Intelligent Design POLL

[TheFaithfulStone]

Why so narrow a request? Let's expand that list, shall we?

 

Except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who we all know exists and is watching over us with His Noodly Appendage.

 

We know this because midgets exists, and no biological process could possibly have created midgets. Therefore, Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

His pastaness is beyond argument or reproach.

 

Touched by his noodly appendage.

TFS

[MagnetMan]

I have always believed in ID. But after the last few posts my Faith is under severe strain.:shrug:

[Buffy]

According to my research, there is far more concrete and verifiable evidence that Santa, the EB and the FSM are the actual intelligence behind the universe's design than any "watery tart with a sword" or long haired dude who talked funny and acted like David Blaine. We have photos of all three of them widely available, and I have personally met both Santa and the EB, as opposed to vague widely divergent paintings of the various long lost gods. Even if you haven't met him, have you ever noticed how *consistent* Santa always looks? And he wears normal pants with a belt and a coat, not silly robes and bare feet. Which one is more likely to be the real Designer? Occam would surely vote for Santa.

 

Does our government show evidence of intelligent design?

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Ahem... I was very hurt to read this thread. As an skeptic of the ID theory, I was surprised to see the shear viciousness displayed here by my peers. I have noted, none to pleasantly, a trend here on Hypography of immediately discounting without real effort thoughts, ideas, and methodologies put forth by some of our less than, or more than scientific memebers.

 

While reading ID I realized that ID mostly agrees with my own theorm of the Universe, God, the Devil and Bob. I have, within my beliefs a way to prove that god exists, and some would call it unscietific I suppose, however I make every attemp to meld together ideaologies and to constantly grow, adapt and learn the next question to ask.

 

I find that an alarming ammount of people here seem to be of the belief that Science is not only the end all be all of human existance, but that it is suited for everyone and has ultimately all the answers. Science has no answers, only seemingly true speculation and assumetions. What science does have, and this is it's greatest strength is questions.

 

As a Religious Scientist I have to reiterate, I am appauled at the immoral, incompassionate behaivior and shear volume of snearing that has gone on in this thread alone. Are we Children here or are we Scientist? that goes not only for the normal people, that goes for the people who hold banning privillages. Do we not seek questions here people? If you have all the answers then why ask the questions?

 

Anyway I can prove that god exists, as fully as I can prove that I exist.

I think therefore I am. Thou art god, in his image and in his form, thou art true and eternal, though thou shalt fall frail and old, thou shall preserve in memory and deed. That I existed in the first place is proof enough. That mathematically and logically I can determine the Pattern of EVERY thing that exists, will exist and has ever existed.

 

I mean really, did anyone, whom is a critic, here actually read up on ID? I have heard allot of things said here and a good deal of them are patiently false. I have heard the Strawman arguement, something that a number of members are proud to be able to point out when others are using it against them, used here more than once or twice.

 

Is this not a place to discuss, as in exchange ideas, not fall into "No your wrong, gullible, and stupid for believing X." matches?

 

If you people are finished rolling your eyes and baring your teeth I would like to get to the part where we, rationally, reasonably and compassionately discuss the matter at hand, treating it with the same respect that we treat our highest esteemed belief.

 

/rant /soapbox

[Panjandrum]

Proove to me that god exists. And dont bother relying on Descartes, his famed 'Cogito ergo sum' actually ammounts to no more than "I think, therefore thinking exists".

[TheFaithfulStone]

As a Religious Scientist I have to reiterate, I am appauled at the immoral, incompassionate behaivior and shear volume of snearing that has gone on in this thread alone.

 

For the record, I don't care what you believe. If you want to believe in Intelligent Design, go right ahead. It may very well be true that we were intelligently designed by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an angry Jewish Guy, or an invisible pink unicorn. I don't know if it's true or not.

 

The point of the matter is that ID is NOT SCIENCE not that it's not true. There is NO WAY to find out. There is no irrefutable evidence of an intelligent designer (like you know, the bacteria flagellum is signed "YHWH" on the back or something) so you just have to go "Well, we can't explain it... must be an intelligent designer!"

 

It's an intellectually weak argument on it's face, and it doesn't get any better the deeper you get into it. Sure there's lots of evidence that the theory of evolution is incomplete, but there STILL isn't a signature. NOT ONE SINGLE DROP of positive evidence.

 

On the other hand, if you could design an experiment to CONTACT the intelligent designer, and ask him - "Hey yo! Why do men have nipples?" then you'd have a scientific theory.

 

But that's the not the point of ID is it? It's a wedge issue cover for people who want to push a particular agenda. It's one of those eminently reasonable suggestions, that why can we just acknowledge it wont hurt, you're being close minded, watch this hand, this one over here, It's not about God, it's about holes in the theory of evolution, this hand, this one, we have an explanation, we're not pushing any religion, look, look, this hand.

 

I suspect the motives of the ID pushers. I suspect their truthfulness.

 

I have no doubt about the worthlessness of their "science."

 

That's not being close minded, that's knowing what the rules of the science are.

 

TFS

[Edella]

For me,this sums it up:[ame]http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist.37012910[/ame]

[InfiniteNow]

As a Religious Scientist I have to reiterate, I am appauled at the immoral, incompassionate behaivior and shear volume of snearing that has gone on in this thread alone.

 

KAC,

 

This is a forum, so you will often encounter views contrary to your own. Some are expressed more kindly, and others more scathingly. I understand your concern. It's important, though, to know your audience. This is a site, on the web, with people who engage in science. This means that most statements will not be treated seriously unless supported by evidence and/or research. Some posters will articulate this better than others.

 

While I respect the strength of your thoughts on this topic, many people will challenge you and your logic if you say things like "I know God exists." If you want to help limit this type of response, perhaps soften statements like this with a disclaimer. "I do not seek to prove it to you, nor do I have a theory which could test it's validity, but I've decided to believe in God, and hence, for me, God exists." Along those lines. Statements like "I know" come across as arrogant to some.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[InfiniteNow]

On the other hand, if you could design an experiment to CONTACT the intelligent designer, and ask him - "Hey yo! Why do men have nipples?" then you'd have a scientific theory.

Actually, then you'd have a book.

 

 

Please remember that this is the theology forum, so scientific support will frequently be less available here than in the other forums. It is still important, however, to be respectful of everyone's thoughts and ideas. If you take issue with the way they present their ideas, then try offering suggestions as to how you feel they can better express them. Counter with reasons why you believe otherwise, and support those reasons. Attacking and using a demeaning tone is not the best approach, and usually serves only the purpose of a quick laugh.

 

Laughing is good, but is better when not at the expense of someone else and the way they approach the world. If you work on this, I promise that I will too.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Please remember that this is the theology forum,

 

Is it? So it is.

 

Well... good. This is the proper forum for discussing intelligent design then.

 

But, if someone want to defend ID from a theological standpoint, such as why is it theological preferable to just plain old fashioned "ruah" or evolution?

 

[seriously curious about this.]

 

TFS

[for those not in the Old Testament "know" ruah is the breath of God that animates Adam]

[IDMclean]

The point of the matter is that ID is NOT SCIENCE not that it's not true

 

I would like a substantiantion of this claim, in a essay form, please. I would like a well thought out analysis of why it is, more than:

The point of the matter is that ID is NOT SCIENCE not that it's not true. There is NO WAY to find out.

I currently do not have a good grasp of the theory, I am interested in exploring the merits and flaws of the theorm. I want to hear about methodology, and ideaology of the purposed system.

 

As I understand it, one of the pieces put forth by ID, is that the Creator is outside of the box and as such can not be observed from inside the box. This would be in agreement with the distinguish Mr. Hawkings. In Quantum physics it is a common technique, once again in my understanding, to infer results indirectly as you can not observe directly without altering the outcome of the event... am I incorrect in my understanding?

 

What I ment to say in my previous post is that I hear "It's not science cause I say so.", which is equally met with "It is science cause I say so." and I really don't hear a carefully thought out, and methodical disection of the theorm as put forth. As such I gain no greater understanding and can not make my descision. I remain a Skeptic to both claims.

 

I also, it is one of my goals to prove the existence of "god", as best as such a concept can be proved.

 

So far my evidence points me to the idea of the universe as such a creature. It matchs a number of criteria. "All seeing, all knowing." "Omnipresent" "All prevading to the depth of the soul" "Knowledge beyond the comprehension of mere man". This would all indicate the Universe, as it contains all these properties.

 

I am not saying that I can prove the model of god as a supernatural man on a throne in a impossible to perceive dimension, only visitable via death. However such a model disagrees with Scientific theory and as such is not amenable. God by the properties given has to exist within the universe, it may exist outside but that part is inconsequential. I am only concearned with the observable aspects of God.

 

Same reasoning goes for afterlife. As such I take from the buddhist teachings on this one. No ego survives death, All is Impermanent. All that I do here is limited to here and now. Karma, agrees with the Conservation theories. Hell and Heaven do not.

 

So if I define such that:

[math] G_{od} \equiv U \equiv 1[/math] (or zero I'm not sure)

then it becomes very much possible that god designed life. take for instance that if I make a stew of chemicals on another planet in another galaxy, such that this stew formed a DNA structure of Yellow Brown Algae, would it not be exactly like the Yellow Brown Algae here on earth, despite difference of locality?

[ughaibu]

But you wouldn't have created anything, other than in the artistic sense. These watchmaker arguments work more against than for creationism.

[IDMclean]

I'm not for creationism, as I believe personally that the universe exists in a sort of timeless state, having existed, existing and continuing to exist. Our language makes a distiguishment, however I'm not so sure that out side of our perceptions, time has no meaning.

 

However that isn't what my interest in this thread is about, I am interested in hearing people's objective interpetation of this theory. That is what is important to me right now. I am interested in hearing the facts, laid out, and a proper debate being put forth, comparing and contrasting the different fields of thought regarding this subject.

[ughaibu]

Intelligent design is a creationist implementation, if you're not talking about a creationist concept you will be misunderstood if using creationist terms. Pretty much everything that can be said about creationism has been said on this site, a lot of it has been said several times, I suggest you start by reading this thread: http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/4060-creationism-proof.html Damocles went to extraordinary lengths to comprehensively deal with all the issues raised.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I would like a substantiantion of this claim, in a essay form, please. I would like a well thought out analysis of why it is, more than:

It's not hard to "prove" Intelligent Design is not science.

 

This issue of whether it's science is independent of whether or not it's true and I think the issue of whether it's factually true is independent of whether it's (capital T) Truth.

 

But it isn't science for a simple reason - there is no experiment you can design that can disprove the theory.

 

For the quantum uncertainty thing you talk about it's pretty easy. The theory is that you can't know precisely both the position and the velocity of a given particle. The experiment is simple. Measure the position - do you know the velocity? Measure the velocity and check the position, the particle is not there anymore. If you could find both the velocity and position of a particle then Quantum Uncertainty could be disproved.

 

But, when we talk about Intelligent Design, no result falsifies the hypothesis. Let's say we meet aliens from Delta Pavonis. They are SUPER advanced. We ask them "Hey guys, did you design all life on earth and then remove all traces of yourself?"

 

The say "No." This doesn't disprove intelligent design, because we can say - "Must have been someone else."

 

Intelligent Design is not science because there is NO WAY to test it experimentally. It won't ever be science because the structure of the theory is such that it's impossible to design such an experiment.

 

Lots of people like to bust out String Theory here and talk about how there aren't any "experiments" you can do with String Theory, and that's true. But String Theory is "proto-science" there may eventually be an experiment we can do, there are people working on devising one right now.

 

So that's why Intelligent Design isn't science. Because there is no way to prove it wrong (or right) there's just a statement of "That's pretty wild."

 

TFS

 

[KAC btw, check out some Alfred North Whitehead if you're into panentheism, which it sounds like you are]

[IDMclean]

Sounds more like i'm into Panthemism, than Panentheism. You did better the seond time, I think I almost get the arguement against ID. I have to say that in my personal Perview anything outside my experience is inconsiquential. If there exists a heaven and hell, I don't give a rat's a$$. All I care about is that I'm a good person in the here and the now. I can't verify what will happen to me after I'm done here, so anything that happens afterwards is unimportant. I can go to hell if there is a vengeful and cruel god. I will go knowing that I did my best and that is all I could do. I am human, and to be human is to err, this I understand and forgive of myself.

 

I am not a creationist. I disagree with BB theory. I believe that the universe is a closed system, that is eternal, has had no begining will have no end. It will just be.

[Boerseun]

Hey, TFS - that was a pretty good post you had going there. I would've given you some rep for it, but it seems like I gotta spread the love around some.

 

Next time somebody's looking for the proof against ID, I'll just refer them to this post of yours.

 

Kudos!