Skip to comments.Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
click here to read article
Neither. Intelligent Design is not a theory. One of the leading exponents (William Dembski) of ID claims, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." This shows that ID is just another type of theology.
Then what does the fact that you didn't recognize *my* sarcasm imply about the level of your reading ability?
plus it is true..he calls everyone a liar.
No, he doesn't. Another lie in your cap.
I have never seen Dimensio call anyone a liar without him posting, or being prepared to post when challenged, compelling evidence that the poster in question is, in fact, a liar. I therefore find it remarkable that you seem to consider being labelled a liar by Dimensio some kind of badge of honour. Most of us consider lying to be shameful.
No statement made to attack the evil religion of evolution can ever be considered to truly be a lie.
He also wasted a great deal of his talents on alchemy, and an idiosyncratic theology.
(Note, I skipped all the intro pieces dealing with copyright and all that)
Once in, it takes a whole lot of effort to hold down the CTRL key and hit "F" -- after which a search box will pop up.
Nosirree Bob. I'm telling you it'll be a dark day indeed when anti-evos actually understand how to utilize the internet for research.
Newton probably had Asperger's Syndrome.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think he used an inclined plane to make round things "fall" slower, and he measured the time with his pulse. Not terribly precise, but it was sufficient to observe that heavy objects fall no faster than light ones.
But not accurate enough to establish the rate of acceleration with any precision.
My point is that Galileo used direct observation of falling objects. Newton used induction and inference.
Yes, me too, but unless you went to school over 400 years ago, Galileo did it first.
oh, sheesh...how come everything turns into a production
Oh yeah, you should see the badges, trophies and ribbons I have...all due to my lyin' skillz
Hey, if you want to stand by such gems as:
"Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth."
"None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says."
Yeah...right. the Constitution says that.
In actual practice Freud has been shown to be very useful.
Ignorance of the ID proponents doesn't rise to the level of evidence against evolution.
It's what happens without peer review. (Or simple editorial proof reading.)
Godwin's Law always strikes the Creationists first.
When God wrote with his own hand on tablets of stone that in six days He made "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" was he lying or just mistaken?
All taxonomy since the late 1800s has used evolutionary theory as a basis. Species are grouped (hopefully) into genera based on common ancestry (rather than color or such.) -- According to G.H.M.Lawrence's 1955 taxonomy book.
Ichneumon always gives good post.
Your statement is absolutely false. The first things one learns on the road to being a scientist are the limitations of science. I don't know what field you're in but you need to learn accurately about science before you spout off so cavalierly.
Perhaps the creationists are all descended from Creteans.
Nearly all those out-of-context quotes originated on a small handful of websites; they've been copied by other creationists (one can literally trace the copies by the presence of typographical errors). None of the fools who post them on these threads has ever actually read the original works; he or she is simply copying and pasting from one of the sites hosting them.
Indeed. My wife is wrapping up her Master's in Psychology, and she's had to study Freud.
Naw, that would never cross your mind, would it? You readily believe, without evidence, that the Bible is the Word of God, but then you turn around and ignore the literally mountains of evidence for evolution.
You're Sofa King right!
Interestingly, I know of no researchers today who can accurately define a test which can identify biological entities designed and created in labs by humans, which one would assume would be "intelligently" designed. If you can't identify a living genetically engineered and created organism how would you expect to know if other organisms were or were not "intelligently designed"?
The vast majority of scientists believe in God and do not have difficulty reconciling their work with their faith. I recall Carl Sagan saying something to the effect that his examination of the universe reinforced his faith in God rather than challenging it. Science is, by necessity, materialist, and it has to ignore teleological explanations, relying instead on what is observable and measurable. It is an approach to understanding the universe that is not necessarily a full understanding, but one that is helpful by making exploration, discussion, and discovery possible, rather than accepting arguments from authority. The risk is, some ill-informed people (who might reject religion for personal reasons, or just not understand the scientific method) inevitably reduce evolution to believing something like:
"life must have begun as a result of a lot of random molecular interactions which ultimately ended up producing a living organism"
This is an idea that is predicated on faith also, and is not something supported by science, if by "random" one means "without order" (instead of "order beyond our comprehension").
The idea of a Creator is not inconsistent with the idea of natural selection or other evolutionary theories. Although ID poses some good challenges to natural selection, they are metaphysical challenges, thus outside the realm of science. I don't say this to elevate science above other worthy fields.
Instead of schools wasting time fighting over what shallow "theory" or "fact" they teach, they should make an effort to teach the students about what the various theories really mean, and how one might go about testing, understanding or evaluating them. Hopefully those students will go on to advance our understanding of our world and how life began.
I could not agree more. And what could be more conservative than to teach that ideas have consequences? The problem is, this supposes that school boards and parents see the education of their children as a good, rather than seeing the schools as the instrument of this or that ideology.
That indeed is a viable possibility, isn't it. I have no problem with atheists or agnostics or hindus or Bhuddists who deny that God created the heavens and the earth. If in fact God did not create the heavens and the earth, then my faith is in vain.
I have a lot of problems with people who claim to believe in the God of the Bible, yet doubt the veracity of the very Bible that describes the God they claim to believe in.
If in fact the words on the Ten Commandments were just made up by men, then both Jesus and Moses were either frauds or fantasies. But if the story in Exodus is true, then God did indeed make the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in 6 days. Now we can argue as to what the meaning of "day" is, but it is clear that the description of creation in Genesis and it's confirmation in Exodus 20 contradicts any notion that the macro species we see on earth all evolved from some primitive (as yet to be identified) one celled randomly generated life form. It also contradicts any notion that man evolved from some lower life form, as man is specifically mentioned as a special creation of God.
I just don't countenance those who claim to believe the Bible, but can't seem to get past the first verse. If you can't get past the first verse of God's revealed word, then for God's sake, put it down and quit pretending to be a believer.
We are all furry little beasts in human suits.
Considering nearly identical* "rules for living" were around before the 10 Commandments, and that many different societies around the world came up with these rules independently, why would you even think that a fictionalized account of how the Hebrews arrived at the same rules means that Jesus or Moses were frauds or fantasies?
*Aside from the first couple of commandments, the rest are simply common sense measures to allow people to live together peacefully.
Its an alternative viewpoint you Darwinian fascist!
ID is certainly a theory of natural philosophy--a nineteenth century theory, in fact. In current practice, science classes are a form of natural philosophy bracketed by certain methods of discovery. Though I think intelligent design as currently advanced has severe flaws of its own, since its advocates and detractors can't quite decide if it's science, theology, or natural philosophy, I don't think this guy's taxonomy justifies forbidding ID from science class.
What gets me is that we have no problem saying that people invented cars and computers but woe be the person that says some life form invented us and the matter around us. I think it is like when people thought everything revolved around the earth until later we found out that our puny, little planet revolved around the sun. More and more people are realizing that macro-evolution has huge problems and that this universe does not exist by chance.
I am waiting for the day when the ACLU demand the title history be changed because of the religious connotation which stands for "His story"--that's why everything is B.C. or A.D. (Before Christ or Anno Domine "In the year of our Lord")
The art of reconstructing the "flesh" of skeletal remains has advanced light years in the past few decades. Nowadays, computers are fed the data and can reconstruct not only the appearance, but the stance of the individual (if hip/thigh are available).
Really? Name a couple. I bet those "problems" extend from a lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution, and not from the theory itself.
No. It uses the same technology forensic anthropologists use to recreate the faces of crime victims.
Or maybe he's misunderstanding the passage. That doesn't seem to occur to enough folks either.
Even the Vatican has managed to badly misread Scripture:
"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."And:
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini concerning Galileo's "heresy".
"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.If the Vatican get get Scripture so freaking wrong when they read it, I have even less confidence in the textual interpretations of amateurs.
-- Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo (June 22, 1633)
This is why Galileo himself wrote -- very sensibly:
"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by the creationists of the day] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.", "I accepted the Copernican position several years ago and discovered from thence the cause of many natural effects which are doubtless inexplicable by the current theories. [i.e., the new theory better matched and explained the observations - Ich.]" -- Galileo GalileiSadly, a lot of folks even today are stuck back in the 1600's when it comes to how they try to find the truth about how the world works.
Romans 1:18-25, as always, is appropriate to quote in these discussions:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
I quote this not because I have any illusions about you reading it and changing your worldview - you are obviously quite proud of it and have no intention of leaving it - but because in your post you say this:
"What I believe is that most creationists that I have observed are liars."
When the discussion comes to the point of who is lying, it is of little value to point at each other and declare that the other party is lying, unless you can appeal to the Ultimate Authority Source and see what the Truth is. Then you can see whose ideas and statements line up with revealed truth, and whose do not.
What is the ultimate lie? That there is no God.
What does evolution teach? That there is no God.
Therefore, anyone who accepts the philosophy/religion of evolution is embracing a lie. Some parrot the evolution mantra with little or no research of their own and so cannot be said to be "liars" in a strict sense. Then of course, there are others who actively promote the dogmas of evolution, who research it, defend it, "explain" it, etc. These people do not act in ignorance as the former group, and thus can appropriately be called "liars" - because they knowingly embrace a lie. I say knowingly, because you can't get very far into the whole religion of evolution without realizing that it is inherently anti-God, and thus early on you must make the choice to pursue what you know to be a godless idea, or not.
Scientists aren't trying to classify anything as ape or human. Technically, humans are apes (tailless primates with grasping hands and brachiating arms). It's the anti-evos who make the distinction and then try to shoehorn the various skulls into either one category or the other.