Intelligent design

[BEAKER]

The classic blind wisemen groping at an elephant analogy.

sounds sensual.:Glasses:

[TRoutMac]

Actually, your logic falls into the same all or none trap to which a lot of your ID arguments fall prey. You ignore all the shades of grey. Maybe all religions have different degrees of truth. One gets it mostly right, a few more get some different things right, etc. The classic blind wisemen groping at an elephant analogy.

 

You need to re-read what I wrote and think a little deeper before you jump to conclusions.

 

Notice I specifically said I was using "religion" in the broadest sense. That means I'm not limiting my statement to only those religions which have already been established or recognized. I'm including any religion you can hypothetically dream up. And that means you can include within "religions" any hypothetical religion which is an amalgamation of select beliefs of extant religions that someone might deem "true". If this "hypothetical" religion is "true", then all other religions are false… even those religions which contributed portions of their beliefs… the portions which were deemed "true" by the creator of this hypothetical amalgam. For even a religion which consists of much truth can be deemed false if it contains only a single falsehood.

 

Sorry, Erasmus, there's simply no escaping the truth of my statement. It is utterly reasonable and logical. Either all religions are false and we're all just deluding ourselves, or there's one religion out there somewhere that's true. Multiple religions cannot be literally true simultaneously. Simple logic. No denying it.

[Erasmus00]

For even a religion which consists of much truth can be deemed false if it contains only a single falsehood.

 

Here is where we part ways. I approach truth like a scienctist, bits and pieces building slowly overtime. You approach truth as an all or nothing. Merely a matter of semantics, I suppose.

-Will

[McGyver]

These are two important questions posed to people who believe in intelligent design.

 

What, if any, predictions does intelliegent design make?

 

What, if any, testable, falsifiable experiments are possible, as in, what would disprove intelligent design?

 

Please, to those of you who think that intelligent design is legitimate science, answer these questions.

 

I won't claim to be sufficiently familiar with the "New Intelligent Design" model, but I'll share some food for thought. As a general rule, I prefer not to join or support the religous Right-mania that has gripped the U.S. in recent years. But as a centrist, I am always willing to challenge ANY argument or perspective. So - I will raise my doubts as to a 100% belief in the evolution of Darwinism as the absolute that placed modern man here.

 

I clearly recall my early days studying biology and Darwin - and was always a bit unsettled in how Darwin used the evolution of plant, animal, and earth to theorize that humans evolved in the same manner. Evolutionists have had plenty of time now to come up "clear and convincing" evidence that ties humans around the globe with early Neanderthal man. We pieces of history going bacl 5000-8000 years, yet we're still trying to figure out if there ever was an advanced civilization called Atlantis. Why can't we verify this?

 

I postulate that the real truth may be a combination of Evolution and Intelligent Design (though I'm not familiar w/ its specifics). I raise doubt as to modern humans that are here today - are the direct descendants of ancient man described in evolution. Modern man may have come here only in the last 5000-10,000 years - possibly from space particles bringing them to earth, or perhaps some Intelligent Design mirraculous placement, or even via some higher life form - UFO's.

 

What has always raised my curiousity is why some civilizations (of the last 5000-10,000 years) have been so advanced, and why others almost barbaric in comparison. As a scientist, how could multiple civilizations on the same planet be some vastly different - unless, they came from a different source. There are many spiritual writings of the earlier civilizations which have raised propsects of powerful beings from beyond, albeit UFOs ofa God. Some religions emphatically embrace reincarnation and the belief of other life forms on other planets - as a system of spiritual existance before reaching some final end point, or Heaven.

 

There certainly have been far more than ample amount of miraculous type or unexplainable events by the "physical sciences." The totality of all what I've discussed above - then raises DOUBT as to modern Evolutionary Theory as a 100% verifiable truth, as there was always some sciwentific "speculation" in Darmin, just as there was very much in the Adam and Eve/7 days of Creation argument. I don't recall when Darminism ever tried to explain the origins of modern "spiritual occurances," I suspect because at that time man and science lacked the technology necessary for reporting and validation. It has really been only in the last 50 years that we are more able to study and report on Spiritual Incidents - yet I remain susprised that modern science is yet to scientifically verify these events - almost in the same manner modern medicine of the West has refused to knowledge other forms of "healing."

 

I postulate that we have entered into a period where there will be increasing signs and measureable events of Spirituality, meaning, modern science will be unable to explain these "events" or phenomenon. Perhaps within the next 10 to 20 years, science will finally verify the existance of a God and Spiritual dimensions and forces. After all, after Einstein wrote his Theory of Relativity, he then postulated the Super-String Theory - that haunated him 30 years until his death. He was certain there were at least 10 ( maybe 25) or more "dimensions" which were co-existing with matter - and that is where I believe science and spirit oc-exist. He also believed in the "after-life" - as it followed his theory that energy was neither created nor destroyed, therefore some spirit form of the person/intelliect must continue on.

 

I hope what I've raised is sufficient argument of doubt as to Darwinism being 100% corroborated, as opposed to parts having been postulated. I have personally experienced and observed events that are yet to be explained by modern science. Until that day happens - I can only postuate such events were due to Spirit or a God. Yet, I see it as a "moot point" to try to argue who's God, or which book, or which set of rules, is the absolute truth. As a scientist, I must hold out for corroboration of those eventual answers.

 

"Faith" is simply believing, based upon scientific study and observation, that some "day" all these answers will come, and the Fullness of Life revealed.

 

Stephen Dolle

Dolle Communications

http://www.diaceph.com

[ldsoftwaresteve]

TroutMac:

It would appear, then, that you believe that all religions, or that any religion, is merely a concoction and contrivance of mankind. A sort of "pacifier" to help us get through life feeling secure. Perhaps you believe, as many folks do, that each of us has our own personal "fairy-tale" which we can craft and shape to our liking and that my fairy tale is just as "true" as anyone else's. I have my fairy tale and you have your fairy tale.

 

Well, there are several problems with this. For one thing, I dunno about you, but I regard purposeful self-deception as extremely unhealthy. With that said, it's apparent that anyone with the view that we can merely "whip up" our own set religious beliefs and that those beliefs are just as true as any other religion is really advocating willful self-deception.

I do like the way you cut to the heart of the problem. Yes, I do believe that religion is a concoction and contrivance of mankind. Why is that bad? It serves a purpose just like my house, this keyboard and my car. I believe that the stories in the Bible are meant to teach moral guidelines. And that is precisely why science should enter into this realm or rather, why logic and reason should.

Science abdicates the entire moral arena. It does not provide a standard of good. It does not provide a road to virtue. It simply pretends they don't exist.

It's a hell of a lot easier to provide an allegory about a man doing good deeds than it is to teach how morality and virtue are tied to survival but in the end the value we must attain is survival and that requires that we co-exist.

And every rational person seems to need to know they are good. They need to know that inside themselves and when they look in the mirror. It's natural to want to be happy. Religion provides a standard of good.

Are we designed? Are we some wonderful accident? The truth is we don't know. You make wonderful arguments for ID and others seem to make good arguments against it. But whatever the truth is, it isn't dependent on our seeing it. It will stand alone with or without our acceptance.

[TRoutMac]

Here is where we part ways. I approach truth like a scienctist, bits and pieces building slowly overtime. You approach truth as an all or nothing. Merely a matter of semantics, I suppose.

 

I think you would agree that science and math are inextricably linked. That is, both rely on rigorous logic. I said that "even a religion which consists of much truth can be deemed false if it contains only a single falsehood." and it appears that you disagree with this. Let's take a math problem that has you add up 10 numbers to arrive at a sum… let the math problem represent a religion, and let each number represent some basic tenet of that religion. To get a "false" answer as a sum, you need only make one tiny mistake in addition along the way. That is, even a tiny mistake (untruth) yields a false answer. The point is, you are quite accustomed to the idea that one falsehood amongst much truth yields a falsehood.

 

Another analogy: Your teenage girl gets home late, way past curfew. Her story is that she went to this place, that place and the other place with her friend Julia. But you find out that she went to this place, that place and the other place with her boyfriend Mike. Her story is a lie even if the only falsehood in it is the identity of the person she was with.

 

This is reasoning we're all quite comfortable with until, it would seem, we get into the realm of religion. Then, suddenly it seems that nobody wants to admit a religion might be false, and nobody wants to admit that only one religion can actually be literally true.

[TRoutMac]

TroutMac: I do like the way you cut to the heart of the problem. Yes, I do believe that religion is a concoction and contrivance of mankind. Why is that bad? It serves a purpose just like my house, this keyboard and my car.

 

It's bad because if you're right and every religion is false and yet you continue to be active in a particular religion, then you're knowlingly living a lie. I've never heard anyone say that self-deception is good for mental health. Your house, your car and your keyboard are real. You rely on them because they are real. Imagine a person who believed they lived in a house, had a computer and had a car but had neither. Wouldn't you question their mental health?

 

I believe that the stories in the Bible are meant to teach moral guidelines. And that is precisely why science should enter into this realm or rather, why logic and reason should.

 

But if all religions are false, then there's really no reason to be moral. Is it better for our society that we be moral? Of course. But if all religions are false, and our existence has no meaning from any outside authoritative source (the Intelligent Designer) then quite literally, "Life's a ***** and then you die." So who really cares?

 

Secondly, obviously there's much disagreement about what should be moral and immoral. If all religions are false, and yet religions are where we get our sense of morality, aside from the fact that our sense or morality has no real basis, what happens when a religion appears which has morals which clearly conflict with, for example, Biblical morals? How do you decide which set of morals prevails?

 

I do not accept the idea that science and religion must disagree with each other. Science, or the "ideal" of science, pursues truth about our natural world. (notice I said "pursues" truth) A religious book like, say, the Bible doesn't have the pursuit of knowledge about our natural world as a central objective. But, the Bible does make some incidental statements which invade a particular area(s) of scientific research. This sets up a potential conflict. But if science honestly pursues the truth and if the Bible is truthful in everything it reports (I realize many of you disagree… this is just a hypothetical) then at times science and the Bible will agree.

 

If anyone thinks that science should go out of its way to avoid reaching conclusions which might lend credibility to the Biblical account, that person has departed from the ideal of science. They will not follow the evidence wherever it leads, and consequently they are no longer oriented toward the pursuit of truth.

 

Science abdicates the entire moral arena. It does not provide a standard of good. It does not provide a road to virtue. It simply pretends they don't exist.

 

I have no problem with this. I don't believe science and religion should join forces. And the fraud of macro-evolution is a good example of what happens when this happens. Evolution is a religion… in its purest form, it pushes a philisophical ideal or agenda which is that we have no purpose, there is no supreme being, we are not accountable to anything larger than ourselves. That is as much a religion as anything else, because it's faith-based.

[Edge]

Even when it's true that only one or no religion can be totally true on a literal sense, the question is: which religion is required to get salvation? or to put it better: does god really care if I'm catholic, christian ortodox, jew, baptist, muslim, etc.?

 

I don't think god would care, but hey, that's just my assumption. I can be wrong.

[TRoutMac]

Even when it's true that only one or no religion can be totally true on a literal sense, the question is: which religion is required to get salvation? or to put it better: does god really care if I'm catholic, christian ortodox, jew, baptist, muslim, etc.?

 

Well, of course that assumes that salvation is necessary in the first place… some don't agree on that. Obviously, I personally do believe there is a necessity for "salvation".

 

I don't think god would care, but hey, that's just my assumption. I can be wrong.

 

Well, of course, no one can prove what's in God's mind or intentions, ultimately. The best we have to go by is the Bible, and while I believe the Bible is the inerrant divinely inspired Word of God, certainly not everyone believes that. Apart from the Bible, if we even agree there is a God, all we can do is speculate as to his intentions or requirements.

 

Having said that, it seems emminently reasonable to expect that if this God created us for a purpose, then He does have certain expectations of us. If, however, God created us for no specific purpose, then it's reasonable to expect that he couldn't care less. Question is, did He create us for a purpose? In my mind, all evidence points to "yes."

 

The problem that many people have with Christianity, it seems, is that people have been given an impression that God is an entity who "expects much and excuses little." Even some Christians perpetuate this misunderstanding, and it's a real shame because that's simply not what the Bible describes.

 

Since you brought up "salvation", the Bible describes a God which has devised a way to excuse humans for every transgression and allow them irrevocable, permanent, eternal existence with Him. The key is, there is only one way, and that's God's way. (Again, Biblically speaking) We can't make our own path to that salvation. We either choose the solution God's provided us, or we do not. There are no eternal consequences to be suffered for the transgressions we've committed. But, according to the Bible, there are eternal consequences for not accepting the solution God's provided. That's the strict Biblical understanding, anyway.

 

Most people, particularly those who are not Christian, have a different understanding and I think that understanding is largely the basis on which they reject Christianity. And quite frankly, assuming that understanding was correct I think I wouldn't blame them. It seems that these folks, perhaps some of you even, have the impression that if they don't measure up to God's standard of morality, then they go to Hell. They see this (quite correctly, in my view) as an impossible and unreasonable expectation and they see Christian 'celebrities' failing miserably to meet that same standard, and they see (some, even many) Catholic preists who are supposed to be "holy" wrapped up in pedophelia, and they quite reasonably cry out "hypocrite!". Again, I can't blame them. It seems that they see clearly that if "salvation" depends upon us meeting God's moral standard, we'll never make it. And I think on that point they're quite correct.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

TroutMac:

It's bad because if you're right and every religion is false and yet you continue to be active in a particular religion, then you're knowlingly living a lie. I've never heard anyone say that self-deception is good for mental health. Your house, your car and your keyboard are real. You rely on them because they are real. Imagine a person who believed they lived in a house, had a computer and had a car but had neither. Wouldn't you question their mental health?

Everyone practices some form of religion and that's my point. Even the people who say they don't, do. Anyone who attempts to do whatever they're doing well, is practicing religion: they're trying to be good. And it's to this sense of the term that I am referring. Morality and being good at what one does are not normally considered the same thing and therein lies the dichotomy in the use of the term 'good'. This is the big failing of science and is where it opens a breach between 'success' (survival) and 'goodness' (morality). It is into this breach that the wedge of guilt is driven to manipulate on behalf of the 'meek'. Whatever the form, the intent is always the same: get the wealth and power to flow toward the center of moral authority.

Our success in dealing with existence and surviving is to me the measure of our goodness and is the foundation of morality. That is not the way religion sees morality.

But it should be.

[TRoutMac]

Everyone practices some form of religion and that's my point. Even the people who say they don't, do. Anyone who attempts to do whatever they're doing well, is practicing religion: they're trying to be good.

 

Religion is man's strategies for gaining favor with God (or gods, as the case may be) by virtue of their works, behavior, morality, rituals, etc. Not that Christians don't make an attempt to "be good", but Christianity doesn't fall under this category, strictly speaking. In Christianity, humans are not capable of "earning" the favor of God by virtue of their works, morality, etc. That's spelled out in the Bible. Works and morality are ultimately not an issue. The only issue in terms of "salvation" (as taught Biblically) is the belief in Christ as described in the New Testament.

 

Our success in dealing with existence and surviving is to me the measure of our goodness and is the foundation of morality. That is not the way religion sees morality. But it should be.

 

Again, you seem to be approaching this under the assumption that we are suitably equipped to determine what is good. As though we are some sort of authority on the matter. Certainly, we all have our ideas of what constitutes "good". But that's just our subjective opinion. Shouldn't we be at all curious about what the Intelligent Designer's idea of "good" is? If there was an Intelligent Designer that created the universe and us, and all living things, don't you think that just maybe we ought to consider that Intelligent Designer to be an authority? Maybe even a greater authority than us? I mean, after all, who created who? How arrogant would we have to be to think we had more authority than the entity who created us?

 

To suggest that we can create a religion requires that we think that we are the ultimate authority, the ultimate discerners of truth. That we create truth, in fact. What science is discovering is that there's very good evidence that, well, we're not. And that's what bothers folks so much about Intelligent Design. It lends scientific credibility to the idea that we are not the ultimate authority. And that really offends some people.

[TRoutMac]

I postulate that the real truth may be a combination of Evolution and Intelligent Design (though I'm not familiar w/ its specifics).

 

I agree with this statement, but define it as follows: We have evidence for micro-evolution, we have no evidence for macro-evolution. Furthermore, it would appear that natural selection would render macro-evolution impossible for reasons I have discussed at great length in this topic. Therefore, I accept that the Intelligent Designer designed a genetic system with built-in variability up to a point. Want a picture of the scope of variability? Look at dog breeds. All dog breeds are descended from one dog species. (some say wolves… it appears the answer isn't quite clear) but that genome contained all the information from which to develop, through intelligently-directed "artificial selection" (selective breeding) a range of breeds from a chihuahua to a great dane. Quite a span of diversity. But the line is drawn at the boundary of the dog species. Something other than a dog requires an entirely new set of instructions (genome).

[ldsoftwaresteve]

TroutMac:

Again, you seem to be approaching this under the assumption that we are suitably equipped to determine what is good. As though we are some sort of authority on the matter.

I'm sorry TroutMac but that is a silly statement. How many books at the base of how many religions have been written by us? Someone took it upon themselves to write down the 'commandments'.

I know you think they came down via thunderbolts or private conversations but....I hope your entire structure doesn't rest on that. I don't want to cause you to lose your context and your certainty. That's up to you when and if you choose to do that.

The fact is we don't have morality handed to us. We choose it. We choose to be good, whatever that rests upon. If it's grounded in reality, then it's rational. If it isn't, well, that's not safe and ultimately should lead to pain and suffering.

I guess my point about all of this is that for us to be GOOD we need a moral code. For us to survive (as a species), we need to be rational. We have never created a religion openly and noisely based upon rationality. All I'm saying is that we should.

With respect to GOD, if he/she/it exists, were we the results of his design, that would be exactly how he'd want us to approach the subject. He'd want us to stay within our nature (as designed) and that would mean we'd have to be rational. Since we enter the world without knowing our standard of good, he'd want us to identify what it is by using the tools we've been given. And if that means we need a religion for that, so be it.

If we haven't been designed, then everything I've just said holds true too. So either way, we need a rational religion.

The only way to combat religious irrationality is to create one that isn't.

We've abdicated that long enough.

[BEAKER]

Someone took it upon themselves to write down the 'commandments'.

I know you think they came down via thunderbolts or private conversations but.....

Actually it was the finger of God on stone.

 

You're right; we choose to be good.

 

But what is good is not good because we decided it should be.

[TRoutMac]

The fact is we don't have morality handed to us.

 

No, this is a silly statement. Silly because you're claiming it as fact and yet you have nothing to base that fact on but faith. Faith that we have created our notion of morality; faith that it was not handed to us. It's just your opinion, stated as though it were a fact, as though you have some authority on the matter.

 

Now, to be fair, I cannot prove that morality was handed to us. I believe it, but cannot prove it. But I'm not about to say "the fact is" morality is handed to us because I cannot prove it.

[goku]

But I'm not about to say "the fact is" morality is handed to us because I cannot prove it.

i'll say it

the fact is morality was handed to us, my proof?

morality was not handed to the animals

 

you see, humans are different from animals

someone, or something if you perfer, made us that way

 

some may say that evolution made us that way, but, the difference is so great that humans would have had to evolve on a different planet.

[TRoutMac]

the fact is morality was handed to us, my proof? morality was not handed to the animals

 

This is a very good point, however I still wouldn't call it proof. Understand, however, I believe you're right. I believe that is strong evidence that we were given morality. I don't think anyone would claim that morality was given to animals, or certainly that animals don't exhibit any desire to adhere to any concept of morality. Just watch "Wild Kingdom" once or twice.

 

you see, humans are different from animals. someone, or something if you perfer, made us that way

 

I do believe you are precisely correct… I think it's an excellent point. Why are humans the only ones that evolved to this point? And why have some species ceased to "evolve"?

 

Last March, the fossils of what were described as "the earliest species of sea turtle, believed to be 110 million years old," were discovered in Queensland, Australia. The scientists were surprised at how little the sea turtles had changed in 110 million years. They had not evolved. This didn't shake their faith in evolution, however, nor did it shake their faith in their dating methods. No, instead, they concluded that sea turtles represent a highly evolved species – one that perfected its evolution 100 million years ago and never bothered to change because change was unnecessary.

 

South Australian Museum paleontologist Ben Kear said this:

"For all intents and purposes, if you were to see one (of these fossils) they would look basically the same as sea turtles do today… Sea turtles have hit on the winning design and they've stuck to it. They've cracked the winning code, as it were, and it's enabled them to survive when other creatures haven't."

 

What a crock of baloney. Sea turtles have never evolved our kind of intelligence, have they? Why not? The only reason these "scientists" think the fossils are 110 million years old is because they were found in rock that scientists believe is 110 million years old. They don't dare question their precious little dating methods.

 

It's so ridiculous it's downright comical. If macro-evolution has any legitimacy at all, these sea turtles should be building spaceships by now. Do they mean to tell me that human-like intelligence would only be a benefit to humans? It's not useful to any other species? Give me a break. The wheels are comin' off, folks. The wheels are comin' off.

 

Good comments, Goku.