The logical end result of Intelligent Design

[Arwon]

ID is a creationist anti-science wedge designed to dress up less palatable arguments in more acceptable clothes and generally fight godless communistic god-hating atheistic satanism as represented by so-called "EVOLUTIONISM" and scientific indifference to god more generally. The idea being to force religion back into schools and condition the next generation to be more susceptible to creationist ideas. It's a tactical manoeuvre in some asinine imagined "culture war".

 

[GoodGame]

That's like the anti-thesis of science though. That's like pointing to a magician and saying "he did that trick", and then not bothering to figure out how the trick works or was made. It's damn lazy.

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.

 

[AngryZealot]

There's a quote I like from Philippe Starck: "God is the answer when we don't know the answer."

 

[Phlegmak]

LightFang, I appreciate your attempts at answering my questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since ID proponents tend to not mention "god" when discussing ID on camera, then it seems likely that the identity of this designer is still unknown. Isn't the possibility that it's multiple designers equally likely to a single designer? Something like the Magratheans and Slartibartfast, for example.

Even though BasketCase's comments are correct about ID in general, my opening post simply assumed that ID is correct.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

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"?

No. You place the Intelligent Design argument out of the science class (keeping the biology curriculum intact), and place it in the philosophy class. Where free discussions about religion and science can be taken place.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

ID is a creationist anti-science wedge designed to dress up less palatable arguments in more acceptable clothes and generally fight godless communistic god-hating atheistic satanism as represented by so-called "EVOLUTIONISM" and scientific indifference to god more generally. The idea being to force religion back into schools and condition the next generation to be more susceptible to creationist ideas. It's a tactical manoeuvre in some asinine imagined "culture war".

</thread>.

 

[Phlegmak]

By the way, ID proponents shouldn't be so focused on being anti-evolution. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. If ID is true, it can still mean evolution is true.

 

[LightFang]

That's like the anti-thesis of science though. That's like pointing to a magician and saying "he did that trick", and then not bothering to figure out how the trick works or was made. It's damn lazy.

No, it's not.

If we accept the first premise, that there is an intelligent designer, and that we knew it to be true, then what's wrong with teaching people that there is an intelligent designer? Anything less than that is patent disingenuity.

And I didn't say "Let's stop learning about how the world works," did I? Pointing out that there is some mythical designer doesn't necessitate not learning about how the world works. It just means that he/she/it did it. It doesn't mean we can't figure out how he/she/it did it.

LightFang, I appreciate your attempts at answering my questions.

Thanks...wait, does that mean I've failed? "Attempts".

Since ID proponents tend to not mention "god" when discussing ID on camera, then it seems likely that the identity of this designer is still unknown. Isn't the possibility that it's multiple designers equally likely to a single designer? Something like the Magratheans and Slartibartfast, for example.

Well, see, it's that most people who believe in ID probably want to make it appeal to as many people as possible. So when they talk 'bout ID, they leave the designer vague so that you can fill in whoever you think is it, be it God or Buddha or whoever.

I think, though, that most of the proponents of ID stem around from the Discovery Institute (correct me if I'm wrong) and so believe this designer to be the Christian God.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

ID proponent is somewhat quasi-metaphysical and quasi-theological. So it is not in any way shape or form be in the context scientific; such as the evolutionary (biology) theory.

 

[Phlegmak]

Well, see, it's that most people who believe in ID probably want to make it appeal to as many people as possible. So when they talk 'bout ID, they leave the designer vague so that you can fill in whoever you think is it, be it God or Buddha or whoever.

I think, though, that most of the proponents of ID stem around from the Discovery Institute (correct me if I'm wrong) and so believe this designer to be the Christian God.

That's my biggest anger with ID. It's NOT an attempt to find a designer or infer a designer, but rather to say the Christian god did it. Leaving the designer vague is the exact opposite of what ID proponents should be doing. ID proponents should be trying to answer all the questions I brought up. What you describe above is exactly religion. If there really is a designer then that fact is NOT religion, but rather science, and it should be treated as such. Leaving the designer vague is exactly the opposite of science.

 

[Holycannoli]

By the way, ID proponents shouldn't be so focused on being anti-evolution. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. If ID is true, it can still mean evolution is true.

That's the truth. I think when some ID proponents are anti-evolution, they're against the people that say God doesn't exist, not against evolution itself. They're against the idea that evolution alone is wholly responsible for everything. It's like how some pro-choice proponents aren't necessarily pro-abortion, just pro the right to choose.

It's also true that ID does not belong in biology class. Evolution shouldn't be a big part of class either unless the class is specifically tailored toward it (Evolutionary Biology 101 or something)

 

[Arwon]

What biology isn't rooted in evolution? That's pretty much what modern biology is.

 

[classical_hero]

By the way, ID proponents shouldn't be so focused on being anti-evolution. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. If ID is true, it can still mean evolution is true.

That is a point which so many evolutionist fail to realise, the ID can be compatible with evolution but in the haste of trying to evolution only teaching they are just too worried about the implications of ID that it will lead people to question the paradigm of evolution, because evolution does not explain how all the design that we see in this world come into this world. Random chance does not explain the complex nature of DNA. Their is no naturalistic way how DNA came to be and yet without it life does not exist.

Now Young Earth Creationism is most definitely the exact opposite of evolution and even Darwin made that clear when he wrote his book on it, that he was invalidating God as creator.

 

[Gooblah]

Possibly because they have no desire to enter into a debate with a militant athiest asking loaded questions.

Really?

I'm religious. I am a Hindu. Yet I also believe in evolution. I am not militant. I ask questions. Are they loaded because they do not point to an easy answer?

I guess you meant to say:

Possibly because they have no desire to enter into a debate with a non evangelical-Christian asking for reasonable proof/possibilities.

 

[classical_hero]

What biology isn't rooted in evolution? That's pretty much what modern biology is.

Of course, such as the fact that antibiotics would wipe out all disease, but they did not recognise the possibility of mutations that could make antibiotics ineffective, but those antibiotic resistant bacteria are much weaker that their non resistant ones so they die out amongst their stronger brethren. Or shall we talk about vestigial organ, where people had supposedly useless organs that were the remnant of evolutionary past, but in recent time we know every organ in the human body serves a purpose, even when we were not sure what it was. Or shall we talk about junk DNA? The idea that most of our DNA was remnants of our evolutionary past, but that has been discarded and shown how wrong and how useful the non coding parts of DNA actually is. It is common knowledge now, but earlier is was not predicted that way, so again another example of evolutionary biology being proven wrong by modern biology. So clearly they are not the same thing if modern biology corrects the false premises of evolutionary biology.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Intelligent Design idea (not a theory) offers no hypotheses. This makes it useless for science. Science is about asking questions about how things work, and then generating an idea of how things work and testing the idea.

Intelligent Design as a philosophical concept is neat, because it allows access to the mind of the Designer. If you come into my house, you can see that I've got a floormat in front of my door: seeing that & infering a designer allows you to guess my motives (I want you to wipe your feet). You can ask the same questions regarding the Intelligent Designer. Not scientifically, but at least it can be fun. I use all types of Intelligent Designer ideas when debating religion.

Creationism does generate hypotheses, so it's a good scientific idea. Unfortunately, all of the ideas are proven false over and over. This makes it not useful when it comes to biology, because the predictions it offers don't allow you to find new information.

The Theory of Evolution does generate predictions AND those predictions are then born out. This means that you can 'guess' the next fact (that we haven't discovered) and then go show that fact. It's pretty damn spiffy. Genetics, embryology, and neurobiology (just to name a few) are much more fruitful when coupled with the Theory of Evolution

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

Classical Hero

I don't know you very well and would like to ask you a question. Are you a christian? If so, which organization are you a member of?

 

[El_Machinae]

Classical Hero

I don't know you very well and would like to ask you a question. Are you a christian? If so, which organization are you a member of?

You should click his "Ask a Young Earth Creationist" thread. It's in his sig.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

Thanks El. It explains his distorted view on what "science" is. Man, I hate to be straightforward.

 

[LightFang]

That's my biggest anger with ID. It's NOT an attempt to find a designer or infer a designer, but rather to say the Christian god did it. Leaving the designer vague is the exact opposite of what ID proponents should be doing. ID proponents should be trying to answer all the questions I brought up. What you describe above is exactly religion. If there really is a designer then that fact is NOT religion, but rather science, and it should be treated as such. Leaving the designer vague is exactly the opposite of science.

Well...yeah. I think they leave it vague to have it appeal to as many people as possible, I guess.

What biology isn't rooted in evolution? That's pretty much what modern biology is.

Yeah, modern biology is supposed to be an evolution-based course. But all biology really is is "the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior." So, you know, it doesn't have to have evolution in it, although that's certainly a keystone.

I'll quote myself because I'm so full of myself:

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."