Intelligent design.....anyone want to talk about it?

[cornopean]

Why do so many folk insist that ID is not scientific? what is unscientific about discerning evidence that leads one to believe that something was caused by a mind and not natural forces?

[Lonewolfe2015]

Elaborate more, then we can talk.

[RebelSnake]

ID is not science and cannot be called science. ID is religion attempting to masquerade itself as science.

[Frenetic]

Did science just appear or was it created?

ID is not science and cannot be called science. ID is religion attempting to masquerade itself as science.

[MrSinatra]

it all depends.

i believe in evolution myself, but ID isn't without some merit, and its this:

evolution has "holes" in it, things especially at the cellular level that ID protagonists claim evolution doesn't explain, and many evolution protagonists acknowledge this point.

where they mis-step imo, is by extrapolating an ID explanation, simply b/c the evolution one isn't complete yet. any explanation must meet the rigors of the scientific process.

ID is useful in illustrating where further study needs to be done, to show where evolution fails to fully explain. i think one day, "natural" laws will come forth to make such explanations, and evolution will either be more developed, or superceded by a similar, more comprehensive theory.

what bothers me about the scientific community, is the mccarthy like attacks on ID. they get apoplectic over it. my contention is, if they believe so strongly in their own methodologies, as i do, then they should trust them to show whats wrong with ID, rather than rely on brainless demagoguery and derogatory attacks.

[jaybear_us]

Personally, I think ID does have merit. Evolution works only within certain parameters I believe. For example, I believe evolution works only within a species, not across species. I don't believe all the live forms on earth came from one single organism.

There are other issues which come into play also, I believe, such as what most people term the "supernatural" or spiritual experiences or out-of-body experiences. A lot of what is never really examined or given credence by the general scientific community is what would be termed subjective experiences. Probably because there has never been a way to treat and test those experiences in the same way the physical world is treated and tested. Which doesn't make those experiences any less valid.

With the new theories and proofs coming out of the field of quantum physics, such as mind affecting and even creating matter out of "potential", it raises a valid question, as far as I'm concerned, that if it is mind that creates matter out of potential, then is it possible that at first, all there was was mind and the universe as we know it is a product of mind - individual and collective.

I tend to believe in ID, though not from the basis of any particular religious dogma. I wouldn't claim it to be fact though. Just a theory, but just a valid a one as evolution. Oh, right, technically, evolution is just a theory also.

Western science has concentrated on the physical world for so long, that anything else has been discounted out of hand, and every scientific instrument we have is calculated to measure the physical world only. Now, only with the rise of the field of quantum physics are we starting to develop instruments to measure things that may not be a part of the non-physical world. There may be some new answers coming that don't fit into the world view that western man has held for millennium. I won't dismiss them out of hand, but rather, take the attitude that science should have, which is, that ID can't be dismissed until thoroughly investigated.

There's a lot more that can be said, but I don't want to go into a whole treatise, so I'll leave it at that.

[Lonewolfe2015]

Speaking of non-physical stuff, anyone ever hear about that body "aura" that determines what kind of personality you have? Liker ed = ? and blue = ? I think its an interesting idea but it can't be right all the time, can it?

[TerryAnne]

They take a picture of you with a "special" Polaroid camera and "read" the colors that surround your body.

[andeemac]

Oh dear Lets make this clear what Pro Intelligent Design people are talking about is that, God created the Universe and everything in it, and that the earth is 6000 years old, you know God went around planting Dinosaur bones in the ground or inside rocks for us to find, just for our entertainment, and God created Coal and Oil for us, but we call it Fossil fuel for the heck of it. Riiiiight !!!!! and "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of water"

And you know some of these people that believe this, tore the Da Vinci code to pieces, but when the Bible is examined microscopically all you hear is Blasphemy!!!! Heathen !!!! there is no Intelligence to any of this

[RebelSnake]

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html

Here's where they tell you dinosaurs came from and they even provide their "proof" as well. Note the "penitent stance" of the "wicked" pterodactyl.

[Rohan01]

Lets separate the bible from intelligent design. Now, in the bible we have various things talked about. Ethics being at the top of the list (IMHO), and a detailing of sequences of cause and action which begin from decisions made (Eve eating from the forbidden tree, Lot's wife looking back at Sodom after she, Lot, and their daughters were warned not to do so, Esther taking her life into her hands by approaching the emperor when he did not summon her).

Intelligent Design offers some interesting answers to questions posed as to the origins of the universe. How did it come about that water is the only substance that expands at a certain temperature just above freezing, rather than continue to shrink. How come a neutron is heavier than a proton. How did the world get tilted on its axis so that we have seasons, and so forth.

[Sherry]

Lets separate the bible from intelligent design. Now, in the bible we have various things talked about. Ethics being at the top of the list (IMHO), and a detailing of sequences of cause and action which begin from decisions made (Eve eating from the forbidden tree, Lot's wife looking back at Sodom after she, Lot, and their daughters were warned not to do so, Esther taking her life into her hands by approaching the emperor when he did not summon her).

Intelligent Design offers some interesting answers to questions posed as to the origins of the universe. How did it come about that water is the only substance that expands at a certain temperature just above freezing, rather than continue to shrink. How come a neutron is heavier than a proton. How did the world get tilted on its axis so that we have seasons, and so forth.

nice to see you back again Rohan....it's been a while

[RebelSnake]

Intelligent Design offers some interesting answers to questions posed as to the origins of the universe.

Actually, ID doesn't answer anything at all. When a question pops up creationists can't provide a rational explanation for, they simply rely on their old standby,"God dunnit!!".

[Rohan01]

Intelligent Design offers some interesting answers to questions posed as to the origins of the universe.

Actually, ID doesn't answer anything at all. When a question pops up creationists can't provide a rational explanation for, they simply rely on their old standby,"God dunnit!!".

Well, if you are prepared to do away with the oldest face of history, namely what Martin Buber, Jacques Maritain, Paul Tillich, and Nikolai Berdyaev devoted considerable time and effort to; plus reject the reasonable view of the anthropic principle (the universe is habitable because there are inhabitants), plus reject heavily researched scientific knowledge that shows
very fine tolerances for life to be sustained, plus reject possible answers how a single strand of DNA contains a very high amount of knowledge - then you have my condolences.

Freud and Marx saw when their theories were sized up against the reality of the "I-Thou" relationship, they came out second best. Which explains a lot about Antonio Gramsci seeking to change the viewpoint of, in his case, the Roman Catholic Church to one that abandons the centuries old plan of combining the material with the spiritual, by only focusing on the material.
Which leads to a repudiation of people like Plato, or the pre-Socratic philosophers, or those learned men of Egypt who were familiar with the Ma'at, or those in the far east who were familiar with the Tao, or those in early Hinduism who were familiar with the Rta; and repeating the error of Martin Luther and others who came after him of editing out those things which they do not like: all of which results in life being less than it ought to have been, indeed what it could have been, as well as should have been.

[Rohan01]

nice to see you back again Rohan....it's been a while[/quote]Thanks. The most lucid quote from John Lennon comes to mind to explain my absence: life is what happens when you are making plans.