"Intelligent" Design

[niv]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1601051,00.html

Geez, are these idiots ever going to give up? If you're going to promote something to replace evolution, at least promote something that's at the very least scientific. What part of "Intelligent" Design has any thought involved? How are you supposed to do anything with "Intelligent" Design--are you saying that someday some unidentified creator will suddenly bless us with the cure to AIDS, even though research has been going on? There's nothing intelligent about "Intelligent" Design, and it's only an excuse by those people who deny that all of what they've learned from dogmatic religious orders is wrong and that there are no deities.

Like evolution, much of science is useful in prediction, such as turning back the clock and running very specific physics equations to see what early Earth looked like; same with matching up trees of DNA. Where the hell does "Intelligent" Design come into play? Unfortunately, we're in Kansas now, Dorothy...

 

[tandoc]

This debate is old.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/02/1059247&tid=146&tid=191&tid=14

that mostly summarises the points for and against each side, unlike mahoro's perspective, which generalises all fundamentalists as people who deny science

 

[niv]

They don't deny science, but this particular aspect that they want to adopt goes against all principles of empirical science. During the questioning in the case, a proponent of "Intelligent" Design answered that he believed that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. Well woop-di-doo, still doesn't make your cause any better.

 

[tandoc]

Now that I've actually read the article... the person trying to change schools is stupid. He should be trying to change the system into one not dumbed down, and requires the students to make their own judgements on theories based on information they are required to learn, analyse and/or interpret, instead of spoon feeding us whatever they want us to believe. I acknowledge empirical science is probably correct, hell, it's what I choose to believe, but it proves/disproves theories based on observation over a period, not every possible instance.

If his God gave us intelligence, then he should be arguing to make the education system let us use it, but quite frankly I think intelligence left the building of humanity a long time ago.

 

[Hoth]

Isn't man supposed to be created in God's image? If so, an unintelligent designer does seem a more logical proposal based on the evidence at hand. Most likely a blundering, rather hopeless god was having a bad morning and accidentally created a species on Earth that resembled him in too many unfortunate ways. I suggest this be covered in science classes, along with the samkhya alternative story of evolution, a good selection of Native American creation stories, and all the other solid alternatives to evolution which can be shown reasonable by questioning radiocarbon dating and "discovering" human and dinosaur footprints side by side.

 

[tandoc]

a nice little thing i read on the url i posted, that evolution is the 'tool' that 'god' used to create man, because you can know everything about making the book, from printing the pages to binding all the pages, it doesn't mean you can write a masterpiece.

not my view, but i think it's a good way of looking at both sides of the argument.

 

[notnamed]

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church was clarified by Pope John Paul II a few years ago as being that God started the process of evolution and then intervened at certain key points; for example, to give the beings that would later become humans a soul. I haven't read either of the links yet, just wanted to point that out in reply to tandoc's post.

I learned that in my public-high-school Biology class, by the way, when we discussed the alternate theories of creation before studying evolution.

 

[Archbob]

I believe the bible past after Gensis 1-10 . Creation in the bible cannot be taken literally in my opinion. The Bible is a figurative book(at least the first part of Genesis is).

 

[niv]

There is no science in studying the Bible, it's just that. Period. Anyone that tries to come along and derive some garbage creationist theory out of what ultimately is just a work of literature is just looking to get a bashing from the academic community, and frankly deserves it.

 

[tandoc]

Now you're just taking it a bit too far.

From what I read in the article, is that they're arguing that life was started/created by God, not actually teaching from the Bible.

I don't think any of them are saying that the Bible is entirely correct, or accurate, they're just saying that maybe God started the process.

Let's say we all evolved from something. From monkeys. From whatever was before than and so on until we get to single-celled organisms. What started that? What started the world? The universe? The big bang? What was before that? God? Something else?

In the end these are _all_ theories and not fact.

I'd like to read the transcripts, or watch recordings of this debate/trial, and see how the Christians argue their case.

 

[niv]

Now you're just taking it a bit too far.

I'm anti-religious...I think organized religion is garbage, and I don't feel ashamed in letting people know :classic2:

Even if they may be theories, evolution inheritantly can be used in medicine, no matter how small the deviation is. Think about it for a second tandoc and you might see the distinction that I'm trying to make. If you're going to make a theory, at least make it applicable.

Albert Einstein may have written about relativity, but a graduate student today will know far more about it than he. Now, you try coming up with Intelligent Design formulas...

This is science. If you want to debate the credibility of the Bible, do it in a humanities class.

 

[Wojtek]

evolution is the 'tool' that 'god' used to create man

That's how the priest at our church put it a few months ago.
Yes, I goto church every sunday

 

[notnamed]

The problem with Creationism is when people try to dismiss evolution entirely, which is simply not possible. There is too much evidence. However, there is also a lot of evidence for some sort of intelligent design. This is not to say that the Bible is correct, that organized religion is right, and that either should be taught in schools. This is not to say that any theory that we currently apply is applicable at all. It's just fact. Evolution has a lot of evidence, especially when thought of in tandem with some sort of intelligent design.
I recently read a science fiction book that states a view similar to this very well. It's called Calculating God, by Robert J. Sawyer.