Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter ShivanCommander
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
If the designer didn’t intervene then the designer has not done anything and his/her/its/their non-actions cannot be scientifically detected.

The Constitution is a political document that prevents religion being taught in science classes in public schools in America. ID2 is a political movement that tries to smuggle religion into science classes. There is a lot of truth that is not taught in science classes: History, French, English, Geography and many other subjects. The place for religion is in a comparative religion class, not a science class.

No. A Judge determined what was legal or not. It is not legal to teach ID in a science class in an American public school.

The DI would like you to think that. Since the Dover trial the DI has switched from “Teach ID” to “Teach the Controversy”. The Dover trial certainly had an effect on the Discovery Institute.

rossum
Click to expand...
Nope - the designer can design and then sustain.

Then only empirical science in the science class. Move evolutionism and ID into mandatory philosophy class.

As far as the judgement goes - we will see if the judgement passes the test of time. Again, I reject the government limiting the truths a student can be taught in favor of a paradigm.

No problem there - students should be taught the controversy. I support it. Getting back to mandatory philosophy class, let students do the reasoning rather than having the NSCE ram it down their throats.
 
rossum said:
No. I said that ID1 has not necessarily got any problem with science and vice versa. A Catholic like Keith Miller is an excellent biologist and accepts ID1.

Yes. However at the moment ID2 is not a “better model”, it is not even a scientific model yet. It might become so in future, but currently it isn’t. There are many huge gaps in the ID2 hypothesis:
  • When did/does the designer operate?
  • How does the designer move molecules of DNA around?
  • Hos can ID2 be observed in the laboratory?
  • How can the ID2 hypothesis be falsified?
And Copernicus had a detailed, testable, falsifiable model to replace the Ptolemaic model. Currently ID2 has no such model. All it has it the equivalent of “It sure looks designed to me”.

I suggest that you take a look at the ISCID website, and ID2 site, and read its definition of ID:Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. It contends that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation. (emphases added)

Source: ISCID Encyclopedia: Intelligent Design.rossum
Click to expand...
Real simple - a 3D guy certainly can do things that a flatlander cannot test, see or experience.
 
vz71 said:
I think I prefer the definition brought forth by buffalo.

And I am puzzled why many people cannot see the designer.

If I see a 300 page book, no one denies that someone wrote it.
Yet many wish to claim a genetic code (which is immensely more complex then any 300 page book) was not designed.
Click to expand...
They cannot.

You should see what happens when eventually I ask:
  1. Does design exist?
  2. Can it be detected?
They get all out of sorts…🙂
 
rossum said:
Discussion of evolution is not currently allowed.

You are being lied to by your creationist sources. Speciation has been observed both in the wild and in the laboratory.

rossum
Click to expand...
What do they turn into?
 
balt_orioles54 said:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was DNA. God’s language. That’s the crux of intelligent design. And the word became flesh, literally, and God’s commands and ways of living came in the flesh of Christ. Microevolution or “adaption” is conceivable, but evolution directly from a monkey to a man is not anymore; much more time would have had to take place for this to remotely happen, secondly, it’s the same random argument that if you place 1,000 monkeys in front of keyboards, over the years they will type something coherent. Macroevolution like this is what intelligent design, over time will prove is impossible, the more we learn about the structures of DNA, cells, etc. A good site to explore: discovery.org/csc :ballspin:
Click to expand...
You would like IDvolution
 
rossum said:
Unless and until ID actually produces the goods evolution remains the best explanation we currently have.

rossum
Click to expand...
The top evo guys don’t even believe that. The paradigm is crumbling.

"Not to mince words - the modern synthesis is gone" - "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair."

*It is time for a paradigm change - but neoDarwinists are stuck because they have so much philosophical baggage holding them down *(Image credit: Shaun Curry/AFP/Getty Images, Source here)
 
How many here have seen Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled? He interviews scientists that were fired, denied tenure and had all grant money cut off simply because they believed that Intelligent Design should be considered.
 
vz71 said:
If I see a 300 page book, no one denies that someone wrote it.
Yet many wish to claim a genetic code (which is immensely more complex then any 300 page book) was not designed.
Click to expand...
A book doesn’t have a method of coming into existence without a creator. A genetic code does.
 
Third_Day said:
How many here have seen Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled? He interviews scientists that were fired, denied tenure and had all grant money cut off simply because they believed that Intelligent Design should be considered.
Click to expand...
Have you heard about “Expelled Exposed”?

expelledexposed.com/
 
buffalo said:
How about the Language of DNA?
Click to expand...
DNA isn’t really a language, it’s more of a cypher.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html
vz71 said:
So how exactly was this genetic code brought about?
Click to expand...
I’m thinking that a basic replicator formed by chance, and occasional mutations lengthened it and increased its complexity until you could call it RNA or DNA.

I’m not intending to discuss evolution here, I’m just trying to address a few misconception about certain aspects of it. If this is still against the rules, I’ll stop.
 
Shredderbeam said:
DNA isn’t really a language, it’s more of a cypher.
Click to expand...
It would seem oddly out of place to have something that is generally attributed to man and math applied to DNA.
I submit that the mathmatical nature of the cypher is evidence of a design.
Shredderbeam said:
I’m thinking that a basic replicator formed by chance, and occasional mutations lengthened it and increased its complexity until you could call it RNA or DNA.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to think that.
I’ll not try to shake your faith.😉
 
Third_Day said:
Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled
Click to expand...
facepalm

That “documentary” was terrible. All he did was talk about scientists who lost their jobs because they were horrifically unqualified. ALSO APPARENTLY HITLER WAS AN EVOLUTIONARY RACIST! THEREFORE EVOLUTION ISN’T REAL!!!11!!!111!!! Hitler also believed smoking was bad.
 
buffalo said:
Codes need senders, receivers and a key. They always come from a mind.

The Linguistics of DNA – Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics and Semantics
Click to expand...
Perhaps “code” is the wrong term. There is no sender, receiver, or key in DNA, there is only the DNA itself. From what I remember of high school biology, a transcriber “reads” the DNA, and builds amino acids based on the sequencing. It’s all purely mechanical, though, like an old computer “reading” punch cards.

I’m at the library at the moment, but I’ll certainly read your article when I get home. 🙂
vz71 said:
It would seem oddly out of place to have something that is generally attributed to man and math applied to DNA.
I submit that the mathmatical nature of the cypher is evidence of a design.
Click to expand...
I meant that it works in a similar fashion to a cipher.

Why does the mathematical nature of a cipher imply design?
40.png
vz71:
You are welcome to think that.
I’ll not try to shake your faith.😉
Click to expand...
Well, it’s not a faith, it’s more of a belief. I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, and am open to possibly changing my mind in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top