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 (361 Views)
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Chris,

....but do you know who the Vorlons were? :P

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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Science fiction somethings I'm sure--did they invent velcro? :scratch:
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
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
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.



Posted Image
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
 
tomdrobin
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
Member
Quote:
 
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.


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

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
More form IDers: Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution

On ID and evolutionary theory and religion:

Quote:
 
ID is a scientific theory that intelligent causes may have played a crucial role in the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity. It holds that design is empirically detectable in nature, and particularly in living systems. ID is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins that currently drive science education and research. The theory of intelligent design has been described by ID theorist Professor William Dembski of Baylor University as follows:
Quote:
 
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things that undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words and sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design arguments of past centuries.

To the unbiased eye, the design hypothesis veritably leaps from the study of nature. It is an instinctive mental reaction to the observed data. Even the most ardent evolutionary biologist acknowledges that living systems look designed for a purpose.22 Currently ID scientists are developing ways to empirically and objectively test and confirm the hypothesis that life and certain aspects of its diversity may be the product of an intelligent cause. They do this not only by showing positive evidence of design that “rules in” the hypothesis (e.g., the existence of cellular message-bearing systems), but also by seeking evidence that “rules out” the competing naturalistic hypotheses of chemical evolution, Darwinian evolution, and a variety of new “self organization” theories.

Is ID religion? Not at all. It is merely a logical inference drawn from objective data that does not derive from any religious text. Perhaps most importantly, ID theory is not religion because it is a tentative hypothesis and not a doctrine (like methodological naturalism) which requires belief and acceptance. The design hypothesis does not require that it be taken for granted. A key requirement of any “religion” (for Establishment Clause purposes) is that it be a belief system.68 Although design theory and evolution, as theories or hypotheses, address issues important to religion, the Supreme Court has held that the implications of material alone do not make a religion even though those implications “coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.”69 Furthermore, a design inference does not seek to advance a particular religious belief system and does not have a clergy, a set of ethics and morals, religious texts or any of the other trappings of recognized religions.


On Creationism, they have this to say:
Quote:
 
Creation science seeks to validate a literal interpretation of creation as contained in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Creation science was defined in a statute that was litigated in a 1982 Arkansas case.23 In that case, the district court found that, as defined, the teaching of “creation science” was unconstitutional because it was, in effect, a restatement of the Genesis account of origins, and that teaching this material would have the effect of promoting that particular religious view. A similar “creation science” statute was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard24 where the holding was based on the same reason—that the statute had the effect of promoting a particular religious view.

...Intelligent Design is not creation science. ID is simply an hypothesis about the direct cause of certain past events based on an observation and analysis of data. ID does not arise from any religious text, nor does it seek to validate any scriptural account of origins. An ID proponent recognizes that ID theory may be disproved by new evidence.

ID is like a large tent under which many religious and nonreligious origins theories may find a home. ID proposes nothing more than that life and its diversity were the product of an intelligence with power to manipulate matter and energy. Period. This is not inconsistent with “literal Biblical creationism,” nor Islamic, American Indian, or any religious heritage that invokes a Creator. ID simply does not address the specifics of creation—the why and who—not because ID theorists are protecting a hidden agenda but because the data do not compel firm answers to those questions. ID addresses one question only: is life the product of a guided or an unguided process? Did it arise from a mind or from the meaningless meandering of molecules in mindless motion?


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
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

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
passinthru
Member Avatar
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...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Cal
Quote:
 
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.


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
Quote:
 
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."


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
Quote:
 
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.


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
Quote:
 
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."


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
Quote:
 
Even if we want to use the spaceship theory, then those in the spaceship were obviously intelligent and had to be created as well.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
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.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply