If God is all powerful then God can be infinite regression. Scientifically, can you point out the scientific method use to reach that conclusion? One can philosopically apply reason, as IDers say they do, to arrive at their conclusion. One can apply dogma, as creationist do, to arrive at conclusions like yours. Cal "I believe the argument of intelligent design is no argument at all. There had to be intelligent design." I'm confused. Could you clarify? Which is it then? Intelligent design or not? Cal " The real argument is who provided the intelligence." Indeed, that is the question. ID, which we are examining here has one answer, creationists another, and evolutionary theorists another. Far as I'm concerned they are all good answer in their time and place. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 16 2005, 06:52 AM Post #38 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
More form IDers: Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution On ID and evolutionary theory and religion:
On Creationism, they have this to say:
There's more, but you get the picture. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 16 2005, 07:04 AM Post #39 |
|
Member
|
Chris I was pointing out what has been added to the definition of intelligent design. Read the quote I made (from your post) again. Webster's definition is: Main Entry: intelligent design Part of Speech: noun Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID Example: Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity I think that definition is quite good as it specifically mentions creation or origination by intelligent "beings." Exactly what I referred to in my post. You said: "You're argument limits God to a finite entity. If God is all powerful then God can be infinite regression." Are you saying God is infinite regression? You are limiting God to something other than what God is. God claims to have been here "in the beginning." By definition, Intelligent Design says just the opposite of what is being argued. It says chance did not create anything and there were "intelligent beings" that were responsible for creation and responsible for the origin of life. ID does not attempt to rule out religion or belief in a supernatural being. Just the opposite, it attempts to show that there had to be such a being and we all know that being as God. I see no conflict in the definition of Intelligent Design and religion. If ID says Intelligent Beings created all things then the answer has to be a Supreme Being. Hence God. You are saying ID has one answer, religion another but I can't see how you arrive at that conclusion. ID by definition refers to an intelligent "being." Even if we want to use the spaceship theory, then those in the spaceship were obviously intelligent and had to be created as well. |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| passinthru | Feb 16 2005, 08:08 AM Post #40 |
![]()
John - Gainesville, FL
|
I am not convinced that ID necessarily means creation of each and every species that we know on this one small planet in a giant universe. I'm no great cook, but I have noticed that flour, salt, baking soda, baking powder, sugar, eggs, buttermilk or regular milk, butter and yeast can be combined in various amounts and end up with a myriad of results from biscuits to bread to pancakes to cake and cookies. It is possible that an intelligent creator could put the needed ingredients in varying amounts together to create what we see today. For me, I still end up where I started with the four words Calred refers to: "In the beginning God." |
| Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money... | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 16 2005, 09:01 AM Post #41 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Cal
It's quite good with me you think that definition is quite good. I am going directly to the horse's mouth, leaders and advocates of Intelligent Design. That is quite better to me. Anyone who reads can choose. Cal
No, I said, can be. Perhaps could be is better but why quibble. A full statement would be God could be infinte regression and not be. Many Gods claim to have been "in the beginning." Even Big Bang. Cal
I have to believe IDers believe what IDers say they believe and not the opposite of what they say. Certainly they reject the Blind Watchmaker argument and in general the philosophical view behind Science: IDers argue there is purpose, Science does not--does not address it. "Intelligent beings" is conjecture on your part. Though it is supported in the first creation story in Genesis. However, sticking to ID, IDers do not define the nature of that intelligence. Cal
I see no conflict either. Not even between religion and science. Each has an explanation from a different perspective. Each has their place and purpose. Kindly point out where an IDer says "ID says Intelligent Beings created all things". The answer could be anything. It is unknown. If your belief is it is God that is fine. But the purpose I had here is not your or my belief, but what do IDers say and thnk and believe--that is what I am interested in learning about. Cal
Certainly, just ask Bill and the Volcons. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Feb 16 2005, 02:37 PM Post #42 |
|
Member
|
I hate to admit that I know about the Vorlons! (I loved Babylon 5!) I think that what Chris posted earlier (Is Intelegent Design a Religion) is my position. I think that there is no valid reason not to teach ID in schools. It in no way violates the estabishment cause, and anyone that says it does is not being intelectually honest IMHO. Like CalRed, I believe that "I am" (Jehovah) Jesus created the heavens and the earth. Teaching this in a public school, would violate the estabishment clause, because it is clearly religion. ID makes a lot more sense than evolution when pertaining to how things "started". The real argument for me is then teaching evolution as fact after that. Therefore, I would have a problem with a book that did teach ID, but then taught evolution as fact later on. For those of you that were not following the previous thread, I did show how an onliine Biology text book did teach evolution as fact. I also noted that the same book in the begining, did say that evolution was a theory. I think this is wrong, and in the case that I sited, mutiple explinations should be offered to explain the evidence. This is not done, and I think short changes the scientific process. (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPLANTANAT.html) |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Feb 16 2005, 03:15 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Jane
|
re the perception that evolution is a fact instead of a theory. this is just due to poor teaching, I think. we all (here) know that science bases its theories on what it can observe, and that those theories change when something new comes along to change it. and, as technology advances, theories change. and..science is not real interested in learning about WHO created the cosmos or WHY..science is interested in the HOW of it. this just needs to be said by the teachers, so that students understand the difference....and also understand that science is always open to change. one way to put it is that the theory of evolution is subject to evolution itself. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 16 2005, 03:23 PM Post #44 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
There is no compelling reason not to teach it in school re constitutional issues. I am still trying to determine if it adhere to scientific method enough to qualify its inclusion alongside abiogenesis and panspermia--if those deserve it either. Teaching creationism would be fine in a comparative religion class, usually not taken until college. How can ID make more sense when IDers accept evolution? In the other thread I did not see you show a textbook that taught evolution as fact. You did refer to the writer of the biology textbook that a school wanted to insert a message about skepticism in. I showed where your reading of his statement was incorrect, he did not claim evolution as fact, he even thought the inserted message on skepticism good. Unless you posted something I overlooked? Even if done, ID would get a paragraph next to abiogenesis and panspermia and a couple others I need to go back and check. What Jane just said, ditto. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |








8:22 AM Jul 11