How would you "prove" Intelligent Design ?

[Cantousent]

Science can never prove that it's good either to save or to strangle your family. Science simply doesn't care. I think that, more than anything, is what fundamentalists fear. That the universe just. does. not. care. So, they hold firmly to an unbending set of beliefs.

 

Still, I have immense respect for folks who can uphold and maintain a "fundamentalist" belief. These are folks who are beset by hostility from virtually every side in our society. Fundamentalists do not, contrary to popular belief, anecdoatal evidence, and constant claims to the contrary, have a choke-hold on power in this country. It sounds good to say they do, and I'm sure someone can come up with a long list of isolated events and/or news items that "proves" religious fundamentalists run the country.

 

Fundamentalists face derision on the news, on the small and silver screens, and in a host of other ways. Folks with an axe to grind, grind, GRIND have a lot to say about all those thousands of people killed in abortion clinic bombings every year as if crazies who bomb abortion clinics are the real measure of fundamentalists everywhere. What's the real issue, though? It's that fundamentalists have a set of beliefs "enlightened" people consider childish and they have the uncanny willingness to actually speak about their beliefs.

 

Someone on this board speculated on beating Christians to death for coming to his door handing out religious tracts. I've had someone shoot at me with the intent to kill me. I think complaining about the fundamentalist handing out bibles at the University is rather petty by comparison.

 

...And it's not like I'm part of a group favored by religious fundamentalist. According to them, you atheists are merely going to hell. Catholics, on the other hand, were spawned there.

 

Speaking for myself, however, I don't fear proof or an uncaring universe. Like a good Catholic, I just feeling guilty for stupid and ridiculous reasons. I guess that's my brand of poison.

[Calax]

*This thread after 50 posts*

 

 

 

 

I liked SPECIAL the best of all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this guy/girl/boy/lassie/imperial hoomperdickle had it right.

[Blank]

As for intelligent design... I would strongly urge any intellectuals to never dignify it by giving in to debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That comment was very relative to you. I judge it as a cheap shot to the people holding opposing beliefs to yours. You are the one who dignifies things by debating them. What if, by not debating something, you are giving it more dignity by symbolising your fear that you may not be able to disprove it?

 

Just wondering what the evidence is for Intelligent Design ? And if it is actually specific to a religious view ? After all if the building blocks of life were seeded by an alien race who then buggered off, would that qualify as ID ?

 

Relative to me, the evidence is all around me, manifest in what i call "creation" ( I refer to Romans 1:18-20= "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities

[taks]

referring to the bible as evidence of design is just as fallacious as using contradictions in the bible to refute it.

 

it can't be both ways.

 

and no, he's not using the term "evidence" to suggest undeniable proof. evidence must be, in some fashion, tangible. "the word of god" or whomever is the intelligent designer, is based on faith, therefore untestable.

 

the term untestable does not mean that the hypothesis (intelligent designer) is true or false. untestable means it can't be tested (and as a corollary, unprovable, too). science is based on testability, therefore ID is not science, even if your faith turns out to be the true answer (it's mormon, according to south park, btw, the correct answer is mormon).

 

taks

[Diamond]

I think this guy/girl/boy/lassie/imperial hoomperdickle had it right.

A little error (about +3 posts).

And... imperial hoomperdickle?

[Child of Flame]

Science can never prove that it's good either to save or to strangle your family.  Science simply doesn't care.  I think that, more than anything, is what fundamentalists fear.  That the universe just. does. not. care.  So, they hold firmly to an unbending set of beliefs.

 

Still, I have immense respect for folks who can uphold and maintain a "fundamentalist" belief.  These are folks who are beset by hostility from virtually every side in our society.  Fundamentalists do not, contrary to popular belief, anecdoatal evidence, and constant claims to the contrary, have a choke-hold on power in this country.  It sounds good to say they do, and I'm sure someone can come up with a long list of isolated events and/or news items that "proves" religious fundamentalists run the country.

 

Fundamentalists face derision on the news, on the small and silver screens, and in a host of other ways.  Folks with an axe to grind, grind, GRIND have a lot to say about all those thousands of people killed in abortion clinic bombings every year as if crazies who bomb abortion clinics are the real measure of fundamentalists everywhere.  What's the real issue, though?  It's that fundamentalists have a set of beliefs "enlightened" people consider childish and they have the uncanny willingness to actually speak about their beliefs.

 

Someone on this board speculated on beating Christians to death for coming to his door handing out religious tracts.  I've had someone shoot at me with the intent to kill me.  I think complaining about the fundamentalist handing out bibles at the University is rather petty by comparison.

 

...And it's not like I'm part of a group favored by religious fundamentalist.  According to them, you atheists are merely going to hell.  Catholics, on the other hand, were spawned there.

 

Speaking for myself, however, I don't fear proof or an uncaring universe.  Like a good Catholic, I just feeling guilty for stupid and ridiculous reasons.  I guess that's my brand of poison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My little brother's science teacher told him that as a Christian you could not believe in evolution, and if you did, you weren't.

 

He came home outraged that she said I was going to hell.

 

People are crazy.

[Azarkon]

Not all of science is empirical.

[Diamond]

^ Math doesn't count here.

[Calax]

humperdickle is a watchamacallit with a thingy attached to the doodad....

[Azarkon]

Math was never a science to begin with.

 

I'm talking Biology, Physics, Chemistry - the three prime schools of science. Each have its share of untested (and some arguably untestable) theories.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Azarkon

[Diamond]

OK, new brain teaser

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

 

Bertrand Russell

[Diamond]

Math was never a science to begin with.

 

I'm talking Biology, Physics, Chemistry - the three prime schools of science.  Each have its share of untested (and some arguably untestable) theories.

 

Carl Friedrich Gauss referred to mathematics as the Queen of the Sciences. The mathematician-physicist Leon M. Lederman has quipped: "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God (though you may be hard pressed to find a mathematician that modest)."

 

If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is not a science. An alternative view is that certain scientific fields (such as theoretical physics) are mathematics with axioms that are intended to correspond to reality. In fact, the theoretical physicist, J. M. Ziman, proposed that science is public knowledge and thus includes mathematics.

wiki :D

[Azarkon]

You can never be certain about certainty. The difference between science and religion is not in the misconception that the former is always empirical, but in that it is never certain. Science is always questioning itself, whereas religion takes all for granted. Thus, one leads to progress, while the other - stagnation.

 

Edit: as for the Gauss quote, well, we can certainly see where he's coming from, eh?

Edited November 15, 2005 by Azarkon

[Blank]

referring to the bible as evidence of design is just as fallacious as using contradictions in the bible to refute it.

 

it can't be both ways.

 

and no, he's not using the term "evidence" to suggest undeniable proof.  evidence must be, in some fashion, tangible.  "the word of god" or whomever is the intelligent designer, is based on faith, therefore untestable.

 

the term untestable does not mean that the hypothesis (intelligent designer) is true or false.  untestable means it can't be tested (and as a corollary, unprovable, too).  science is based on testability, therefore ID is not science, even if your faith turns out to be the true answer (it's mormon, according to south park, btw, the correct answer is mormon).

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, thanks for the clarification.

 

When i "refered" to the bible though, i was refering to where i got my belief, not using it as "evidence".

 

and okay, if evidence, means something testable, then evidence is still not needed for my faith. In this case, i think we agree that ID cannot be scientific.

[Blank]

You can never be certain about certainty.  The difference between science and religion is not in the misconception that the former is always empirical, but in that it is never certain.  Science is always questioning itself, whereas religion takes all for granted.  Thus, one leads to progress, while the other - stagnation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

people always seem to phrase that so disdainfully using "stagnation". How about using a nice word like,"preservation" or "consistancy".

[Lucius]

Why use a nice word for something that is bad?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

people always seem to phrase that so disdainfully using "stagnation". How about using a nice word like,"preservation" or "consistancy".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He's right though. If you don't question then you can't grow. If you think religion gives you all the answers, then by looking for new answers your doubting your faith.Even if that means sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the evidence that is right in front of your eyes, or calling it some sort of grand conspiracy.

[Darque]

Just wondering what the evidence is for Intelligent Design ? And if it is actually specific to a religious view ? After all if the building blocks of life were seeded by an alien race who then buggered off, would that qualify as ID ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Chaos Theory.

[kirottu]

God created man.

Man created religion.

Religion killed God.

[Walsingham]

You people who are claiming to prefer science over religion should be ashamed of yourselves! Most of you seem to be happy to state that Intelligent Design is not worth thinking about, in fact one of your (naming no names) said that we shouldn't even try and investigate!

 

This is outrageous.

 

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. This excellent thread suggests we test the hypothesis. What could be more worthy than that?

 

The issue is not if we should, the question is HOW. Can we define a falsifiable premise for intelligent design? By which I mean, we define how creation will look if it is was designed by an intelligent agency, and then define what will work against this. If we collect enough examples of non-intelligent design, then we can close the book on that hypothesis. But until we do, no dice.

 

~~~

 

Example of non-intelligent design one - Mankind:

 

Spandrels are systems which served a pupose to our ancestors, but serve none today. Our vestigial tails are one example. Our appendix is another. Speaking as someone who knows some engineering this does not seem very intelligent. Indeed, the appendix is not merely a waste of space like the coccyx. The appendix is system which can fail and kill you, but serves no useful purpose.

[Moose]

You would be about as empirical in your approach as someone out to measure the happiness of the universe. That's why I reject is.

 

Isn't it intelligent that electrons seek the shortest path back to a postive charge... by the heavens - I've proven God!

Edited November 15, 2005 by Moose

[Hurlshort]

ShadowPaladin wrote:

He's right though. If you don't question then you can't grow. If you think religion gives you all the answers, then by looking for new answers your doubting your faith.

 

I think that was Martin Luther's argument as well. Please don't make me explain who he is.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

ShadowPaladin wrote:

He's right though. If you don't question then you can't grow. If you think religion gives you all the answers, then by looking for new answers your doubting your faith.

 

I think that was Martin Luther's argument as well. Please don't make me explain who he is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh go on explanations are such fun.

[random evil guy]

Just wondering what the evidence is for Intelligent Design ? And if it is actually specific to a religious view ? After all if the building blocks of life were seeded by an alien race who then buggered off, would that qualify as ID ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ID is creationism, just with a pseudo scientific name attached to it. to say that 'aliens' were the creators, just moves the problem one step back. who created the 'aliens' then?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

ID is creationism, just with a pseudo scientific name attached to it. to say that 'aliens' were the creators, just moves the problem one step back. who created the 'aliens' then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't you get the exact same problem with god ? Actually it makes a lot more sense that man created god rather than the other way around if you think about it.