'Intelligent Design' Debate Underway

[Fidei Defensor]

I think that teachers need to atleast examine the other point of view, which is not necesarily intelligent design. But they should not give the impression to students that the only acceptable theory is evolution, because many scientists, particularly the Chinese, disbelieve that theory.

[jezic]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 26 2005, 05:23 PM']no.  creationism should be discussed on theological and philosophical terms.  this should be discussed on terms of whether through the strict scientific method we can actually present a theory that God somehow designed the world.

it doesn't really have a place in the science classroom.  it should be taught as some sort of philosophy curriculum or religious studies curriculum (of course we don't have those in public schools ) but science as it was born in the heart of rational western Christendom uses only observable scientific facts.

I don't know, I sympathize with both sides though.
[right][snapback]738300[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

since when have scientists observed evolution

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 26 2005, 07:05 PM']Yes it does say the mutations are purely by chance, and not directed by any intelligence.
[right][snapback]738400[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I didn't learn it that way. As I was educated, perhaps improperly, there is no statement by the theory as to whether or not environmental stressors or genetic variation is guided by any intelligence. Such a statement would exceed the capacity of the theory to be tested empirically, and so would only be made by someone with an alterior motive than pure science.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='heavenseeker' date='Sep 26 2005, 05:49 PM']dude intelligent design is the same thing as creation you started a new thread for nothing
[right][snapback]738261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

When you own Phatmass and you make the rules you can moan and groan. Until then it isn't your server, your website, your space, or your rules. Chill out.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 26 2005, 08:01 PM']When you own Phatmass and you make the rules you can moan and groan. Until then it isn't your server, your website, your space, or your rules. Chill out. 
[right][snapback]738446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
dude why dont you chill out? im not moaning and groaning, just saying that its the same thing.

[zwergel88]

Intelligent design just seems like a watered down version of both faith and science. I think that schools should teach the most widely accepted scientific theory and leave it up to the students to insert their own beliefs were they see fit.

[Socrates]

[quote name='zwergel88' date='Sep 27 2005, 05:44 PM']Intelligent design just seems like a watered down version of both faith and science.  I think that schools should teach the most widely accepted scientific theory and leave it up to the students to insert their own beliefs were they see fit.
[right][snapback]739361[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've heard Dr. Michael Bebe, the scientist most famous for promoting "Intelligent Design" theory, lecture a few years back, and what he had to say was quite interesting. Basically, ID says that darwinistic random chance evolutionary theory cannot account for the purposeful complexities found in nature, down to the smallest parts of cells.
While both doctrinaire atheistic darwinists and strict creationists disagree with ID theory, I think people should study what Dr. Behe says in depth before dismissing his ideas off-hand. It seems few people on this thread really have any clear idea of what ID theory actually is.
I'd recommend starting with his book, [i]Darwin's Black Box[/i] to start.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Socrates

[infinitelord1]

another question for you to think about cow of shame............would your genetic theory on homosexuality fall in line with the teachings of modern day psycology? Modern day psycology teaches that feelings come from thoughts......not the other way around. So basically im askin you if genes cause thoughts........rather than feelings? I would think that thoughts come from the environment that stimulate our 5 senses.

[Iacobus]

I haven't read Darwin's Black Box, and I don't intend to, but from what I know the author at least has a brain. Sometimes I have to wonder.

I just wish they would stop picking on Darwin. Then again, Darwin is bigger then most people.

What bugs me whenever I hear people debating ID or evol, is the ID or creationist side always cites "Well, this or that scientist did the math and the odds are x:y against." Well, so what? Just because something is very very very unlikely to happen doesn't mean it can't. There is a key difference there. "When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how imporable, must be the truth."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Sep 27 2005, 06:06 PM']I haven't read Darwin's Black Box, and I don't intend to, but from what I know the author at least has a brain. Sometimes I have to wonder.

I just wish they would stop picking on Darwin. Then again, Darwin is bigger then most people.

What bugs me whenever I hear people debating ID or evol, is the ID or creationist side always cites "Well, this or that scientist did the math and the odds are x:y against." Well, so what? Just because something is very very very unlikely to happen doesn't mean it can't. There is a key difference there. "When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how imporable, must be the truth."
[right][snapback]739390[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Quite frankly, your post here makes no sense, Iacobus. Are you saying that if the chances of an orderly universe or life on earth coming about by pure random chance are infinitesimally small, then one must beleive they occured by pure chance just because it is remotely[b] possible[/b], rather than beleiving that they are the result of intelligent design?

This only would make sense if you have already eliminated the existence of a God as impossible (as do atheists).
It makes more sense to believe in the probability of a Creator, rather than the remote possibility of everything occuring by pure chance.

And you refuse to even read ID theory, but insist on holding on to Darwin, apparently out of a near-religious reverence held for him by the "scientific community."

I know this is kind of ad-hominem, Iacobus, but why do you always seem to insist on taking the side of the irreligious liberals on nearly every issue?
It's almost like you're motivated by a knee-jerk response against the "religious right."

Edited September 28, 2005 by Socrates

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Sep 27 2005, 05:58 PM']another question for you to think about cow of shame............would your genetic theory on homosexuality fall in line with the teachings of modern day psycology? Modern day psycology teaches that feelings come from thoughts......not the other way around. So basically im askin you if genes cause thoughts........rather than feelings? I would think that thoughts come from the environment that stimulate our 5 senses.
[right][snapback]739376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
lol this post was supposed to go to the gay penguins thread

[Iacobus]

I confess I have a knee-jerk.

I hold views in line with thesitic (sp?) evolution. I am brothered though by people whose sole argument in "well, it is highly unlikely, so it is impossible." That isn't, to me, a strong argument.

I have read a bit about ID "theory," (I am not sure that is the right word), but I have read bits and peices of it. Someone in highschool had me read a book about literal creationism. I haven't read any formal works about ID, nor have I read much outside of acadmica about evolution. I have read some of ID in articles online but nothing in print.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 26 2005, 05:32 PM']Imho = in my humble opinion.  :
[right][snapback]738317[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I always forget what that one stands for. thank you.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Sep 27 2005, 07:14 PM']I confess I have a knee-jerk.

I hold views in line with thesitic (sp?) evolution. I am brothered though by people whose sole argument in "well, it is highly unlikely, so it is impossible." That isn't, to me, a strong argument.

I have read a bit about ID "theory," (I am not sure that is the right word), but I have read bits and peices of it. Someone in highschool had me read a book about literal creationism. I haven't read any formal works about ID, nor have I read much outside of acadmica about evolution. I have read some of ID in articles online but nothing in print.
[right][snapback]739452[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Intelligent Design is essentially theistic evolution.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 27 2005, 07:27 PM']Intelligent Design is essentially theistic evolution.
[right][snapback]739467[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes and no. They can be the same. Theistic can also be more along the lines of a deistic "clockmaker" ideaology. God set the rules and lets them run the course. Or it could be that God created something in the beinging and slowly changed things over time. I think He set some Laws regulating evolution, such as Natural Selection, and overcomes those laws rarely. However, it is not a passive role, the enviroment in which Natural Selection takes place is controled and modified by an active God, thus impacting which species is more fit. To me, from what I read, ID places a more active role on God and rules out a lot of the bio behind it and replaces it with God. What motivates changes over time is fittness and random drift, which is either caused by changes in the enviroment or by copy errors, which are caused by God. To me, God does not have a role in a science book, the science explains change over time. God explains the science. Introducing God into science blurs the lines too much, science can never reach "Absolute Truth," there is already much confusion about that, and introducing God into the mix will not help clear up the confusion and will further degrade the "debate" (I am not sure one still exists except about means) about evolution in the scientific community.