Intelligent? Design
- Started
- Last post
- 391 Responses
- Kirshar0
I'm agreeing with you, discipler, just saying that the idea of ID and religion are conflated as far as the general public is concerned.
That's why it will probably be kept out of schools and denounced as another bid at creationism. And that, folks, is how politics ruined it all............
But yeah, to hell with the implications, research it wherever it goes.
- nessdog0
this is interesting...
- ********0
I agree with you guys. It get contorted with politics and given some religious name, when in reality it's just another viewpoint. no whether it's right or wrong is another story.
- discipler0
Good insight, kirshar. My burden is to try and educate, along with other ID proponents, so that people know that it's a scientific issue and not based on a religious narritive.
- mrdobolina0
Who designed the designer, discipler?
Here is where science goes out the window.
- discipler0
Good gawsh, mrdobs. What does a philosophical question have to do with the science of ID? ID cannot answer such questions because they are not scientific.
nessdog, you'll find plenty of anti-ID propaganda on the internets. There are lots of people who don't fully understand the science, but just know that they don't like the implications.
- ********0
d*mnit and while we're at it, which ruler made the rules. I want a recount
- nessdog0
No. They just give alternative explanations to the scientific findings.
- ********0
I just care for facts, not philosophy. But then again, I stated that 20 thread ago.. haha
- discipler0
I believe the God of the Bible is the designer. I have friends who say it may have been an alien intelligence. I have friends who say that there's some nebulous and eternal telic entity who is the designer. I have friends who say they just don't know and we'll probably never know.
It's a second-order question.
- mrdobolina0
"Who designed the designer?"
that is where your argument stops being scientific and is all philosophical.
- nessdog0
The findings are simply too vague.
- discipler0
Of course, nessdog. But do their "alternative" explanations hold water? That's the question. And that's where it takes time to research the issues. I have found that the attempt at rebuttals, fail miserably. Attempts to explain the 4 sequential nucleotide characters encoded on the DNA molecule as anything other than purposed information, simply don't stand up. For example.
- discipler0
"Who designed the designer?"
that is where your argument stops being scientific and is all philosophical.
mrdobolina
(Jan 2 06, 12:21)----------------------
Agreed. You are catching on.
- ********0
Every scientific theory has assumptions that cannot be proven. If any of these assumptions prove to be invalid, then the theory is false. The Theory of Evolution also has unproven assumptions.
-----
However, the same could be said of ID, I'm sure.
- discipler0
ness, there's nothing vague about digitally coded information - every example we have of information has an intelligent entity as it's author. So, the inference to a designer is logical and adhere's to Oczam's Razor. There is nothing vague about cellular machinery so complex that Engineers can't grasp it. There is nothing vague about Darwin's mechanism failing to to produce said machinery. There is nothing vague about the sudden appearance of millions of body plans and and unique tissue during the Cambrian era and then stasis. There is nothing vague about gravity and orbit distances fine-tuned to an impossible tolerance to support organic life.
- mrdobolina0
why does ID concern itself with just trying to prove darwin wrong?
- discipler0
it doesn't. ID concerns itself with making the public aware of current scientific data. It just so happens that the data demonstrates the fatal flaws in Darwinism.
- nessdog0
His argument hinges on the notion of "irreducibly complex systems," systems that could not function if they were missing just one of their many parts. "Irreducibly complex systems ... cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion," he says, because natural selection works on small mutations in just one component at a time. He then leaps to the conclusion that intelligent design must be responsible for these irreducibly complex systems.
- mrdobolina0
explain the "uncaused cause" to us in scientific terms, discipler.
Just because dna is super-complex does not mean it isnt a natural occurance.