Intelligent Design, anybody?

[captain snakebite]

Just watched an interesting documentary on the old telly box about Intelligent Design versus Evolution.

Apparently it's based on the 'principle' of Irreducable Complexity - where we can explain a biological mechanism down to so many components and then can't explain any further. And then it assumes a Creator has been at work.

Now, to my mind that's the same principle that had the ancients thinking 'Okay, the sun rises over there, moves across the sky and sets over there. We don't know how, so it must be a god in his fiery chariot'.

Intelligent Design demonstrates nothing more than how ideas become beliefs - what do you think?

 

[NoJo]

There were some good comments on this in a recent (long) thread in the Author's Hangout: https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=15664047

 

[Harbinger]

It's not science, it doesn't follows the rules and tests of science, so people should stop trying to pass it off as science. Bunch of fucking dumbasses, if you want to know.

 

[Peregrinator]

It's been done to death here, but I don't mind hashing it over again.

It's faith, not science. In science, a hypothesis is useless if it can't be tested. As yet, I don't know of an experiment that tests ID. The word theory has a fairly specific meaning in science and among the parameters for its use is the fact that it's been repeatedly borne out by seperate experiemnts and that it allows predictions to made which are testable. Neither is true of ID. Evolution has been borne out time and time again, over and over and over. The only people who are proponents of ID are those who either don't understand the word theory, don't understand evolution, don't want to believe in evolution, or some combination.

 

[NoJo]

It's been done to death here, but I don't mind hashing it over again.

It's faith, not science. In science, a hypothesis is useless if it can't be tested. As yet, I don't know of an experiment that tests ID. The word theory has a fairly specific meaning in science and among the parameters for its use is the fact that it's been repeatedly borne out by seperate experiemnts and that it allows predictions to made which are testable. Neither is true of ID. Evolution has been borne out time and time again, over and over and over. The only people who are proponents of ID are those who either don't understand the word theory, don't understand evolution, don't want to believe in evolution, or some combination.

There. I dont think it could have been put better. And even a Bush-loving Republican judge agrees.

 

[captain snakebite]

There was a two-part docu on the other week, called 'The Root Of All Evil?' that was pretty interesting too.

Postulated that all theistic religions were fundamentally wrong to the point of being evil, in that (whatever their moralistic pretentions as being powers for 'good') they invariably end up being used to justify, or even to positively encourage, ignorance division and violence.

After watching that one I was probably more scared of the Christian fundamentalists than the Islamic ones - Christians tend to have easier access to ICBMs...

 

[atmas]

It's been done to death here, but I don't mind hashing it over again.

It's faith, not science. In science, a hypothesis is useless if it can't be tested. As yet, I don't know of an experiment that tests ID. The word theory has a fairly specific meaning in science and among the parameters for its use is the fact that it's been repeatedly borne out by seperate experiemnts and that it allows predictions to made which are testable. Neither is true of ID. Evolution has been borne out time and time again, over and over and over. The only people who are proponents of ID are those who either don't understand the word theory, don't understand evolution, don't want to believe in evolution, or some combination.

I might caution against arguing for evolution simply by arguing against ID in that there are areas of the theory of evolution that are very fuzzy, areas related more to macro- rather than micro-evolution. Doesn't prove ID is fact, but large portions of evolution still cannot be accepted as given. Or rather, large portions of how evolution might work are still unknown. Thus the theory of evolution rather than the law.

 

[Peregrinator]

I might caution against arguing for evolution simply by arguing against ID in that there are areas of the theory of evolution that are very fuzzy, areas related more to macro- rather than micro-evolution. Doesn't prove ID is fact, but large portions of evolution still cannot be accepted as given. Or rather, large portions of how evolution might work are still unknown. Thus the theory of evolution rather than the law.

I know it's imperfect as yet...my bio prof just told us that "theory" and "natural law" are synonomous. So is "principal."

Consider gravitation...my brother would tell you we still can't explain it.

She--prof--also pointed out that good science raises more questions.

I didn't mean to imply that "no ID"=evolution...what's that fallacy called again? But it is still considered a natural law.

 

[marshalt]

This morning when I was talking to God, He said you're all way off and are gonna be really suprised when you find out.

 

[captain snakebite]

but large portions of evolution still cannot be accepted as given. Or rather, large portions of how evolution might work are still unknown. Thus the theory of evolution rather than the law.

Which is the beauty of evolution.

ID makes an assumption that anything that cannot (currently) be explained must be the result of an intelligent designer / creator.

Evolution is open-ended: it is, in itself, open to the possibility that there was a 'year dot', a starting point, and then nurtures the curiosity to seek understanding of the starting point.

ID stifles curiosity with the 'just so' quick answer.

 

[captain snakebite]

This morning when I was talking to God, He said you're all way off and are gonna be really suprised when you find out.

Oh no - you're gonna tell us he bought the whole damned universe as a flatpack from IKEA, aren't you?

 

[blackopal19]

ID is just a way creationists are trying to make thier views seem more scientific.

 

[Ultraviolet]

I'd go with this:

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (it's a link to wikipedia)

I cannot seriously believe that anyone would want to teach children Intelligent Design as fact. It certainly has its place as brain food and as a way of promoting discussion and original opinion in children. But telling them that it's fact?

Anyone does that to my children (whenever they come along) will learn a bit more about newtonian physics.

 

[KRCummings]

I hate posting in religous threads of any kind but once in a while I feel the need to say something. I'll make this brief so as not to annoy anyone and get it off my chest yet again...

Evolution does not preclude creationism nor does creationism preclude evolution.
They can and do live side by side for millions of people, even scientists and priests.

 

[Peregrinator]

I hate posting in religous threads of any kind but once in a while I feel the need to say something. I'll make this brief so as not to annoy anyone and get it off my chest yet again...

Evolution does not preclude creationism nor does creationism preclude evolution.
They can and do live side by side for millions of people, even scientists and priests.

And they should. And I don't want you to take anything off your chest, except maybe your clothing.

I think the real issue is where each is taught. To me it's clear; one is science, the other is faith, or philosophy, or religion, or maybe even cosmology, though I'm sure cosmologists would dispute that. So we shouldn't teach ID in science classes; it's fine to teach it in an appropriate setting.

 

[Peregrinator]

Btw, KRC, two things:

1) I really appreciate posting with you. You're logical, polite, and reasoned. And you hold your own without being an asshole about it.

2) Your sigline is an LT-level abomination.

 

[KRCummings]

And they should. And I don't want you to take anything off your chest, except maybe your clothing.

I think the real issue is where each is taught. To me it's clear; one is science, the other is faith, or philosophy, or religion, or maybe even cosmology, though I'm sure cosmologists would dispute that. So we shouldn't teach ID in science classes; it's fine to teach it in an appropriate setting.

I know that's the basic debate but whenever it comes up people start going on about it as if you can only have one or the other in your life. That simply isn't true.

 

[KRCummings]

Btw, KRC, two things:

1) I really appreciate posting with you. You're logical, polite, and reasoned. And you hold your own without being an asshole about it.

2) Your sigline is an LT-level abomination.

It's not as bad as LT's. Maybe close but no there yet. I keep meaning to clean it up some but never get around to it. Someday.

 

[Drinking Cap]

Evolution does not preclude creationism nor does creationism preclude evolution.
They can and do live side by side for millions of people, even scientists and priests.

So say the guys in Rome with the funny hats, anyway.

 

[ma_guy]

I think the real issue is where each is taught. To me it's clear; one is science, the other is faith, or philosophy, or religion, or maybe even cosmology, though I'm sure cosmologists would dispute that. So we shouldn't teach ID in science classes; it's fine to teach it in an appropriate setting.

Agreed!

The one thing that the whole ID flap has brought out though is that the "It's not science!" crowd have shown that they are working just as much on "faith" as the religious are. "All hail science! We make the rules for what is and isn't "science" and if you disregard our rules we'll have you cast out of society (or the schools at least)!". I'm waiting for the "Science Inquisition" to begin.

 

[Drinking Cap]

The one thing that the whole ID flap has brought out though is that the "It's not science!" crowd have shown that they are working just as much on "faith" as the religious are. "All hail science! We make the rules for what is and isn't "science" and if you disregard our rules we'll have you cast out of society (or the schools at least)!".

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[ma_guy]

That doesn't make any sense.

Have another beer. Maybe you'll understand it later.

 

[KRCummings]

Agreed!

The one thing that the whole ID flap has brought out though is that the "It's not science!" crowd have shown that they are working just as much on "faith" as the religious are. "All hail science! We make the rules for what is and isn't "science" and if you disregard our rules we'll have you cast out of society (or the schools at least)!". I'm waiting for the "Science Inquisition" to begin.

Which goes with what I've said in a similar thread. Religous people will tell you they think you're wrong but atheists (generalizing here) will tell you you're stupid.
Which is worse?

 

[Drinking Cap]

Have another beer. Maybe you'll understand it later.

Maybe I understand it later? Gosh me really looking forward to understanding.

 

[ma_guy]

Maybe I understand it later? Gosh me really looking forward to understanding.

From the looks of that post maybe another beer isn't a good idea for you.