intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- ********
Another step backwards?
- ********0
You know I had thought that this whole schtick was primarily an american christianist right gimmick, but I was just talking to a coworker of my fiance (whose a dcotor) who had a medical practice in India. Turns out there are seom powerfulr "fundamentalists" there interpreting science through the Vedic scriptures and getting power in the government there. I found that really odd, but I guess it makes sense.
It looks like we're back to the 1930's folks, but the powers are different - back then it was communist/nationilism that gripped countries - now it's fundamentalism/terrorism...proba... gonna be a bumpy ride...
- jamble0
arguably not, for a nation who elected a chimpanzee into power any sort of education would probably be a step forward.
Insults aside though, I've never really understood quite why creationists/religious nuts/intelligent design supports don't just end the "agrument" with the sweeping statement that evolution is something god put there and then stick their tongues out at those who scoff.
I will continue to potter along in my life thinking like most sane people that evolution is in fact how we've arrived where we are.
- mrdobolina0
turn off your computer jamble, stupid americans designed it.
- discipler0
What you see consistantly in these media treatments is gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the actual issues. The very article you've linked here is yet another example - replete with error.
I have studied this issue to a degree that should probably merit some sort of honorary phD. Seriously, never in my life have I invested in the research of an issue like this, including my time in university. The fact is: this is about good/current science vs. old science. Don't let the media coverage and the Darwinian fundamentalists try to convince you that it is anything else (i.e. religion vs. science, creationism vs. science, etc...). And an HONEST investigator into this issue will quickly realize the truth... it's certainly not obscured.
What it boils down to is that science is starting to discover that many of the core tenets of Darwinian Naturalism are completely false. That natural selection working with random mutation is in an unguided context is not a sufficient mechanism to produce change in biological systems, at the scale that we see. And that life at the molecular level is composed machines, purely nano-technology. We know now that a single cell contains clasps, pulleys, rotary engines, turbines, shuttle vehicles, and machinery more complex than anything a human has ever devised. We know now that a single strand of DNA contains more digitally coded (sequential) information than an entirely library of books and that is has backup and error-protection mechanisms. We know now that these impossibly complex molecular systems are irreducible, meaning that if you remove one component, just one... and the entire system fails. Darwinian gradualism cannot produce these machines because they require all of their parts at once, to function. Natural selection would prevent this.
When we combine data like this at the molecular level with facts about the fossil record and how it displays no true transitions between species and when we realize that science only observes mutations within a species and no information gaining mutations that can produce novel species, we can safely conclude: intelligence is at the heart of things. And when we look at the Cambrian explosion where, in history past, millions of phyla suddenly appear in the fossil record without having had enough time to evolve, we can conclude: design.
- gruntt0
is there not another thread about intelligent design that has already been pushed deep into the pits of hell?
oh well - you sonsabitches have fun in here fightin'
by the way, it's friday.
- ********0
If it's "intelligent design" and God made all things and evolution had nothing to do with it then why do we:
a. have America and;
b. have Americans designing Microsoft Products to run on said computers?I conclude that God is dumb, and Americans can't be chastised for the way they are any longer.
- gruntt0
i actually thought about ID earlier this week. You see, I caught one hell of cold and I thought to myself - snot is proof that intelligent design is bullshit. If someone "invented" snot, they are not intelligent.
- discipler0
If the honest investigator into this issue, wants real data about this issue, I would recommend searching the various articles at any of these sites:
http://www.discovery.org
http://www.designinference.com/ (fairly technical)
http://www.idthefuture.com/
- Fariska0
oh please, not another thread on this!
- GreedoLives0
if it seems more plausible to you that an invisible man is making minute changes over billions of years and still has time to keep a close eye on over 6 billion humans and judge every single one of them, go for it.
Incidentally, there's a bridge i'd like to sell you in new york, a real bargain.
- ********0
There we go then. Couple snot with the fact that God actually hasn't uttered a word since day 7 ("rest" or something?) he is, without a doubt, dumb.
- discipler0
heh, gruntt what you have to realize is that creation is imperfect. It didn't necissarily begin that way. ;) There has been gradual decay and this is evident thru the laws of thermodynamics. Additionally, you have to recognize that things that initially appear to be "bad design", often have a more holistic purpose. Your snot actually helps in removing irritants, etc..
- Fariska0
the flying spaghetti monster is cooler than God.
- uncle_helv0
A bit heavy for a friday init dudes?!
- ********0
If it was good design snot would little 45 degree arrows and a drop shadow aye?
- uncle_helv0
the flying spaghetti monster is cooler than God.
Fariska
(Sep 30 05, 05:49)that's more like it!!
;)
- discipler0
greedo, you make some unwarranted assumptions. First, God is a spiritual entity, not a man on a throne somewhere. Secondly, the evidence would suggest that God made sudden changes over a bit less than billions of years. We only have a theodicy here when we make unwarranted assumptions (from our finite brains) about how the designer should design and behave.
- discipler0
the flying spaghetti monster is a pseudo-intellectual copout. :)
Besides, the spaghetti monster would require a designer. It just pushes the issue of origins back a step. ;)
- GreedoLives0
if you believe in intelligent design wouldn't then all the laws of nature (including the thermodynamics one) be arbitrary, at the mercy of god? if you believe god is messing with the gene pool, wouldn't he be messing with all the other sets of intangibles in the universe as well? if that were true, manned space flight would be impossible, nevermind crossing the street without floating into outer space.
- discipler0
See, what you have in this debate are people dodging the science and just spewing emotional vitriol. The reason for this is that people are uncomfortable with the philosophical and theological implications behind I.D.. It's difficult for a humanist to admit that what science is now demonstrating, confirms what theists have always said. Make no mistake, I.D. is simply about detecting design in biological systems. It lives the identity of the designer up to the Theologians and philosophers to hash out.