In one of the Kent Hovind vs. Michael Shermer debates, Michael Shermer brings up a good point, which is generally lacking among Intelligent Design proponents. That is, what do you do with Intelligent Design? Let's say there's a designer. Ok, now what? What do you do with that knowledge? Attempt to find the designer? Attempt to talk to him? And what do you do with science classes? Just scrap the current biology curriculum and say, "A designer did it"?
The logical end result of Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Phlegmak
- Start date
AngryZealot
King
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 770
I looked up the debate. I stopped watching when Hovind says there's no evidence for evolution.
This thread can't possibly end well.
This thread can't possibly end well.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Those are my thoughts. To me it's basically looking at modern biology and deciding to apply the Anthropomorphic principal to it. And reply to scientific investigation that only through the hand of expert could that of have been done, because that's the only answer I can come up with at the moment. Edit: As if the aim of science is to just give up and say "It wasn't me. I can't understand it".
And why only pick on biology? Why don't they pick on like chemistry or quantum physics or something else? They're perfectly happy with quantum physics, geology, etc..
Obviously there is something about biology that is frightening to them.
And why only pick on biology? Why don't they pick on like chemistry or quantum physics or something else? They're perfectly happy with quantum physics, geology, etc..
Obviously there is something about biology that is frightening to them.
Understand how the designer did it so that we may use His -- sorry its -- designs to further medicine and the like.
Gogf
Indescribable
Who cares? There are plenty of problems with Intelligent Design, but this isn't one of them. "This theory has no practical applications" and "this theory is incorrect" are NOT the same thing.
The people who should be caring are Intelligent Design proponents and yet they are strangely silent on the issues I raised.
LesCanadiens
Deity
Possibly because they have no desire to enter into a debate with a militant athiest asking loaded questions.
I don't see how it's loaded. Also, when I said ID proponents are strangely silent, I'm not referring to the ID proponents on this forum. I'm talking about the famous ID proponents.
It seems to me that such knowledge would be valuable on the face of it. I mean, I thought the whole point was teaching the truth, not just an atheistic idea. The true scientist should seek the truth about existence, even if it conflicts with his own beliefs. Aren't we supposed to be seeking truth, rather than just furthering our own ideological beliefs? (Be they explicitly religious, or atheist?)
AngryZealot
King
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 770
It's a noble goal, but the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate is a farce. Any supporter of evolution must acknowledge at the start that he has already lost the debate. Not because his opponent is right, but because there is no way to show his opponent is wrong. It puts Evolution in a defensive position where there is no way to win. Intelligent Design has positioned itself where it is free to attack as much as it wants, no matter how silly or unfounded the charges, and Evolution must defend itself. And, when all is said is done, we are left with "God did it". That's not science.
Wasn't the point of science to find knowledge? So, you know, if there is an intelligent designer, yeah, he did it, so that's what you should be teaching.
Plus, you know, it's not like you have to throw out all of biology. Things like human systems and anatomy of cells and all that stuff is good. And, assuming there is an intelligent designer, that doesn't necessarily throw out evolution, you know. Although, if it did, then all you'd have to do is throw out the evolution part.
So in your opinion, everything can remain as it is, but we just add "a designer did this"? But what about the designer itself? What do we do with that? Wouldn't it be logical to try to learn more about the designer? Where did it come from? What is its name? And all that?
Oerdin
Deity
Why would anyone do that? I mean just because it is entirely right wing Christians who came up with this bit of retardation and because the guy who originally came up with the name "Intelligent Design" has admitted in court that it was nothing but a renaming of biblical creationism to get around the separation of church & state clause of the constitution... Oh, and then there's the fact that the first book about Intelligent Design literally was a book about creationism where they simply replaced the word "creationism" with "Intelligent Design". It's transparent so please educate yourself and stop trying to pretend it's something it's not.
Then you can do research as to the nature of this designer. I didn't say we didn't have to learn more about this mythical designer. I just said you could leave biology the same and just add "lol a designer did this." That wasn't tantamount to "let's stop learning things about the world."
Slobadog
King
What about how the human systems and anatomy of cells changes and thus evolves over the generations? Would selective animal breeding no longer be proper to teach to young aspiring farmers? Should SETI and prayer be encouraged as the alternative strategy for the purpose of getting your farm products to turn out right?
Perhaps the real problem here is that yet again the term evolution in a discussion is used too broadly. So maybe we should be more specific about what parts of evolution are unacceptable to IDists and thus what aspects of it would get thown out if we used intelligent design instead. Although i'm sure some here will argue that there is no difference between the various aspects of evolution.
When I took two years of biology in high school, it was an evolution-based course. That means that things were supposed to tie in with evolution.
Well, guess what? The idea of muscles containing sarcomeres and the calcium surge and the neurons with the Na+/K+ pumps and all that are still there, regardless of whether or not it was intelligently designed. The process of cellular respiration with glycolysis and the glucose splitting into 1,6 biphosphate and the energy harvest and the deoxidative carboxylation and the Krebs cycle and chemisosmosis with the electron transport system and all the other topics that I hardly remember would still be the same. The only difference would be "this was intelligently designed" compared with "this evolved". It doesn't mean, "let us throw out science."
Call on God, but row away from the rocks. You know. If there ever were proof of this mysterious intelligent designer, I don't think it would be the end of science.
Sounds great. Work on that "this was intelligently designed" in Sunday School. Leave Monday-Friday for "this evolved."
BasketCase
Username sez it all
They never do. If a thread is entertaining and productive, it keeps going.
Anyway: If aforementioned "Designer" is unreachable and unknowable, then the philosophy is indistinguishable from a religion, and the normal problem with religions remains--lack of verifiability or falsifiability or whatever the current word is.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
