ID advocates: Please make your case.

Erik Mesoy

Core Tester / Intern
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
10,959
Location
Oslo, Norway
Perfection's Creationism Thread appears deceased, and now I'd like to specifically make a thread debating the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

I started this thread because we has a discussion under way that was hijacking another thread.
The following quotes can be seen in context on this thread:
Smidlee said:
If Europe as well many in America can get rid of their anti-religious attitude then maybe they will begin to see that ID is science. In Fact ID has always been a part of science , when it's was applied to biology is when the war began. This is becuase everyone knows what this means ; there is a creator greater than man.
carlosMM said:
Please give a short definition of ID so I can prove you wrong.
Smidlee said:
As long as European opinion of ID is it's just over religion then because of their anti-religion/ anti-creator bias they will not listen to ID even though they have good valid scientific claims. Europeans will have to get over this hurdle first before giving a honest look at what ID offers.
carlosMM said:
well, then why are you still avaoinding giving a definition of ID?
Smidlee said:
ID is intelligent design. Normally intelligent is a given when it comes to "design" yet there are those like Dawkins who believe "design" in biology is a illusion while ID evolutionists see design is very real and finds no reason to reject it. It seems the only reason to reject "design" in biology is because of religious (anti-religious) reasons. ID referres to mathamatics and complex structures on the nanometer level
carlosMM said:
great, you answer the question: 'What is intelligent design' with 'it is intelligent design' :lol:

avoiding it, hu?

Quote:
Normally intelligent is a given when it comes to "design" yet there are those like Dawkins who believe "design" in biology is a illusion while ID evolutionists see design is very real and finds no reason to reject it.
yadda yadda - can we get a definition?
Smidlee said:
So you want to know what ID means to me personally.

So, seeing as the discussion was going nowhere fast, and besides, that thread was intended to debate the relative lack of ID in Europe, here's the thread to clear up what ID is, what evidence it has, and what evidence is against it.

Here is a definition of evolution, and here's a much longer article on the same subject.
I'd be pleased if the ID advocates could provide links to explanatory articles of equal length, or write explanations resembling the "What is Evolution?" paragraph in the second link.


Thread opened. :king:
 
Souron said:
True.(although some interpertations of quantum theory contradict it)

Not sure I would call strong ID theory science either though.
I agree, as well as almost all scientists and scientific organizations. The "weak ID theory" you refer to is called the anthropic principal; even then, many still have a problem with it.
 
The point is that I can say I created the Universe, but I can't prove it. ID has no proofs it may be the truth about the men, so it is nothing but superstition.
 
:rolleyes: I didn't create this thread so that people could bash ID, you know.
Evolutionists please shut up and wait. Attack the hypothesis you're given, not your preconceptions of what ID is.

ID advocates, are you there?
 
My reason for faith is simple: everything God has told me or promised me thus far in my life has come true, and I have no reason to doubt anything He has ever said or will ever say.
 
While I know this is a bit off from what thread starter wished, I thougth that The Onion's take on the issue was too precious not to share... :lol:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added:

"Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

Regards :).
 
I do not advocate versions of ID which undermine evolution.

However, it occurs to me that by using relatively simple Newtonian physics, we can engineer precise collisions between particles in the future. A two year old child can demonstrate this with rubber balls or soft toys, and some university professors enjoy the same pleasures with a single particle and an accelerator.

God, having unlimited computational power that dwarfs modern comprehension, could engineer with precision, the creation of a specific Homo sapien from the instant of the big bang.

To disprove this hypothesis, requires infidels to provide empirical evidence proving that some other force engineered the big bang. Best of luck! ;)
 
bathsheba666 said:
I still keenly await a serious contribution...

But, we seem fresh out of ID'ers.

(Apologies)
Since you did not like the idea of countering the one I already put forward, I'll post an alternative hypothesis:

The universe is an illusion. My life is like a dream, designed by a creator as the perfect virtual reality video game.

It might be single-player, or it might be multi-player. If it is a multi-player virtual world, then some of the interactive characters may still be artificial (Perfection is almost certainly artificial ;))

This virtual reality world, and my existence, was created in seven days. History might reflect the actions of previous players, or it might be fiction - the game may only have been running for half an hour. My mum might be an artificial character. For all I know, your mum is not a character of any kind ;)

I challenge thee heathens to prove this hypothesis of intelligent design, manufactured by a supreme being in seven days, incorrect :p
 
stormbind said:
I challenge thee heathens to prove this hypothesis of intelligent design, manufactured by a supreme being in seven days, incorrect :p
Which is the core of the system. Scientific theories are not established by conjuring up any odd idea, and challenge the unbelievers to refute it. You have to make a case for them.
 
stormbind said:
However, it occurs to me that by using relatively simple Newtonian physics, we can engineer precise collisions between particles in the future. A two year old child can demonstrate this with rubber balls or soft toys, and some university professors enjoy the same pleasures with a single particle and an accelerator.
You realise don't you that this is completely untrue. Have you ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?
 
Mise said:
You realise don't you that this is completely untrue. Have you ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?
As with Einstein, the idea of randomness does not sit well with me. Inability to observe all detail does not mean there is no more detail to discover.
 
The Last Conformist said:
Which is the core of the system. Scientific theories are not established by conjuring up any odd idea, and challenge the unbelievers to refute it. You have to make a case for them.
Hypothesis are founded by being unable to deduce an alternative explanation, and it was posted as a hypothesis only.
 
Top Bottom