Interesting report on debate between ID/Evolution

GT, you are repeating errors over and over because of not letting my responses inform you. i could have a conversation with a wall too, but i prefer sentient human beings. your choice to ignore responses and keep repeating soundbytes don't make you look like an open minded scientist, but an ideologue.
 
Here is how I break it down...

If the little Mars Rover was trucking around one day and came upon a cluster of rocks that were laid out on the surface in such a way as to spell out, "OU Sucks!" then we would reasonably conclude that these rocks did not randomly place themselves in such a formation. Therefore, some outside intelligent force arranged them in that manner, and all the Scientists of the world would proclaim in bold print that INTELLIGENT LIFE EXISTS ON MARS!

Now, how much more complex and wonderful is the design of a human being (or any living thing for that matter) compared to an arrangement of rocks. Yet we are somehow in the name of Science unwilling to consider the possibility of an intelligent designer?

Or should we evaluate and theorize about the origins of life and the universe using Science as long as we first agree that the evidence cannot lead us to an eternal creator.

Because that would be religion.

And that would be bad.

Because it requires only scientific reasoning and insight to conclude that life formed itself out of nothing, that order came from disorder, and that through evolution and/or random chance and probability we advanced from a single cell organism to a being capable of pondering our own existence.

No faith required there.
 
Thank you GM! very well said, i will be very curious to see how certain posters respond........after all, ONE cell has as much information as 30 volumes of the encyclopedia Britannica.......but somehow evolution was responsible for this? i am not opposed to the notion that evolution might have played a role, but to think that this was not guided somehow by some other principle (intelligence?) seems shockingly dense.
 
GM,

That argument is the main argument ID thinkers use. And that fact that you all think that way just proves that you completely miss the point on the whole idea of evolution and natural selection.

Evolution is the process of slowly mutating genetics within species that give those species certain characteristics....... both good and bad. The "good" genes make it a higher probability for a certain species to survive and reproduce while the "bad" genes does just the opposite. This is called natural selection. There are many species that we see today to be perfectly adapted to their environment to live in such extreme conditions. ID says this is evidence of a designer. But there have been many species that have gone extinct since they were not able to adapt with the "bad" characteristics they had. ID says this is evidence of a designer? Or least a bad designer? Or the designer had a brain fart? In the end, we end up seeing the "perfect biological" animals still living and reproducing today. This includes humans. While all the "imperfect biological" animals don't exist anymore.

Many humans have their own "bad designs" you know. There's cancer, diabetes, conjoined twins, born deaf, born blind, autism, dwarfism, ect. We are just fortunate now that science and society has provided a way for all of these imperfect humans a greater chance to live and reproduce.
 
UTbone, this is not a compelling argument, though very interesting. we can't rule out design just because we happen to not like the design we see. that would be absurd, plus that argument cuts both ways...after all, everything you have said about the possible designer could also be said about natural selection and anything you might use to resurrect the reputation of natural selection could also be said about the designer. at the end of the day, if the evidence points to a designer, we should allow for that in the discussion, to reject the notion a priori is bad science.

we don't have to have tests for the designer to know there was one present. to borrow from an earlier example, if we saw rocks on Mars that spelled words, we wouldn't need to know anything about the designer except that they existed and knew the language in which they ordered the rocks. but even if we never found any other evidence for them, we would all agree that intelligence was behind them.
 
Plus science does not necessarily have to only deal with the natural. Theoretically science could be used on supernatural things as long as it was observable, testable, and reproducible. For example, if I concentrated my mind and things moved, I could theoretically conduct an experiment where level of concentration, mass of object, etc could be investigated in relation to my "ability".

I think science is best understood as a method of observing, testing , reproducing any cause/effect regardless of the nature of the phenomena. With that said, science is used to observe nature and I don't know of supernatural phenomena for which the scientific method could be used to gain understanding. My point is that is could. Science and the supernatural are not necessarily unrelated.
 
Still around. I keep up with all the discussions, but only reply if I think I can add something valuable.

As for my latest reply above, who knows how valuable that is.
 
One is based on science one is not. If you start with any premise other than that you are starting the discussion with the belief in a false premise.
 
summer, you are going to have to explain because that does not make sense with our conversation. allowing for intelligence in no way outside of the realms of science as evidenced by other areas of science which do just that (recognize intelligence when it has been involved). i mentioned forensics earlier, but anthropology is another area that sometimes recognizes and determines intelligence when dealing with primitive tools for instance (deciding whether or not they were formed naturally or by the means of intelligence).....
 
Mona
Good to see you back.

Re your example, if it was observable, it wouldn't be supernatural. It would be natural. I guess this is the dividing line. Part of the real observable natural world: natural.

Just a semantic point, nothing more.
 
NBmisha, fair enough, but i think what Mona meant was the fruit of design could be observable right? as in his example of telekinesis, you could observe the effects of it even though you may not be able to observe the mechanism. of course, we aren't able to observe the assumed mechanism of natural selection either, but we see the effects and observe them.
 
Thanks for the welcome NBMisha,

However, I don't believe something being observable makes it totally natural. If I am able to move something via supernatural means, then it is an example of the supernatural effecting the natural. Right? There is some interaction with the natural world but supernatural agents are acting and evident. For example, if you witnessed a dead person being brought back to life there would be unmistakably a supernatural occurrence which is observable due to the effect on the natural body. I am not saying you could necessarily conduct an experiment on a one time a occurrence though.
 
mop,

You still do not understand my argument and the essential reason why ID is not an accepted theory in the scientific community. It's all just a play on definitions of science and ID. You said that ID does not really mean supernatural. While I say that it does invoke a supernatural force. Whatever it is, I already said that if indeed ID can be proven to be a natural occurrence then it would be the biggest discovery in science which it should be. But from that I hope you agree at least that if it (or anything else) is of supernatural nature then it should have no place in the science class.

As far as "if there is evidence pointing towards ID, science should accept it", I agree with that too as long as its natural evidence and can be tested by the scientific method. But as far as I know, the only "evidence" is that the probability of complexity forming from randomness is very very low, therefore some Intelligence is responsible. If theres more and better evidence that points to ID then that will make this idea much stronger in favor of being taken seriously in the scientific community and ultimately taught in science class. It's how Darwin's theory of evolution is now taught in science class and also how String theory is slowly making its way up there. This is not just my personal opinion, it's how the whole scientific method works. And I'm not going to debate if you think the scientific method works another way. But if ID can present more evidence than just it's current "theory", I say bring it on.

And I got into this ever since the Dover trial in 2005 where ID was shot down on being taught in science class. I was impressed by the amount of evidence the evolution side brought to the case, but I was even more impressed that all of that evidence vs. the ID evidence was able to convince Republican Judge John E. Jones that "ID is not science."

But if Michael Behee and any other pro-ID scientists can provide more legitimate scientific evidence for ID, then they deserve to win the Nobel Prize. And then it would be taught in public schools. Until then, it's deservedly so that ID is kept out of high school science books.
 
For those of you who think MOP has a point about intelligent design not being about God as the intelligent designer:

William Dembski - "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

The Link

Philip Johnson - "If Darwinism is true, Christian metaphysics is a fantasy." (Nancy Pearcey, quoting a 2002 interview of Phillip Johnson, p. 228)

Jonnathan Wells -"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism,"

Oh, it's often said that the best way of determining motivation is to follow the money. One of the top money-givers to the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmannson, Jr a leading figure in the Chriostian Reconstructionist movement.

"My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
The Link





texasflag.gif
 
Bones,

All of the items you list like electromagnetism, tornadoes, etc. can be studied and understood without accepting evolution.

You all act like IDers and creationists are against science. We aren't. We are against a single theory. I use science in my job every day. My disbelief in evolution has ZERO affect on my capability. That is a strawman argument. At least be reasonable and thoughtful in your argumentation.

You're right. The scientific method is great. And a Christian creationist Francis Bacon is the one who formalized it in the Western world.
 
GT, sometimes i feel embarrassed for you because you have such painfully lousy arguments. nothing you said here addresses what i said. i have said that many of the main ID proponents do believe that the designer is God, but that ID itself, in no way requires such. that's my point and your weak challenge doesn't change that at all. now try critiquing ID and not your lame ad hominem and lame straw man arguments.
 
bone...if you are going to try and mock my post, at least get the language correct........

the word is SPECIFIED complexity, not specific complexity. i told you what it was and you didn't even begin to respond to it, so try again. your pitiful representation of ID was a butcher job or a straw man fallacy.


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top