Intelligent Design-Warning some Religion

[BirdDad]

I believe in ID.
I am Christian but I don't believe in the creation myth of Genesis(and a lot of other stuff in the Bible-I was taught that is something is crap don't use it use only the parts that are good and toss the rest away.
My wife is an aetheist ,I don't try to persuade her to my beliefs(never have)
and our daughter will not be taught religion-I think that is something that is best discovered on their own
how many here believe in ID over creation,evolution and why
Sorry I shold have posed his in offopic and houh I was bu I had 2 windows open one poliics the othe Offopic and got the wrong one

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: BirdDad
I believe in ID.
I am Christian but I don't believe in the creation myth of Genesis(and a lot of other stuff in the Bible-I was taught that is something is crap don't use it use only the parts that are good and toss the rest away.
My wife is an aetheist ,I don't try to persuade her to my beliefs(never have)
and our daughter will not be taught religion-I think that is something that is best discovered on their own
how many here believe in ID over creation,evolution and why
Sorry I shold have posed his in offopic and houh I was bu I had 2 windows open one poliics the othe Offopic and got the wrong one

where is the 'intelligence' in the design ? if intelligence is another word for god, find god in the design.
how do you create a scientific hypothesis to test the existence of god ?

 

[Moonbeam]

I think you find intelligent design in Japanese cars.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think you find intelligent design in Japanese cars.

I vote German

Seriously, there may be a God, and to believe that Intelligent Design is valid, just not subject to test.

There are a great many things to which science does not apply.

 

[SuperTool]

I believe in intelligent design through evolution. Unintelligent designs don't reproduce.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think you find intelligent design in Japanese cars.

Absolutely. Even with good design examples infront of them, it took GM decades to catch onto the double sided key that works whichever way you insert it. The same thing goes for including the "Recirculate" function on air conditioning so you can close off the stench of that diesel bus or truck next to you on the road.

If there's a god of cars, she must be Japanese.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The problem with ID is that it's not testable, it really is a matter of faith. So there isn't any point in teaching it in a science class, it belongs in a philosophy or religion class.

God or gods might exist, and they might have bent the natural laws of the universe they created in order to ensure mankind's existence. Or as the Catholoic church now says, natural selection does exist, but man is a special case of divine creation.

But science is about determining natural law in its normal operations, not when such laws are being overridden through divine power.

ID's central point is how unlikely man's existence is, exactly as it is now. "It's so unlikely, it must be guided!" that's not a valid attack on evolution because:
1. There are likely to be "billions and billions" of planets in the universe that could support intelligent life, possibly many more if you consider intelligent life that isn't carbon-based and warm-blooded.
2. Intelligent life could have evolved even on this planet much differently than mankind, so the odds aren't 1 chance in X, they are 1 million chances in X.

 

[jjones]

Lots of things are designed intelligently and probably just as many are not.

 

[Gurck]

I don't. Most who believe in intelligent design through evolution have no reasoning other than "we're pretty complex, it must be so". Many natural processes are pretty complex though, their underlying mechanisms simply need to be understood. In a half millenium, people will likely view a debate like this one in much the same way we view the debate a half millenium ago between the geocentric and heliocentric solar system models.

 

[0roo0roo]

my dog thinks i'm god.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Gurck
I don't. Most who believe in intelligent design through evolution have no reasoning other than "we're pretty complex, it must be so". Many natural processes are pretty complex though, their underlying mechanisms simply need to be understood. In a half millenium, people will likely view a debate like this one in much the same way we view the debate a half millenium ago between the geocentric and heliocentric solar system models.

exactly, i've never heard a good argument for ID. they are all either like you mentioned... "man look at how complicated we are it must be god" or some funky math on the likelihood of evolution getting us to where we are... which inevitably is de-bunked.

not to mention, if you really look at how some stuff in our bodies work, it's kind of inefficient... like a hack almost. if we were intelligently designed, you would think things would be a little more elegant.

 

[Mucho]

Originally posted by: jjones
Lots of things are designed intelligently and probably just as many are not.

 

[PlatinumGold]

ID is like this.

put about 5 lbs of iron ore in a bag. shake the bag, how long will you have to shake the bag before you can open the bag and pull out a watch.

you could shake it for an eternity and it simply wouldn't happen.

so, you take the universe before big bang. it's one continous matter/energy form. in it's explosion this energy forms into various types of matter and voila out of nowhere this collection of matter ends up life.

ID argues that it just can't happen like that. entropy theory agrees to an extent. higher forms of energy to lower forms of energy.

do i buy it? i don't know, to me it's more descriptive than foundational. it's deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning.

 

[eigen]

Very simple rules give rise to extremely complex behaviors.
You only need a small set of intial rules to get a lot of cool stuff going on.
The universe provides those and nothing more.

 

[bandana163]

But the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?

 

[DigDug]

am Christian but I don't believe in the creation myth of Genesis

Then you aren't a Christian. Where does this pick and choose attitude come from, other than outside influence? That's the problem with western religion. They want you to believe in an absolute, yet noone does. But I'm the heathen, right?

 

[FoBoT]

i believe God created all the universe and all the scientific laws. everything about the natural world was created by God and man through science is learning about his creation

is ID something like that?

 

[Kadarin]

I agree with the person above who said it's a matter of faith, not a matter of science. So advancing ID as a scientific "theory" is utterly ridiculous.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The problem with ID is that it's not testable, it really is a matter of faith. So there isn't any point in teaching it in a science class, it belongs in a philosophy or religion class.

Is macroevolution testable?

I think the OP set himself up for failure here when he said "I was taught that is something is crap don't use it use only the parts that are good and toss the rest away." Way to destroy any credibility you might have had.

 

[dc]

Originally posted by: DigDug

am Christian but I don't believe in the creation myth of Genesis

Then you aren't a Christian. Where does this pick and choose attitude come from, other than outside influence? That's the problem with western religion. They want you to believe in an absolute, yet noone does. But I'm the heathen, right?

agreed with what digdug said.
also, evangelism is one of the core beliefs/doctrines of Christianity. if you are a Christian and believe in eternal judgement... "My wife is an aetheist ,I don't try to persuade her to my beliefs(never have)
and our daughter will not be taught religion-I think that is something that is best discovered on their own "

/me confused

 

[oogabooga]

evangelism doesn't just come in the form of the 'church lady' condeming you for staying up late on the friday night. I don't know evnough about the op to say one way or the other

i agree the problem with ID is it is like creation, there is just no way to test it, it's not 'scientific'. although there are scientific logics supporting it, it itself cannot be scientific (by our current method of test reproducability to generate fact).

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ID is like this.

put about 5 lbs of iron ore in a bag. shake the bag, how long will you have to shake the bag before you can open the bag and pull out a watch.

you could shake it for an eternity and it simply wouldn't happen.

True, but your analogy bears no resemblence to evolution.

Let's keep the bag, but to be analogous to the discrete base-4 coding of DNA, let's fill it with a discrete form of data, say Scrabble letter blocks. Let's say our goal is to get the Lord's Prayer, so we'll pick out the appropriate number of blocks and see what we get. If you picked a random set of 292 blocks each time randomly, it would take you 55 (26 uppercase, 26 lowercase, comma, space, and period) to the 292 (number of characters in the prayer) power tries, which is about 10 to the 510th power attempts.

On the other hand, if you applied selection, by keeping the blocks that matched from every pick, you could do it in around 10,000 tries. Evolution is based on natural selection, not randomness, and that 10 to the 506th power factor increase in selection in this simple example shows how selection produces results than randomness never could.

so, you take the universe before big bang. it's one continous matter/energy form. in it's explosion this energy forms into various types of matter

Note that randomness isn't driving this behavior either. Quarks are bound in protons and neutrons by the strong nuclear force, protons and electrons are joined in atoms by the electromagnetic force, and stars and galaxies form through the attractive power of gravity.

entropy theory agrees to an extent. higher forms of energy to lower forms of energy.

Entropy is not as simple as your intuitive conception of disorder.

Furthermore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases overall in a closed system. A moment of thought will reveal that the Earth is obviously not a closed system, since it's a bit warmer here than the average temperature of the universe, which is around -270 Celcius. Energy from the Sun drives all life on Earth, either directly or indirectly, and the amount of entropy increase generated by the Sun's daily activities dwarves any small decrease in entropy in the life on our planet.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: BirdDad
I believe in ID.
I am Christian but I don't believe in the creation myth of Genesis(and a lot of other stuff in the Bible-I was taught that is something is crap don't use it use only the parts that are good and toss the rest away.
My wife is an aetheist ,I don't try to persuade her to my beliefs(never have)
and our daughter will not be taught religion-I think that is something that is best discovered on their own
how many here believe in ID over creation,evolution and why
Sorry I shold have posed his in offopic and houh I was bu I had 2 windows open one poliics the othe Offopic and got the wrong one

im a vegetarian, but i like chicken and pork!

 

[edro]

You don't have to believe in the Christian God to believe in intelligent design.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DigDug

am Christian but I don't believe in the creation myth of Genesis

Then you aren't a Christian. Where does this pick and choose attitude come from, other than outside influence? That's the problem with western religion. They want you to believe in an absolute, yet noone does. But I'm the heathen, right?

Beautiful summary of xian hypocrisy.