Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Abd al-Rahiim

quote:

I myself am not religious. I reject the inclusion of an intelligent designer into the field of biology as his existence cannot possibly be tested or observed. (Even if we witness what appears to be design, we are only witnessing the “product” - we do not see the producer.) I do not, however, reject the possibility that such an intelligent designer exists. He very well could. I don’t know, and I’m not willing to have faith. But whether or not he exists is a moot point for science unless he reveals himself. As the New Testament says, though, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”

my reply:

Oh, this one again. So we cannot identify design unless we can also identify the designer. Hey, genius, suppose I give you a computer program. Would you conclude that we cannot say it is intelligently designed until we know who designed it? Use your brain for a minute if you can.

Suppose we receive an apparently intelligent message from space. Should we reject the idea that it originated from an intelligent source until we can identify that source? Use your brain for a minute if you can. It won’t hurt too much.


48 posted on 06/10/2007 11:44:56 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: RussP
Thank you for calling me a genius, but I assure you that I am not, especially since I do not have the endless ocean of reasoning and logic faculties that you so clearly possess. I beseech you to tell me who is your designer, for I must meet him and inquire as to why he did not bestow such immense talents to me at birth.

Verbal irony aside…

I would not conclude that if you gave me a computer program and I did not know who programmed it, then the program simply was. Even if the program had no credits whatsoever (i.e. no mentioning of any lead programmer, teams, etc.), it would still not make sense to claim, “This program is not the product of any mind or minds.” Not only would it not make sense, it would also not be scientific.

So, what’s the difference between this and intelligent design ideology? Nothing, really. As you saw in your quotation, I acknowledge the possibility that an intelligent designer exists. Really, he might. But, it’s not scientific to say, “Well, I – RussP – am too smart to see the massive amount of evidence that is in favor of natural selection and mutation being sufficient to account for natural diversity, so God did it all. And, the burden of that proof is on you, not me.” I’m sure you agree with me on that. The only way your creationism can be considered scientific is if science is expanded to include supernatural phenomena. As James Randi has demonstrated, supernatural phenomena has a nasty habit of not working under controlled lab conditions. Wonder why.

I ask that you please keep the context of the controversy in mind. Judge Jones ruled in Kitzmiller that you can’t teach intelligent design in the public science classroom. He didn’t rule that you couldn’t teach it in another class; it just can’t be a science class.

I’m all for any of your attempts to strengthen the role of creationism in history or composition classes. Go ahead. But, if you try for one second to add creationism to the science classroom, then I won’t offer you an iota of support.

51 posted on 06/11/2007 9:30:38 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: RussP

Science must be testable and bound by natural law. Since an “intelligent designer” is neither testable nor bound by natural law, ID cannot be classified as a science. In truth, it is anti-science. It abandons natural law in favor of a presumption of the super-natural. For example, you argued that the burden of proof was on scientists to prove a natural explanation for the development of the human ear, otherwise it should be considered the creation of an intelligent designer. This is the direct opposite of the scientific method, in which natural causes must be assumed.


283 posted on 06/26/2007 1:55:04 PM PDT by JayWhit (Always keeping it real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson