Intelligent Design

[Prodigal_Son]

2perfection:

Of course, ID doesnt have a shred of evidence in favour of it, so introducing it early means it can eb thrown out early. More time for real science.

Sheesh! How pessimistic.

“Not a shred?” What about the intricacy of a Beethoven symphony? What about the beauty of an eagle, or the silliness of a penguin? All these things point to design.

As I said before, intelligent design is not a precisely “scientific” theory. It is most definitely, however, a *valid * theory.

 

[2perfection]

Topher:

I have seen arguements like this before. I find them unimpressive.

You seem to misunderstand, these are not just arguments, if you follow the references and go to places like www.pubmed.org you will find the empirical evidence.

Topher:

But my point was not that evolution cannot be proved and therefore no one should believe it. Indeed it cannot be proven but I still think that it is credible. My point about evolution is that the scientific method cannot be applied to it because it is a set of nonrpeatable events.

Well, you cannot boil the same water twice, but when boiling water you know it will boil at about 100 degs cent at 1 atmosphere, variations generally occuring due to slight variations in actual tempurature and the purity of water. These forms a bell shaped graph very close to 100 decg cent. So in the absolute strictest sense no science is exactly repeatable.

But I dont think you mean this.

The experiment that jumps out is the green algae experiment. single celled algae kept evolving a multicelled form whenever predators were intorduced to their environment. This has two features, firstly, it is a drastic morphological change. second, it was repeatable.

I also seem to recall that wild species of plants have been repeatedly recreated in the lab through hybridisation.

Further, large modern fruit and vegetables are often formed from utilising the tendency of plants to polyploidy. While exact control of recombination of chromosones is not yet controllable, the ability to selectively recombine plants (and animals) to produce hybrids with desirable characteristics is not random, its predictable on the basis of genetic science, which is of course based on the evolutionary concept that offspring are somewhat like their parents.

Topher:

That being the case, it is not truly scientific but only based on conjectures about available evidence.

That is what science is, my friend. Quantum theory is based on observed empirical events, as is relativity. Evolutionary theory makes predictions about successes in a fitness landscape, and predictions about what must have existed for evolution to be true. Thus predicting that whales with legs would be found is vindication of evolutionary theory when they are found. They have been found.

Topher:

The same is true of ID. One cannot apply the scientific method to it. It to is based on conjectures about the available evidence.

Would you care to name any available evidence for intelligent design?

Topher:

However, that does not destroy its credibility as a viable theory, and it probably is a very reasonable theory. I think that the evidence points to some kind of evolution that is guided in some manner by an intelligent being.

Unfortunately you seem very reasonable, so I wont flame you.

But…you will find parts I-IV on a thread covering all topics here. The total number of threads was 9, the total number of posts around 1500, and you will find all you points answered there.

ichat.thisislondon.co.uk/messageboards/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=18&thread=218259&message=553928&q=marxism+atheism+evolution#553928

ichat.thisislondon.co.uk/messageboards/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=18&thread=218436&message=556527&q=marxism+atheism+evolution#556527

ichat.thisislondon.co.uk/messageboards/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=18&thread=218516&message=557591&q=marxism+atheism+evolution#557591

ichat.thisislondon.co.uk/messageboards/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=18&thread=218684&message=560045&q=marxism+atheism+evolution#560045

 

[2perfection]

Prodigal_Son:

As I said before, intelligent design is not a precisely “scientific” theory. It is most definitely, however, a *valid * theory.

Name one testable hypothesis coming out of ID.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Prodigal_Son:

Sheesh! How pessimistic.

“Not a shred?” What about the intricacy of a Beethoven symphony? What about the beauty of an eagle, or the silliness of a penguin? All these things point to design.

As I said before, intelligent design is not a precisely “scientific” theory. It is most definitely, however, a *valid * theory.

Correct! And as a non-scientific theory it shouldn’t be in the science classroom.

ID is philosophy and religion. I think this is a good example:

When painting a painter uses different methods to get his final picture; a thin brush for details, red paint for a sunset and thinner to make something translucent. Yes, by studing the final outcome of the painting we can learn something of the painter, but it is different question. Studying why the painting was made and who made it is different than studying how the painting was done.

Science (and evolution) is the study of the method. Evolution is looking at the tools used to make the final outcome. ID says God painted the painting, but it doesn’t say how. Science is looking for the “how”, not the “who” or “why”, answering those other questions is the philosopher’s job.

 

[Magicsilence]

As im sure most of my brothers in Christ will agree (and not all will I might add), one reaches a stage at which the arguements which you have thus presented serve no spiritual gain for us.

When we know something to be real because we have felt it, have felt the presence of Our Saviour come into Our hearts, thereby rendering us speachless. Have seen miracles, have felt the power of the Holy Spirit flowing through us, and have even talked with Christ, you may be able to see why we are not queueing up to argue against you.

We were warned of the cunning words of men that lead to hell. Maybe you can see how you are fulfilling the prophecy. In answering your questions and spending time justifying Christ we lose focus on Him in a spiritual sense.

You will read all this I’m sure and scorn. Scorn away, mock me as you like. I see every day how the supposed “elite” of our world are puppets of Satan. His evil tactics are sublime, and Im sure no doubt all Catholics are living testimonies of the hardships we endure on a daily basis because of Him.

However, with reference to the Intelligent Design “question” I think it interesting to note that scientists have denoted a point at which chance cannot be a reasonable explanation. They call it the impossible. What unbelief! Instead of bowing at the majesty of Our Lord, you presume to believe the impossible.

And such, as it is, prophecy is fulfilled.

I believe it was John Bosco who said we would live in comfort till the end times, and so it is. The devil has control of most of this world, let us pray that Christ may give us strength to trust in Him.

In Christ Our Saviour.

Andre.

 

[Maranatha]

Lady Cygnus:

Correct! And as a non-scientific theory it shouldn’t be in the science classroom.

I believe your notion of what happens in a classroom is a bit idealistic. If, in a perfect world, a science class strictly stuck to science while in that class, then I would agree with you. If, in the real world, a science class digresses in to a discussion of philosophy, then it’s only fair to present all points of view.

 

[2perfection]

Magicsilence:

As im sure most of my brothers in Christ will agree (and not all will I might add), one reaches a stage at which the arguements which you have thus presented serve no spiritual gain for us.

Evolution does not deny god. There are a number of concepts related to this, for example the deistic view (god pressed the button then stepped back) to the directed evolutionary view. What these types of view have in common is that they do not seek to misrepresent scientific facts or theories. They accept the evidence for what it is, overwhelming, but realise faith does not rely on these.

However, ID is not in this nature. ID misrepresents scietific facts, it is a political movement (the the wedge) and is specifically designed to get the constitutional bars in the us between religion and state.

If there is spiritual gain in engaging and supporting this deciet (not the concept of directed evolution or deisism, as outlined abiove, but the public actions of deceit) then the ancient slander of the Christians is true, “Do evil so that good will come”

Magicsilence:

When we know something to be real because we have felt it, have felt the presence of Our Saviour come into Our hearts, thereby rendering us speachless. Have seen miracles, have felt the power of the Holy Spirit flowing through us, and have even talked with Christ, you may be able to see why we are not queueing up to argue against you.

Which makes telling lies acceptable how, exactly?

Magicsilence:

We were warned of the cunning words of men that lead to hell. Maybe you can see how you are fulfilling the prophecy. In answering your questions and spending time justifying Christ we lose focus on Him in a spiritual sense.

The cunning words of man…in this case are called “empirical facts”. By all means focus on JC, but do not decieve in his name.

It is interesting that you have used the word ‘cunning’

cunning |?k?ni ng | adjective 1 having or showing skill in achieving one’s ends by deceit or evasion

For the ID movement is a cunning (in the exact meaning of the word)argument constructed to get creationism taught in the class, with a set of goals. The aim is social engineering and I have posted the link above.

Now, take 2 things into account. First We were warned of the cunning words of men that lead to hell and second that the ID movement is a telling lies about facts, science, its real basis and its real goals, and you will find that following ID will lead you directly into sin. As presented it is a falsehood and a lie.

So heed your own words.

Magicsilence:

You will read all this I’m sure and scorn.

I hold honesty nd accuracy in high esteem, I in no way doubt you honesty and sincerity. But I too have felt, and I too have experienced, and your teachers tell you lies. So I am here to make sure your god given brain is used.

Magicsilence:

Scorn away, mock me as you like. I see every day how the supposed “elite” of our world are puppets of Satan. His evil tactics are sublime, and Im sure no doubt all Catholics are living testimonies of the hardships we endure on a daily basis because of Him.

Please, Priests and nuns are implicated in genocides, peadophilia, and innumerable crimes. The ‘elite’ you talk of is also in the Church. The mods have said i may not discuss these issues or refer to them as it hurts peoples feelings. But let me be clear, I have also seen cruelty and evil on a daily basis at the hands of nuns and priests becaus, of course, I was in cathlic school until I was 18.

Magicsilence:

However, with reference to the Intelligent Design “question” I think it interesting to note that scientists have denoted a point at which chance cannot be a reasonable explanation. They call it the impossible. What unbelief! Instead of bowing at the majesty of Our Lord, you presume to believe the impossible.

name the scientist, name the papers please. And note Bill Demski doesnt count.

 

[Coder]

Evolution itself may indicate intelligent design. Evolution to a more life-preserving form may be based on a guiding prinicpal that “life is good”. This principal would be from God. “Be fruitful and multiply”. God commands life to come forth.

Also if it’s completely random, then why were there dinosaurs one cycle and humans the next?

 

[Coder]

typo: “principal” should be “principle”.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Maranatha:

I believe your notion of what happens in a classroom is a bit idealistic. If, in a perfect world, a science class strictly stuck to science while in that class, then I would agree with you. If, in the real world, a science class digresses in to a discussion of philosophy, then it’s only fair to present all points of view.

This is the same argument used for contraception (kids are going to have sex anyways, so hand out condoms). Two wrongs don’t make a right. What people should be doing is trying to stop teachers from preaching about atheism, not trying to make a scientific argument for God.

Most scientists who are against ID are against it, not because they don’t believe in God, but because it is not a scientific theory. However these same people will say there is no basis for the “evolution proves there is no god” mindset. They will want to get that nonsense out of the classrooms as well.

If these two groups joined up something might actually be accomplished, instead of just the mudslinging coming from both sides.

 

[Maranatha]

Lady Cygnus:

This is the same argument used for contraception (kids are going to have sex anyways, so hand out condoms). Two wrongs don’t make a right. What people should be doing is trying to stop teachers from preaching about atheism, not trying to make a scientific argument for God.

Most scientists who are against ID are against it, not because they don’t believe in God, but because it is not a scientific theory. However these same people will say there is no basis for the “evolution proves there is no god” mindset. They will want to get that nonsense out of the classrooms as well.

If these two groups joined up something might actually be accomplished, instead of just the mudslinging coming from both sides.

Since the history of the theory is so closely wrapped up in the philosophical debate, I don’t see how you can keep philosophy out of the evolution discussion. As long as it’s taught well enough so the students can distinguish philosophy from science.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Maranatha:

Since the history of the theory is so closely wrapped up in the philosophical debate, I don’t see how you can keep philosophy out of the evolution discussion. As long as it’s taught well enough so the students can distinguish philosophy from science.

Just state this disclaimer…“Some believe that evolution proves there is no God, some believes it proves there IS a God. If you wish to debate either of these issues Religion 101 is two door down. Now, back to science, evolution states…”

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Maranatha:

Since the history of the theory is so closely wrapped up in the philosophical debate, I don’t see how you can keep philosophy out of the evolution discussion. As long as it’s taught well enough so the students can distinguish philosophy from science.

The problem with evolution is not evolution, but when people use evolution in non-scientific manners. Evolution was used to justify Hitler’s master race. Evolution was used to promote a “survival” of the fittest mentality that gave rise to “Planned Parenthood”.

This is not the fault of evolution, but it is the fault of many people who use this theory to forward false extrapolations that reduce man to an animal. When we see man as an animal, we will treat man as an animal and the slaughterhouses open for business.

People who know they are in the image of God are opposing this threory, but they should be opposing the evil and false extrapolations made from this theory that dehumanize us.

True scientists should be incensed that this theory has been used over the last century to justify the worst inhumanity and dehumanization of man. Until this theory can be divorced from these evil extrapolations it should NOT be taught to students in schools that already support secular man as animal ideas, e.g. teaching kids to use a condom because animals can’t master chastity.

There’a a real reason to oppose the “theory of evolution” and I wish religous leaders would get the point so a real challenge to secular de-humanism can be made.

mike doyle

 

[buffalo]

Lady Cygnus:

Correct! And as a non-scientific theory it shouldn’t be in the science classroom.

ID is philosophy and religion. I think this is a good example:

When painting a painter uses different methods to get his final picture; a thin brush for details, red paint for a sunset and thinner to make something translucent. Yes, by studing the final outcome of the painting we can learn something of the painter, but it is different question. Studying why the painting was made and who made it is different than studying how the painting was done.

Science (and evolution) is the study of the method. Evolution is looking at the tools used to make the final outcome. ID says God painted the painting, but it doesn’t say how. Science is looking for the “how”, not the “who” or “why”, answering those other questions is the philosopher’s job.

I stated it before - evolution or ID should not be taught as science.

 

[buffalo]

2perfection:

Please, Priests and nuns are implicated in genocides, peadophilia, and innumerable crimes. The ‘elite’ you talk of is also in the Church. The mods have said i may not discuss these issues or refer to them as it hurts peoples feelings. But let me be clear, I have also seen cruelty and evil on a daily basis at the hands of nuns and priests becaus, of course, I was in cathlic school until I was 18.

So was I. Other than minor disciplinary issues (my fault) I was treated with dignity and fairness.

Perhaps looking back I could make a statement that my parents, nuns and priests were cruel because they took no **** from us kids, but that would be looking at it through an immature lens.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

2perfection:

Name one testable hypothesis coming out of ID.

You missed my point! I said, myself, that it wasn’t a scientific theory. The term “testable hypothesis” comes out of science.

But philosophy deals with more wonderful things than science. Philosophically, the claim that God exists is valid. (This does not speak to its truth, but its consistency). Just so, the claim that God designed the world with an idea toward an evolutionary development of creatures is valid.

Of course these things aren’t “testable.” Philosophy never is.

: Prodigal :

 

[2perfection]

Maranatha:

Since I don’t see how philosophy can, practically speaking, be kept our of the science classroom during the discussion of evolution, I think ID should be included from the beginning.

Cool,

How about Multiple Designer Theory? The conflicts between host and parasite, prey and predator, disease and health, matter and anti-matter fit a pattern of there being two designers.

If we add in all the body forms, bilateral, rotationally symetrical, etc, we have at least 5 designers.

And we can even posit that all the phylums in the animals kingdom could have separate designers.

Or, my personal favourite, that this universe is a computer simulation of the laws of physics, and we are models in that disgital world.

Did I mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendage?

Well, these are all valid theories in the world of Intelligent design. So I assume you are fine with Pasterfarianism being taught in science classes?

And what about other controversies? How about abortion is OK right until birth because ensoulment doesnt occur until the first independent breath? And killing something without a soul is not murder.

How about homosexuality is seen through-out nature and so is clearly natural.

All this should be in lessons rights from the start, yes?

 

[2perfection]

MichaelTDoyle:

The problem with evolution is not evolution, but when people use evolution in non-scientific manners. Evolution was used to justify Hitler’s master race.

Hitler claimed he was doing Gods work.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

antievolution.org/people/wre/evc/argresp/hitler.faq

A quote:

• By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education- based, religious-dogmatic principles – or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles – by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence. We may therefore state that not only does man live in order to serve higher ideals, but that, conversely, these higher ideals also provide the premise for his existence. Thus the circle closes. (pp. 379-380)*

MichaelTDoyle:

Evolution was used to promote a “survival” of the fittest mentality that gave rise to “Planned Parenthood”.

Abortion and contraception long pre-date evolutiuonary theory.

This claim is rebutted here: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html

MichaelTDoyle:

This is not the fault of evolution, but it is the fault of many people who use this theory to forward false extrapolations that reduce man to an animal. When we see man as an animal, we will treat man as an animal and the slaughterhouses open for business.

The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Slavery, and the Slaughter of the Aztecs predate evolutionary theory. As does the belief that a wife belonged to her husband.

Other issues are answered here: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA009.html

The slaughterhouse has ben open for business for a very long time. Evolution is a modern concept, so you must explain pre-theory mistreatment.

MichaelTDoyle:

People who know they are in the image of God are opposing this threory,

You mean ‘Know’.

MichaelTDoyle:

but they should be opposing the evil and false extrapolations made from this theory that dehumanize us.

As your premis is wrong (dehumanisation appeared before evolution) you statement needs modification.

Reading the posts on here about homosexuals, the words ‘beam’ mote’ and ‘eye’, as well as ‘pot’, ‘kettle’, ‘black’, come to mind.

“What gainest the hypocrite when he losses his very soul”

MichaelTDoyle:

True scientists should be incensed that this theory has been used over the last century to justify the worst inhumanity and dehumanization of man.

As noted: spanish inquisition, the crusades, the slaughter of the aztecs, and the recent genoicide in Rwanda where members of the catholic church have been implicated, tried and some found guilty.

The ‘worst inhumanity’ …hmmm.

MichaelTDoyle:

Until this theory can be divorced from these evil extrapolations it should NOT be taught to students in schools that already support secular man as animal ideas, e.g. teaching kids to use a condom because animals can’t master chastity

By the same token, lets ban christianity, you do know christians hang out outside abortion clinics and kill people, dont you?

Did I mention Rwanda?

And what about the christian homophobia? Until we can get people to love the sinner but hate the sin, let not teach christianity.

MichaelTDoyle:

There’a a real reason to oppose the “theory of evolution” and I wish religous leaders would get the point so a real challenge to secular de-humanism can be made.

mike doyle

Notice, you dont oppose its factual basis.

You are, in effect, saying facts should be supressed because the truth cant be handled.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Here’s a more relevant analysis of the ideology of Hitler’s Naziism than the gross distortion atheists try to provide, weakly linking his non practoiced Christianity to his murdedrous ways. His warped evolutionary philosophy was a direct foundation of his murderous weltanschauen:

home.infostations.net/srm/ath.htm

The following comments about Rosenberg are taken from the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust" (©1990 Macmillan Publishing Company). "Rosenberg’s role as chief Nazi ideologist was enhanced by his founding, in 1929, of the Kampfbund fur Deutsche Kultur (Fighting League for German Culture) and, above all, by his major work, Der Mythus des 20 Jahrhunderts (The Myth of the Twentieth Century; 1930). As an expression of Nazi philosophy this book had an influence comparable to that of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was enormously popular, and by 1942, had sold over a million copies. The book incorporated the racial theories of Joseph - Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, proclaiming that race was the decisive factor determining art, science, culture, and the course of world history. The Teutons represented the “master race” of “Aryans, " whose task it was to subdue Europe. This belief was combined with denunciation of Judaism and Christianity, whose ideals of compassion and charity must yield to the neo - pagan Teutonic sense of honor. The swastika was the symbol of blood and soil, and denoted the worship of Wotan and the ancient Norse gods. The Jews had subverted the ideal of race with their internationalism and a religion of humanity destructive of the Teutonic spirit. With doctrines such as these, Rosenberg’s Mythus sought to systematize Nazi ideology.”

…

This “false” evolutionary belief is in fact the equating of man to animals and yes it can predate the theory because the theory is being misused by the older diabolical theory that man is just an intelligent animal and no more.

Discern your spiritual enemy who would make of you less than the dignity of the image of God. Promoting views of man as an animal set us a bar lower than the Saints we are called to be.

 

[2perfection]

MichaelTDoyle:

Here’s a more relevant analysis of the ideology of Hitler’s Naziism than the gross distortion atheists try to provide, weakly linking his non practoiced Christianity to his murdedrous ways. His warped evolutionary philosophy was a direct foundation of his murderous weltanschauen:

home.infostations.net/srm/ath.htm

More relevant because…

Look, you linked hitler in and claimed evo should not be taught because it is abused, well so is religion.
if his beliefs were a perversion of evolution and that is anough to supress evolutionary theory, they were also perversions of christianity and so the same rules applies.

Now, try to be a bit consistent in you logic and analysis, or I’ll use you as an example in the “divorce or reason from faith” thread.

MichaelTDoyle:

This “false” evolutionary belief is in fact the equating of man to animals and yes it can predate the theory because the theory is being misused by the older diabolical theory that man is just an intelligent animal and no more.

Perhaps you wont mind explaining why god didnt make our uniqueness obvious by, say, giving us our present form but making us out of silicon or diamonds?

All the evidence points to common descent. We are clearly mammals, primates, chordata, etc.

The claim to uniqueness is put at the intangible ‘spritual’ level. What perfidity! To trick us with these animals bodies when we are made of light!

Look, your objections are all emotional and political. How an you ever hope to get the moral high ground when you clearly dont care about the evidence.

One way or another you are just another book burner.