'Intelligent design' debate back in court

[kumquatq3]

LINK

[Laozi]

I find their intelligent design theory even more crackpotted then their intelligent falling ideas.

[Lucius]

I find it an insult to intelligence that they call it "intelligent".

[Reveilled]

I find it an insult to intelligence that they call it "intelligent".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What's worse is that they stole the name of a perfectly reasonable modern theological idea and used it to cover a backward and reactionary one. Not so very long ago, Intelligent Design used to be about the evolutionary process being guided by a creator force rather than pure chance (or rather, that the creator force utilises or manipulates chance to get where it wants to go). A view that might not be scientific, but is certainly compatible with the science itself. But once Creationism got a bad name, Intelligent Design was stolen and chosen as the new name.

 

Ah, but such is the lot of the reasonable person. Doomed forever to be drowned out and pushed down by the fanatics behind him.

[Colrom]

"intelligent Design" is bad religion.

 

We are supposed to close our eyes to understanding the message that God placed before us in the Universe and instead accept by rote messages which may have been inspired by God but were clearly written by men and designed to be understood by people at a time when they would have been terrified by a working light bulb.

 

A strange religion it is that argues with God so pridefully.

 

Just my view. Your milage may vary.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Colrom

[thepixiesrock]

"intelligent Design" is bad religion.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Like, the band?

[WITHTEETH]

Can anyone here prove a positive proof for Intelligent design? Once a theologist can do this without holes in his/her logic, then i'll start to take it seriously. Enough trying to proof a positive with a negative like saying evolution doesn't work because of irredicable complexity, that it doesn't fit in with the second law of thermodynamics, and the mutation of more information. How science isn't backed by science.

Edited September 27, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Commissar]

This country goes through religious revivals every thirty to forty years, for whatever reason. Luckily, they're never very long-lasting, and there's always a backlash. Counting from the McCarthy era, we're right on schedule.

[Colrom]

Well, I don't mind the religious revivals. I just wish we could revive a belief in God rather than a belief in Religion.

 

I visited the Catholic hospital where my Mother was sick a couple of years ago and noticed that they were selling horiscopes in the card shop.

 

About that time I was trying to buy about a ton of small copper spheres for a heat exchange application in a reactor in South Africa. I searched the internet for sources and had to wade through a slew of sellers of incredably overpriced copper spheres for "new age medicine" applications.

 

Here's an example that I just got off the internet:

Copper Sphere, 4.2 oz., 1" Dia.

This mineral can combat lethargy, passivity, restlessness, excitability, and non-acceptance of oneself.

$12.80

 

I think it would be hilarious for a science teacher to start teaching astrology, new age medicine, including all that crystal stuff, and maybe even teach how to divine the future from animal intestines, as well as teach regular science if there was any time left.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Colrom

[EnderAndrew]

Can anyone here prove a positive proof for Intelligent design?  Once a theologist can do this without holes in his/her logic, then i'll start to take it seriously. Enough trying to proof a positive with a negative like saying evolution doesn't work because of irredicable complexity, that it doesn't fit in with the second law of thermodynamics, and the mutation of more information. How science isn't backed by science. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no proof that the Universe appeared out of nothingness on it's own, and that life just happened to have the perfect circumstances so that primordial soup sloshed together basic acids to form the first proteins, and from this pond scum humans developed either.

 

Intelligent Design isn't so specific as to give creedence to a specific religion, but rather suggests that the Universe as we know it was created by something intelligent.

 

Honestly, I think it makes more logical sense than most theories I've heard.

 

There is more scientific evidence these days against the Big Bang than for it. And while I firmly believe that evolution occurs, I'm skeptical of pond scum becomming human, especially when some of the basic tenents of evolution argue against it.

[Oerwinde]

There is more scientific evidence these days against the Big Bang than for it.  And while  I firmly believe that evolution occurs, I'm skeptical of pond scum becomming human, especially when some of the basic tenents of evolution argue against it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't some scientist prove the big bang happened? Or was it just that the universe is expanding from a central point that was proven?

[EnderAndrew]

There is more scientific evidence these days against the Big Bang than for it.  And while  I firmly believe that evolution occurs, I'm skeptical of pond scum becomming human, especially when some of the basic tenents of evolution argue against it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't some scientist prove the big bang happened? Or was it just that the universe is expanding from a central point that was proven?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My best friend worked on STARS (not the Resident Evil group) which was a post-graduate project headed up by Creighton University to prove the Big Bang and they largely failed.

 

However, there is evidence that matter is not expanding outward in the same direction. We've noticed inward movement, as well as movement at different velocities and directions.

 

The evidence that we built the entire Big Bang theory around was that the universe was expanding outward, and that evidence is now disputed. I'll see what I can dig up.

 

Not to mention the entire basis of the big bang theory (that all this matter and anti-matter simply existed with no beginning or creation but didn't interact for whatever period of time, and then for no reason choose to interact and explode) pretty much defies every single staple of science we currently believe in.

 

I'm all for science, but I prefer GOOD science.

 

http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_8_5.html

http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/arxiv-9.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

http://www.newstarget.com/003643.html

Edited September 27, 2005 by EnderAndrew

[Darth Barth]

Evolution, like Creationism, is a religion. I mean, come on, evolution theory believes in spontaneous generation as science! WTFBBQ?

[Judge Hades]

My problem with Intelligent Design is that people want to treat it as science and replace Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory (theories with scientific backing). Intelligent Design is not science, it is a philosophical view with basis of religious ideas. I have no problems with it being taught and explored but lets not teach it as science but in religious studies and philosophy classes.

[Darth Barth]

My problem with Intelligent Design is that people want to treat it as science and replace Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory (theories with scientific backing).  Intelligent Design is not science, it is a philosophical view with basis of religious ideas.  I have no problems with it being taught and explored but lets not teach it as science but in religious studies and philosophy classes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know. The evidence for the theory of evolution is pretty shoddy. Evolutions entire history is made up of lies and distortions and is practically a pseudoscience.

 

Of course, you will probably write me off for saying as such. Who shall dare defame your God? Real science does not bend answers to fit a belief. Evolutionists are just as religious as the Creationists.

[Oerwinde]

Evolution, like Creationism, is a religion.  I mean, come on, evolution theory believes in spontaneous generation as science!  WTFBBQ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wrong. Evolution has been observed many many times in nature. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous creation of life theory, evolution is the theory that life adapts and changes. Evolution has more evidence to support it than gravity.

[Judge Hades]

Hardly Barth. Life evolves through adapting to one's environment. If a species does not adapt they die, those who adapt evolved.

[random evil guy]

Can anyone here prove a positive proof for Intelligent design?  Once a theologist can do this without holes in his/her logic, then i'll start to take it seriously. Enough trying to proof a positive with a negative like saying evolution doesn't work because of irredicable complexity, that it doesn't fit in with the second law of thermodynamics, and the mutation of more information. How science isn't backed by science. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no proof that the Universe appeared out of nothingness on it's own, and that life just happened to have the perfect circumstances so that primordial soup sloshed together basic acids to form the first proteins, and from this pond scum humans developed either.

 

Intelligent Design isn't so specific as to give creedence to a specific religion, but rather suggests that the Universe as we know it was created by something intelligent.

 

Honestly, I think it makes more logical sense than most theories I've heard.

 

There is more scientific evidence these days against the Big Bang than for it. And while I firmly believe that evolution occurs, I'm skeptical of pond scum becomming human, especially when some of the basic tenents of evolution argue against it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

completely irrelevant. the big bang has nothing to do with evolution...

[Kaftan Barlast]

Hardly Barth.  Life evolves through adapting to one's environment.  If a species does not adapt they die, those who adapt evolved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But the adaption is done by natural selections trial & error if a mutation makes a species able to survive better in its enviroment, the mutated individuals will spread as those less fit die off and the mutated reproduce. If it is a bad mutation(like being born blind) the mutated individual will die and its genes will not spread.

 

If you play this scenario over and over again over a million years, it will seem like the species has adapted to its enviroment, even though its just trial&error.

[Lucius]

My problem with Intelligent Design is that people want to treat it as science and replace Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory (theories with scientific backing).  Intelligent Design is not science, it is a philosophical view with basis of religious ideas.  I have no problems with it being taught and explored but lets not teach it as science but in religious studies and philosophy classes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know. The evidence for the theory of evolution is pretty shoddy. Evolutions entire history is made up of lies and distortions and is practically a pseudoscience.

 

Of course, you will probably write me off for saying as such. Who shall dare defame your God? Real science does not bend answers to fit a belief. Evolutionists are just as religious as the Creationists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL, hardly.

[Judge Hades]

But the adaption is done by natural selections trial & error if a mutation makes a species able to survive better in its enviroment, the mutated individuals will spread as those less fit die off and the mutated reproduce. If it is a bad mutation(like being born blind) the mutated individual will die and its genes will not spread.

 

If you play this scenario over and over again over a million years, it will seem like the species has adapted to its enviroment, even though its just trial&error.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is what evolution is: trial and error.

[Colrom]

Actually evolution does not make much use of the mechanism of "survival of the fitest". This is an interpretation which strokes our ego by implying that we must be superior.

 

There are many survivers as well as many extinctions.

 

Evolution is really developed from two processes: change and extinction. Species change because of breeding and mutations. Species become extinct because they are especially "unfit" or especially "unlucky" or both.

 

It must be a bummer to go extinct because of bad luck!

 

Especially when some "inferior" species lucks out, ducks an extinction event, and survives!

 

This idea of survival of the fitest reflects a yearning for an ego satisfying model (I feel good already) of "intelligent design" of superior beings - us. Yes!

 

Hmmm. Maybe there is something to it after all!

 

I do feel kinda superior!

 

Lets all be superior today.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Colrom

[Judge Hades]

Those who feel superior of others deserve a quick kick in the jimmy.

[Calax]

Imagine how we'd look if we had evolved on say pluto?

 

Colorm, have you ever had a kid come up and say that men have one less rib than women because of the bible story?

[Lucius]

I think that we are the seed (couldn't write ****) of some kind of uber being, accidentially spilled on this unfortunate world. As a result, my cult weekly pays its homage to this belief... intrigued yet?

Edited September 27, 2005 by Lucius