How would you "prove" Intelligent Design ?

[Cantousent]

"Isnt the bible factually incorrect on so many levels."

 

Now, don't start using the fallacies you see in the bible allow you to repeat them in the name of atheism.

 

It occurs to me that I'm going to end up getting beat up by atheists and Christians alike in this thread. Well, just so long as no one cries fowl, I'll take my chances.

[Plano Skywalker]

I don't get you, Plano, but I'll throw out red herrings, eat one, maybe even throw one on a pizza if the desire strikes me.  I hope you don't choke on a red herring, but I'm probably going to throw out a few anyhow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

live by the herring, die by the herring....

 

but not just herrings but ad homs, non sequiturs, strawmen, bait-and-switch, and any other informal fallacy one can think of will most likely pop up in a discussion like this.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Now, don't start using the fallacies you see in the bible allow you to repeat them in the name of atheism.

 

It occurs to me that I'm going to end up getting beat up by atheists and Christians alike in this thread.  Well, just so long as no one cries fowl, I'll take my chances.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wouldnt think of it.

[Cantousent]

but not just herrings but ad homs, non sequiturs, strawmen, bait-and-switch, and any other informal fallacy one can think of will most likely pop up in a discussion like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't ever keep them straight. I especially like the bait-and-switch. It just sounds cool.

 

Anyhow, we simply can't prove intelligent design. On the other hand, I can find it if I look for it. You can always find things if you look hard enough.

[Gorth]

Forums support my theory, that there is no such things as intelligent design.

 

While running the risk of sounding like Hades, just looking at the chaos of the universe, the earth, the critters that inhabits it...

 

If that is supposed to be intelligent design...

 

Not to mention, people sort of need to agree on what intelligence is before they can actually argue for or against intelligent design ?

 

Is intelligence just associated with complexity or is there also other factors, like artistic impressions of the universe (add speculations on the nature of intelligence ad nauseam here) ?!?

[Plano Skywalker]

I can't ever keep them straight.  I especially like the bait-and-switch.  It just sounds cool.

 

Anyhow, we simply can't prove intelligent design.  On the other hand, I can find it if I look for it.  You can always find things if you look hard enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

informal fallacies all have one thing in common: they are all about changing the subject....anyway, you have not attempted to do that yet.

 

I agree that intelligent design is weak if it is, in fact, a fundamentlist's attempt to teach that the Bible is true. Heck I was listening to Art Bell's Coast to Coast radio show the other night and there was a scientist who believed in intelligent design....he believed that aliens created men.

 

I know I can't prove how one should answer the uncaused first cause thing but I know that, for me, it is clear that there must be a higher design. That doesn't mean I should teach your children that (i.e. via public schools) but I know that it is true.

[Moose]

The thing that's most misleading about intelligent design is it claims to be a science. It's a nice little theory, but there's nothing scientific about it, it's just modern religion. It should never be taught it physics classes. That would be so wrong.

[Cantousent]

I'm Catholic, Plano. I don't just believe in an overarching nameless intelligence designing the world. I believe in Jesus Christ, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, and the life of the world everlasting. :D

 

I'm just saying that it's a matter of faith, not science. I agree with Mosse in that I'd rather have philosophy remain philosophy and science remain science. Where the two can meet, have a discussion, but be very careful how you mix the two and in what measures.

[Child of Flame]

I think much the same as Eldar, but rather than being Catholic, I am protestant with some heavy Catholic influences.

[Hurlshort]

While running the risk of sounding like Hades, just looking at the chaos of the universe, the earth, the critters that inhabits it...

 

Funny, looking around and seeing all the critters is actually why I believe in a higher power.

 

The big problem with science classes is that many teachers take the stance that the big bang theory and evolution disproves the possibility of a higher power. It doesn't. The Big Bang is a very low probability event. It may have had a helping hand. This should be made clear when it's taught. That doesn't mean you need to bring philosophy into the classroom.

[Cantousent]

Hey, Philosophy definitely belongs in the classroom! The only question is: which classroom?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

While running the risk of sounding like Hades, just looking at the chaos of the universe, the earth, the critters that inhabits it...

 

Funny, looking around and seeing all the critters is actually why I believe in a higher power.

 

The big problem with science classes is that many teachers take the stance that the big bang theory and evolution disproves the possibility of a higher power. It doesn't. The Big Bang is a very low probability event. It may have had a helping hand. This should be made clear when it's taught. That doesn't mean you need to bring philosophy into the classroom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It depends on your definition of higher power really. There is a world of difference between something that just happened along and created the big bang and then left. To something which people claimed created humans in his own image (even if we are actually evolved from something else).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Hey, Philosophy definitely belongs in the classroom!  The only question is:  which classroom?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One very far away from science. Unless it's prepared to fight it's corner like any other scientific theory.

 

I'd put it in the same catagory as any other mythology. Greek Myth/Latin was one of my favourite subjects (much more the myth part than the latin part obviously).

[Nameless One]

what annoys me the most is that first those theoreticians seem to argue on a scientific level, saying that science can't explaine the complexity of the universe/nature/my (speaking of omnipotence: short-sighted) eyes and that it can't be evolution and then switch to semi-religion-mode stating that a higher intelligence which designed this to-much-for-nature-complexity is a far better explanation and still keep a straight face

 

it just feels like it's against the rules of science vs. religion

[Cantousent]

Don't be silly, Paladin, science arises out of philosophy. Philosophy is only an outlook. The important thing is that you don't mix the outlook with the science. It is just as important for people to address philosophy as it is to address science. The oh so logical atheists might think of everything other than science as somehow lesser, but even you live in a world of humanity, like everyone else. You also argue philosophy as much as anyone else.

 

For instance, you think Science should be taught independently of philosophy. Depending on your meaning of the word philosophy, I'll agree. ...But that is a philosophical question in the first place. Science doesn't do anything but exist. Mankind uses science, but whatever it does, it cannot escape its own humanity. You cannot touch science except by that flawed instrument, the mind.

 

You believe science should be independent of philosophy? Why? Why is it necessary for humanity to learn science at all? Why is it necessary for humanity to live and thrive? The urges you might explain away as science, but science assures us those urges are part and parcel of our humanity in the first place.

 

Technically speaking, the search for knowledge is a higher calling. Making life better for the rest of humanity... satisfying the needs of gross ambition... discovering something new and exciting... all of these come from your human part. So, separate science from the sort of speculative endeavors we call philosophy in these parts, but don't put down philosophy.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Science is an evolution of phillosophy.

 

Where there are conflicts I would defer to science.

[Cantousent]

Fair enough. That leaves a lot in philosophy that science simply doesn't anwer.

[Gorth]

Science: How did the chicken cross the road ?

Philosophy: Why did the chicken cross the road ?

 

Why people would want to complicate issues unnessarily by mixing things is beyond me...

[Cantousent]

The philosophy of cooking: What tastes best with Chicken?

[Dark Moth]

I'm going to give this thread the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't meant for the sole purpose of poking fun at "religious fundamentalists". "

 

I've always been ambivalent on the whole concept of creationism vs evolution. We see "evolution" happening on a small scale everywhere, mostly in the form of adaptation. However, evolution is still a theory, in the sense that the huge leap from ape to man has yet to be proven as cold, hard fact.

 

For the record, Gorth mentioned something about the chaos of the universe as evidence against intelligent design. However, some look at that and see it as evidence for intelligent design. How could something so chaotic, random, and unstable produce something like man without a little guidance? How could you make the leap from non-living to living? Even deeper, where did the universe come from? Was the matter always there? Where did it come from? Or, did some higher intelligence call it into being?

 

I don't think it's so unscientific to think that some higher intelligence does exist out there; even if you don't want to come out and say it's "God". Perhaps there is a being(s) out there that is on a higher level than we are, that is able to manipulate time and space itself. Whether or not you want to believe it created the earth in six days is another matter.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Mothman

[taks]

as mentioned, irreducible complexity is the primary "evidence" for ID.

 

also, worth noting, the discovery institute is the source of the concept of ID. at least, they're the prime movers in this case (eh, pun sorta intended). if you browse their site, you'll see they're not trying only to explain first cause, they really are trying to push a toned down version of creationism... sleight of hand i guess.

 

taks

Edited November 15, 2005 by taks

[WITHTEETH]

as mentioned, irreducible complexity is the primary "evidence" for ID.

 

also, worth noting, the discovery institute is the source of the concept of ID.  at least, they're the prime movers in this case (eh, pun sorta intended).  if you browse their site, you'll see they're not trying only to explain first cause, they really are trying to push a toned down version of creationism... sleight of hand i guess.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not believe it is. All irreducible complexity is, is a logical falicy.

 

Basically Irreducible Complexity is saying that certain animals have parts that can't be reduced. If those parts are reduced they no longer work, so how would they evolve those parts if they didn't help them species survive?

 

Simple, Perhaps it was a greater more complex part, that later simplified into just the few parts that have today. The parts are fewer so they are more efficient on energy, thus a benefit.

[taks]

I do not believe it is. All irreducible complexity is, is a logical falicy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's my point. there is no evidence, just the fallacy that's put forth as evidence. hence the quotes around "evidence."

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

I mispoke earlier. I definitely think Philosophy should be in the classroom, and it is. It's in Social Science. It's covered quite well if the teacher knows what they are doing.

[Commissar]

Do we need to have the same debate every four days? The Dover case will be decided in court relatively soon, and we'll all have something to say then, I'm sure.

 

But to answer the question, you don't proove intelligent design. If you're an intelligent design proponent, proof is what you fear most. Proof could mean that you should've paid attention to the "these are the reasons you can stone/burn/strangle your family/friends" stuff instead of the Jesus stuff, rather than the way it is now. Proof could mean that the Muslims are right. Proof could mean any number of things, many of them not good, and consequently ID wants to keep us in the dark as long as possible.