Intelligent? Design
- Started
- Last post
- 391 Responses
- Kirshar0
Well, to answer heartandsoul's lighthearted question, all design requires some brainpower to create, so, uh........yeah, all design is intelligent, some more than others.........
as for this latest buzzword that everyone is fighting over...........
a new term for one side of an age old arguement.
- discipler0
rson, the political left and the ACLU want you to believe the tale that ID is a marketing effort by right wing fundamentalists. The marketing effort on their part has been somewhat successful - they've gotten people to buy into this conspiracy nonsense. Why have they done this? Because they conflate the science with it's implications... and the implications terrify them. They have produced a caricature of ID that is totally false. What they don't tell you about are things like:
- The gaps in the fossil record
- The digital coding along the spine of the DNA molecule
- The Irreducibly Complex outboard motors in bacteria which require advanced engineering principles to even begin to understand.
- The precision fine-tuning of the physical constants which keep you and I alive on this planet....to name just a few.
So, all they have is propaganda because they can't argue with the science.
- discipler0
Kirshar, the "design" argument is age-old, sure. But, ID is quite different. It is the study of Specified and Irreducible complexity in biological systems. What Darwin didn't know was that the cell (which he thought was a simple plasma blob because he couldn't see into it) is really an exquisite liliputian world of nanotechnology with digitical code, backup mechanisms, transport shuttles, etc... etc... Biochemists are having to employ Mechanical Engineers to even start to understand the machinery in the cell.
- pavlovs_dog0
lolz
so this id splinter group is placing the earth back at the center of solar system...
anyone you know?
- discipler0
Don't bother me with the facts, I'm comfortable with my staw-man.
pavlovs_dog
(Jan 2 06, 11:02)
- rson0
*gets off merry go round, leaves thread.
**wonders what parting merry go round reference means.
Nairn***runs off with Nairn
- pavlovs_dog0
discipler got that ctrl-c philosphy down...
- pavlovs_dog0
(nonsense typed by discpiler)
pavlovs_dog
(Jan 2 06, 11:02)
discipler
(Jan 2 06, 11:03)lol at you having to fake edit my posts... oh, the irony...
- discipler0
mrdobs, do you work for American Atheists?
- discipler0
lol at me avoiding the issues and opting for derision instead. har.
pavlovs_dog
(Jan 2 06, 11:06)
- mrdobolina0
Discipler, isnt much of the ID movement funded by christians or christian organizations?
You can show me some isolated muslims or atheists that agree with ID, but the majority are christian.
How come we dont hear about Creationism at all anymore?
Because it was shot down by SCOTUS in 1987.
The term "intelligent design" did not exist before 1987.
Your name is discipler, who do YOU believe to be the intelligent designer?
- pavlovs_dog0
you are boring and stupid.
- pavlovs_dog0
Yes, I am boring and stupid.
discipler
(Jan 2 06, 11:07)
- discipler0
mrdobs, each bit of nonsense and every canard you just blurted out are *specifically* answered in the article I posted in my first post in this thread.
Go read.
Then we can have an educated discussion this issue.
- discipler0
from the article (since you won't read it):
"The modern theory of intelligent design was not developed in response to a legal setback for creationists in 1987. Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon-who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.
In the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, Thaxton and his colleagues first developed the idea that the information-bearing properties of DNA provided strong evidence of a prior but unspecified designing intelligence. Mystery was published in 1984 by a prestigious New York publisher-three years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.
Even as early the 1960s and 70s, physicists had begun to reconsider the design hypothesis. Many were impressed by the discovery that the laws and constants of physics are improbably "finely-tuned" to make life possible. As British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that "a superintellect had monkeyed with physics" for our benefit.
Nevertheless, only the most committed conspiracy theorist could see in these intellectual developments a concealed legal strategy or an attempt to smuggle religion into the classroom."
- discipler0
but you keep holding on to your consipracy canard if you like, mrdobs. ;)
- ********0
*pokes head in thread...
*see's there no end or answer in sight
*quits thread
- discipler0
oh the answer has been right in front of us all along, jazx. ;) It's just about getting people to be honest about it.
- mrdobolina0
who funds the discovery institute? the site that you cite so often?
what are their religious affiliation?
- ********0
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catal… here's the book Gould signed for me. regardless of his controversial theories. he was a brainiac