Intelligent Design POLL

[questor]

Ugh, if you can offer a logical, sensible, verifiable explanation of events, i'm sure many people would be attracted to your theory. so let's get to it! let's hear what you have to say.

[ughaibu]

Thanks.

1) On the question of evidence, my theory explains four dimensional hyperspace, as this is an explanation of the basis of reality, my theory explains pretty much all effects observable within our reality. I have thus established a connection between the facts and my theory, something that intelligent design has yet to do.

2) Intelligent design fails the first logical objection, "what created the creator?". My theory predicts distortions in human understanding, it necessitates a paradoxical element of our reality, thus it explains any objections to itself.

3) Intelligent design fails as an explanation, it doesn't offer a 'how'. My theory directly explains how.

4) Intelligent design makes no suggestions as to how it can be investigated. My theory offers a clearly indicated route for investigation.

5) Intelligent design has no implications, there is nothing that can be done with it, eg mining intelligence from ore. My theory offers a possibility of directly knowing reality.

6) Intelligent design relies on two factors, the creator and the creation, that are completely unknown in nature, nothing even remotely similar or suggestive of anything similar is known. My theory relies on types and processes that for thousands of years have been known to exist. The upshot of this is that as my theory is drawn from the finite set of known objects and effects, whereas intelligent design is drawn from the infinite set of fantasy elements, my theory is infinitely more likely to be correct than is intelligent design.

Thus I have established that my theory is, in every way, superior to intelligent design.

My theory is that our reality is the consequence of poisoning by psychoactive yeast faeces.

Psychoachive yeast faeces has been known to exist, in the form of ethanol, for thousands of years, as have cases of yeast faeces toxicosis(6).

Yeasts are known to exist in a great variety of species, in all sorts of environments, including in and on the human body.

Alcohol poisoning is known to induce double vision, somewhat resembling hyperbolic geometries(1).

Alcohol is known to reduce intellectual functioning(2)(3).

I suggest a complete investigation of all yeasts, and their faeces, in the human ecosphere be undertaken(4).

If the culprit yeast is not an essential symbiont, reality can be directly explored via a yeast faeces free environment(5).

So, there you have it. Please, no more about ID, take to posting about PYFT from now on.

[Buffy]

I have not seen ID claimed as a science, but instead offered as an explanation of physical phenomenae which cannot be explained by scientific means.

That is a minority definition. The most common usage of intelligent design is to hide references to religion in a belief system in order to have it accepted as part of the science curriculum in schools. I am glad that you use a definition that is more in line with its only justifiable role, that is one that is *not* based on evidence.

there are different levels of approach and intelligence in proponents of ID and creationism which have all been lumped together and marked to be dismissed by people who wish to do so.

To clarify, its "Creation Science" that is lumped together with ID: and the derision is *solely* due to the fact that they are attempts to inject non-scientific belief systems into the science curriculum. To the extent that there are doctrinal differences between the groups--the 2006, issue 1 Skeptic magazine has an article on the 2005 Young Earth Creationist conference at Liberty University in which there were several talks highly critical of ID because of its intellectual consessions to Evolution--you're right, they might not be equivalent world-views, but it is their mutual effort against science that puts them in the same boat and is *all* that is being attacked:

i think the basis of this dismissiveness is the problem many have with the concept of God, which has been rejected by many.

And I must point out that belief in God is *not at all* inconsistent with science or Evolution, and to say so is both intellectually dishonest and offensive, although it is by far one of the most common retorts of supporters of both Creation Science and ID: Just scream "unbeliever" or "apostate" at anyone who doesn't agree with you. Very effective debating tactic, but it won't win over many people.

if there is no clear answer for either side, the preponderance of evidence is the only thing to rely on.

This is science, not the law. While in a legal setting a judge must make a decision even when there is not enough evidence to qualify as "certain", the scientific method insists that leaving things as "we just don't know" is perfectly fine. This is *very difficult* for many because it is human nature to want to understand "life, the universe and everything", and it can be very emotionally dissatisfying. This is where meta-physics, belief systems and religions come in to fill the void. There is nothing wrong with that, but I'll note that there's just as much derision and dismissiveness within this area that is also hurtful: I am sometimes branded as a devil worshiping pagan--although my belief system has none of these attributes--simply because I don't believe that a particular popular God is the true one. But back to the point, the problem comes down to your statement: the position that *any* explanation is valid science when its *only* proposed evidence is not acceptable science even if the evidence is ever found is never going to be scientific, and to try to foist it upon science to its detriment is not a good thing.

 

So, arguments such as this:

when the day comes that all events are understood and explained, that is the day this argument will disappear. until then, neither side can claim to be ''scientific''.

...are a gross and self-serving misstatement of the scientific method: it is a claim that any view is possible because there is doubt about existing theories, and nothing is scientific until everything is known. That serves the purposes of those who wish to use science to prove the "truth" of their personal belief systems, but it harms science and the intellectual progression of mankind.

 

Truth, justice and the American Way,

Buffy

[sebbysteiny]

Hey that's rather Sharp.

 

I see it more like this:

All of human understanding is a binary tree, that has grown VERY large. By finding what makes up each node, one can determine that teir of nodes and move on down to analyzing the next set of nodes, and you can keep doing this and keep doing this, and you will through careful analysis find the structure of each little system, while at the same time missing the fact that you are slowly traversing a massive tree.

 

In my view all things arise from one. All patterns result fractically, and all fractials result from a dualism of the one.

 

So perhaps it's an attempt at combinding Metaphysic(the view of the Whole, of the one.) with that of physics(the view of the subsystems of the Whole, of the one.).

 

This is what we view as intelligence, like PgrmDave said:

 

 

My humble opinion and personal perspective, take and leave from it whatever you will.

 

 

Step 1) Knowledge seems to have lots of facets to it. I now imagine in my head a beautiful tree of knowlege.

Step 2) That tree I made up looks nice.

Step 3) Therefore God exists / there is an intellegence designing things.

 

There is no combination of metaphyics and physics here. Leaps of faith supporting a devine creator are, and will always be, metaphysics.

 

Your entitled to your humble opinion and beliefs, but don't start pretentending your faith entitles you to play with the big boys in the real world who actually try to determine (and with great success) truth.

[sebbysteiny]

I have not seen ID claimed as a science, but instead offered as an explanation of physical phenomenae which cannot be explained by scientific means.

stage 1) notice some physical phenomenae that science has not yet explained probably due to insufficient resources.

stage 2) conclude 'science doesn't know yet'

stage 3) therefore it must be god / ID.

 

if there is no clear answer for either side, the preponderance of evidence is the only thing to rely on.

 

when the day comes that all events are understood and explained, that is the day this argument will disappear. until then, neither side can claim to be ''scientific''.

 

Hows this for evidence. Almost every battle between ID supporters (religious nutters trying to do their bit for Jesus by spreading disinformation and ignorence) and scientists has later been proven to be as the scientists explain. I think the score is about 150,000 - 0 to science over religion / ID.

 

ID theororists are like nagging babies who constantly ask stupid questions until the parent just gives up and then, when they reach the point say 'see I know whilst you don't, it's god', only to later find out that it was not god so they start the process again. The trick is to overwhelm the science community with stupid questions.

 

Asking stupid questions is not 'scientific'. 'Scientific' is going out with measuring instruments and coming up with new theories until you can fully explain the mechanisms behind what you were discovering. Just annoying scientists with 'do you know this yet, do you know that yet' is not scientific. I'm afraid, dare I say it, scientists do have a monopoly on science as there is zero science or useful explanation coming from ID theorists.

 

Lets do the 'am I a use to humanity' test. Evolution has been used to find literally thousands of new chemicals and life saving drugs / vacines and many other fantastic discoveries. As have almost every scientific theory (quantum theory, computers and semi conductors; nuclear physics, nuclear power / fusion; etc). 'I don't know, therefore it must be god' has only given humanity an excuse to argue and kill each other. Fundementally nothing useful (ie actually usable) has ever come of it, nor will ever come of it. So do we really want to teach things that religious nutters call science that has no use to mankind whatsoever?

[questor]

Ugh, i don't quite know what to say. perhaps your theory would be better understood if you were not so commited to bash ID. why not just forget your objections to ID for a moment and explain your theory clearly so it can stand on its own merit?

[ughaibu]

Questor: The point of my theory is, how it compares with intelligent design. I am trying to communicate to you, that even as hare-brained a theory as the one I presented, is clearly better than intelligent design. Intelligent design really is that bad, and I think it's a crying shame that you're wasting your passion on something so vapid and inconsequential. The world is full of fascinating ideas, intelligent design is not one of them.

[questor]

Buffy, you must have perched on something rather sharp, or so your attitude

suggests. i am not a member of any ID or Creationist groups or societies, nor have i read any of their literature. i have specifically said and repeated on several threads and many posts that i do not ascribe to man made religions as a belief system. i do have the ability to observe natural things as i see them and am able to inquire as to things neither i or ''scientists'' understand. i have specifically stated many times that i do not argue with the thought of religion as a guide and i make it a point not to use the word God or any religious claims in my arguments. i have also said i do not believe creationism should be taught as a science. you can believe what you like based upon your own criteria, i will believe what i like based upon mine. as i have stated, there is no ''science'' to views for or against intelligent creation of the universe.

you said: ''So, arguments such as this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by questor...

when the day comes that all events are understood and explained, that is the day this argument will disappear. until then, neither side can claim to be ''scientific''.

...are a gross and self-serving misstatement of the scientific method: it is a claim that any view is possible because there is doubt about existing theories, and nothing is scientific until everything is known. That serves the purposes of those who wish to use science to prove the "truth" of their personal belief systems, but it harms science and the intellectual progression of mankind.''

this is a non-sequitur statement. it does not describe what i said nor what i think. the word science is from the Latin scientia, which means to know. as i said, when all events are understood and explained, the truth will be known.

truth is the desired goal of all science. i hope you feel better.

[questor]

Ugh, the passion on this subject is yours, not mine. my interest is curiosity about the thought process and positive statements made against ID when there is no evidence against it and there are many reasons to think ID is present in the operation of the universe. as usual, if you have good reasons for your disbelief in ID,let's hear them in your own words.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Ugh, the passion on this subject is yours, not mine. my interest is curiosity about the thought process and positive statements made against ID when there is no evidence against it and there are many reasons to think ID is present in the operation of the universe. as usual, if you have good reasons for your disbelief in ID,let's hear them in your own words.

 

:D

There are fifteen pages of rebuttal in this thread alone.

 

TFS

[ughaibu]

Questor: Okay, it's your life. But please stop claiming that nobody understands you, it's insulting, as intelligent design is a very simple idea, also, please stop claiming that nobody answers you, you have had arguments objecting to intelligent design from several people, and rather than contesting those arguments, your typical response has been either "I'm not impressed" with no further explanation or silence, finally, please stop claiming that nobody offers alternative possibilities, there are shelves of books detailing theories of cosmology, mathematical physics and evolution, further to which, I have now provided you with a sample theory complete with a detailed explanation of why it is superior to intelligent design.

[sebbysteiny]

this is a non-sequitur statement. it does not describe what i said nor what i think. the word science is from the Latin scientia, which means to know.

 

Excuse me, did you say at the time you were speaking latin. No you didn't. You were speaking ENGLISH and in ENGLISH, 'science' means the study of the natural world, not 'to know' nor to 'pretend an intelligent being ie god did all the work so we can just sit down and say we know it all the lazy way'.

[Buffy]

Buffy, you must have perched on something rather sharp, or so your attitude suggests.

Naw, I'm sitting out on a chaise in a meadow looking at the snow on the mountains. Its really not all about you and I'm sorry you took it personally. I don't consider you a defender of ID, but to the extent that *some* of your own views are similar to ID, the same arguments in response apply. That's something that can't be avoided!

as i have stated, there is no ''science'' to views for or against intelligent creation of the universe.

True! So far! But to keep with your ongoing theme, only insofar as "creation" is defined as the instant before the Big Bang. We've got some pretty solid theories all the way down to bang + 10^-40 or so. ID spends a lot of time trying to say that we *must* talk about "first causes" and that's where your argument crosses paths with ID: insofar as science has nothing to say about those "first causes" it is a misappropriation of the word science to say that because it does not answer the question of the first cause, it is therefore not science. You're of course free to use the word science however you want to, but if you stray from the most widely accepted understanding of the word, do not expect that you should not be challenged, especially when your definition is indeed self-serving.

 

It means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less, :D

Buffy

[Buffy]

:DThere are fifteen pages of rebuttal in this thread alone.

Its arguably gone astray from its original purpose. I'll give everyone 24 hours to say their peace and I will close it.

 

Start new threads folks...

 

Evolutionary Mom,

Buffy

[questor]

it must be that now people use words to mean what they want them to mean, rather than rely on dictionaries. this makes for misunderstanding and misquoting. i agree with Buffy that this subject has been beaten to death. i'm sure that no minds have been changed, so whatever the belief system one has will continue until we know the truth (by scientific investigation).

P.S. a large percentage of words in the English language have Latin roots. we

use them every day in conversation. this is a scientific fact!

[ughaibu]

but is it evidence?

[IDMclean]

Well, it would seem that discussing this topic is truely pointless. Rather than attempting to understand it, the majority of the people here out right simply reject it without first attempting to understand it.

 

The Question as I read it is:

"Do you believe in Intelligent Design??"

 

The answers I have heard are good, but the reasons I have heard for those answers come down to personal Bias. My interest in it was weather or not it had merit. This was not discussed.

 

Instead it ultimately came down to the Drawn out equivilant of "La La La... I'm not listening." Which is fine, however it is not proper and I will keep it in mind for discussion of future topics. It seems to me that it is a perfectly valid stance on this site to reject something on face value, rather than rationally try to understand what is being said and then making value judgement based on as Objective of a view as possible.

 

Just my opinion of all this.