14 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou missed out on the sex and tv, actually its about all of the negativity in the world. If God designed mankind you would have expected a little more in the line of perfection? One might argue that God's intelligent design relies on turning evolution through thousands of generations to work the flaws out of the system. In which case, its just tough on those who were born too soon?
That is just a bash on religion, which has nothing to do with ID.
Kelly
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayPhilip Johnson seems to think so with his original wedge strategy for ID.....
That is just a bash on religion, which has nothing to do with ID.
Kelly
Back in the 90's he regulary associated ID with the church, bible, supernatural, and god. He even quoted the bible in his speeches! Now they have drummed up their support from the religious sheep, they have tried to disassociate themselves from the supernatural in an attempt to gain scientific credibility......... the end goal to get religious dogma into a science classroom.
So sorry KJ, but ID and creationism are one in the same. Hard to argue with the guy who started the ID movement.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by timebombtedID has one big problem: If there was an intelligent designer, how did it get to be intelligent?
Philip Johnson seems to think so with his original wedge strategy for ID.....
Back in the 90's he regulary associated ID with the church, bible, supernatural, and god. He even quoted the bible in his speeches! Now they have drummed up their support from the religious sheep, they have tried to disassociate themselves from the supernatural in an attempt ...[text shortened]... ID and creationism are one in the same. Hard to argue with the guy who started the ID movement.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by RetrovirusYou must make it into something other than science, you cannot
Whatever you call it, ID is certainly not science.
I guess you can call it fiction.
However, the most common use of ID is to support the notion of god.
Supporting the notion of god through fiction - that's already 9/10 parts of the definition of religion, is it not? 😛
( That's the atheist take on this, at any rate)
Ok, now, seriously Creationism is a part of religion, right? ID is just Creationism with fancy words.
just look at the questions being asked for the sake of getting the
answers correct?
Kelly
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't know and do not care where ID came from I am a creationist
(1) Intelligent Design is sprung from creationism. Creationism relies that the creation, as it is described in the bible, is true. So ID is dependant of that there is a religion behind it.
(2) If a design is intelligent, and now we're talking about the design of universe and life and everything, it has to have something that have inteligence enough to ...[text shortened]... asons to call ID a religious phenomenon. It is my objective opinion, not my pejorative opinion.
not an ID person. For me it is a matter of faith, but I reject the idea
that ID is just religion, until you tell me 'why' what makes the view
of ID a religion when ID does not mean we are talking about God,
or gods? None of that has to be true for ID to be true, the questions;
however, need to be answered, can we get here from there that is
to say life from non-life the way we see it without some direction?
If you can tell me what makes a train of thought a religion I'd like
to see that, you telling me that the roots of ID are with creationism
I'd point out that the roots of evolution also go with a group of
people who believe certain things are true too. That does not mean
that they are not using science only that the foundation of their
views of the universe hold certain things true as well.
What mades a 'throught/idea/point of view?' a religion in your view?
Kelly
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseSo you reject ID because of people not because of the questions
All you need to do to see the religious connection to ID is look at its proponents: Michael Behe and William Dembski, check them out, they are the ones who foisted this BS on the world.
and answers that abound in the idea?
Kelly
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by eamon oYea I do except perfection and the desires of man leads away from
You missed out on the sex and tv, actually its about all of the negativity in the world. If God designed mankind you would have expected a little more in the line of perfection? One might argue that God's intelligent design relies on turning evolution through thousands of generations to work the flaws out of the system. In which case, its just tough on those who were born too soon?
that. That however does not address any question with ID, with that
topic our desires and actions are not addressed, those are other topics
all together.
Kelly
15 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by timebombtedAgain you are turning against ID because of people who hold to that
Philip Johnson seems to think so with his original wedge strategy for ID.....
Back in the 90's he regulary associated ID with the church, bible, supernatural, and god. He even quoted the bible in his speeches! Now they have drummed up their support from the religious sheep, they have tried to disassociate themselves from the supernatural in an attempt ...[text shortened]... ID and creationism are one in the same. Hard to argue with the guy who started the ID movement.
that! That is not giving ID a fair shake, should I reject evolution not
on the bases of evolution, but because I fiind someone who believes
in it to be an A$$ all together! That is brain dead thinking in my point
of view, you either look at the questions being asked by it or you
do not, to focus upon 'people' or something else is a shell game. I
have yet in this thread seen anyone give me a reason why ID should
be rejected on the bases of ID, it is always because of something
else, from the people who may agree with it, or their dislike of religion
which I have yet seen the connection to when looking at just the
questions ID does ask.
Kelly
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI believe I started a thread over in spirituality a few months ago asking for the scientific basis of ID and I never got a clear answer. Those that come close have little grounding in science.
Again you are turning against ID because of people who hold to that
that! That is not giving ID a fair shake, should I reject evolution not
on the bases of evolution, but because I fiind someone who believes
in it to be an A$$ all together! That is brain dead thinking in my point
of view, you either look at the questions being asked by it or you
do not ...[text shortened]... hich I have yet seen the connection to when looking at just the
questions ID does ask.
Kelly
ID isn't accepted be the scientific community at large because it's not based on good science. If the questions asked by ID'ers we're valid and scientific then they'd have been published in a Independently peer reviewed journal. Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can tell there are no ID arguments published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. All the arguments I've ever heard for ID have always been poking holes in evolutionary theory and never presenting arguments of their own. This isn't how science works, thus its not science.
Answer me this when someone manages to combine proteins, amino acids etc. into life under lab circumstances which can be taken as representative of a natural environment. Then what? Will the ID'ers give over? No what they'll do, which is what they always do. Is poke holes in accepted scientific theories.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by MissOleumI vote None of the Above--this thread is fine right where it is.
This thread is currently in the Science forum. I'd like to hear opinions on where it belongs:
A. Science forum, because it's a serious discussion of a scientific nature.
B. Spirituality forum, because it involves non-scientific concepts and serious discussion of belief systems.
C. General forum, because it's clearly intended as a frivolous entert ...[text shortened]... onally go for C, so that the wider community can enjoy it, but that's just my 2c worth. 🙂
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by MissOleumI say (B). Take it to where it should be at the first time.
This thread is currently in the Science forum. I'd like to hear opinions on where it belongs:
A. Science forum, because it's a serious discussion of a scientific nature.
B. Spirituality forum, because it involves non-scientific concepts and serious discussion of belief systems.
C. General forum, because it's clearly intended as a frivolous entert ...[text shortened]... onally go for C, so that the wider community can enjoy it, but that's just my 2c worth. 🙂
Science Forum is infested with religious garbage. Science should be a religion free place where science things could be discussed.
Religious people have their place. They don't like science peoplle go there, science people don't want religious people go here.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI reject ID because it's so full of unverifiable statements as to be laughable. For instance, if there was an intelligent designer, who designed it? You keep denying the connection between creationism and ID. In fact, despite your denials, they are one and the same.
So you reject ID because of people not because of the questions
and answers that abound in the idea?
Kelly
The other thing about ID, the ID'ers and creationists have no real interest in science. If they won in court and forced the rest of the world to recant evolution and such, they would drop ID in a heartbeat and go back to the good old biblical tales they have been spoon fed all their pitiful brainwashed life. There is no 'science' in ID, the main agenda is to destroy evolution theory, to beat it out of existance so their incredibly stupid tale about how we got here is beaten into the heads of every child on the planet. That is the ultimate goal and don't kid yourself for a second there is anything else there but that. Once that happens, there will be no more ID, its back to GOD and the Almighty and all that BS. And if you are offended, frankly, I don't give a dam.
15 Apr 08
I think that ID is the modern alternate idea of darwinism. ID is in theory shared but all those who believe that a supreme creator is looking over the world. Although only Christians embrace it, it applies to religions that have a "sustainer". Thus ID is not science but is the strongest counter-argument.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasID is pseudoscience. It could be science, but the ID people are too afraid to make falsifiable predictions.
Still, Intelligence Design is nothing but religion. You have to believe in it, you need to have faith in it, and therefore it doesn't mean that ID is even near the truth.
Bring this thread to Spirituality! It's religion and Spirituality is the place for it.