nakedfrog
No Lifer
- Apr 3, 2001
- 62,742
- 18,932
- 136
Exactly my thoughts. This is why there's umpteen branches of christianity, isn't it? I thought the main qualification to be a christian was believing that Jesus was the son of god and died for your sins. But I'm just a silly pagan, so it's all hebrew to me.
To me, ID seems like just throwing your hands up in the air saying "that's it, I don't know where we came from, but we're really complicated so we couldn't have ended up like this naturally. Someone else must be responsible."
I also think the classic "watch" analogy for ID is really stupid.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
The bible itself is a product of a great deal of editting (i.e., picking and choosing what scrolls to use, what words to use during translations)
GasX
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 29,033
- 6
- 81
The underlying concept of Intelligent Design is appealing to people of faith, people with little or no scientific education as well as people who are highly educated (even scientists). However, it is ultimately a crutch, a cop-out and at its worse is a sham.
The basic concept of ID - at least as far as the casual disciple is concerned is that life is complex and that who but god could make it that way?
There are a many people who believe in evolution that feel this way and it is this crossover that the ID camp capitalizes on to get its curriculum into the schools.
The REALITY of ID is that it is a total sham beyond the initial premise and that teaching it in a science class is like teaching ebonics in math class.
The basic concept of ID - at least as far as the casual disciple is concerned is that life is complex and that who but god could make it that way?
There are a many people who believe in evolution that feel this way and it is this crossover that the ID camp capitalizes on to get its curriculum into the schools.
The REALITY of ID is that it is a total sham beyond the initial premise and that teaching it in a science class is like teaching ebonics in math class.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
yep. i agree. ID is not a testable theory. Its okay if some researcher wants to spend his life trying to cull evidence for ID, but its not something that should be taught in schools because it is such a poor theory.
it makes sense to me that if God "created the heavens and the earth" , etc, etc , that he is the one that created all the physical laws of science/nature
God created pi and math and quantum mechanics and gravity and the whole shooting match, that makes sense to me
God created pi and math and quantum mechanics and gravity and the whole shooting match, that makes sense to me
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
But Macroevolution isn't a testable theory either.... Neither are theories that many scientists come up with. So is believing in science a religion in itself...having to believe what you are told by someone who tests using possibly flawed experiments and some reasoning?
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I believe in intelligent design through evolution. Unintelligent designs don't reproduce.
yes they do...unfortunately. Just look around you, stupidity levels have never been higher!
ID implies the existence of an intelligence behind or driving what we see around us. As a scientist, I have not seen any evidence that suggests or supports this conclusion.
Read 1 Corinthians 7:12-14
12 For all the other people I say this (I am saying these things, not the Lord): A brother [in Christ] might have a wife who is not a believer. If she will live with him, then he must not divorce her.
13 And a woman might have a husband who is not a believer. If he will live with her, then she must not divorce him.
14 The husband who is not a believer is made holy through his [believing] wife. And the wife who is not a believer is made holy through her [believing] husband. If this were not true, then your children would not be clean. But now your children are holy.
preslove
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2003
- 16,754
- 64
- 91
God is indeterminate fate.
The problem with ID is the terminology and the underlying assumptions held within them. "Intelligent" implies sentience. "Design" scientific determinism within universal system created by the sentient, "intelligent" assumed deity.
"Design" holds the most problems for a scientific theory of evolution. If you know anything about quantum theory, then you know that we can't predict the path of the elementary particles under study. Also we know that there is no "path," but rather, many different paths that can be followed. Using quantum mechanics we can predict the probability of the paths, but NOT the individual paths one at a time.
In an experiment, the scientist only knows the state of the particle of study at the start and end of the experiment. Between those points, the scientist does not know how the particle traveled. He does, however, know before hand, using quantum mechanics, the probability of the state (the uncertain position and velocity) of the particle at the end point. Therefore at the end of the experiment, the scientist, as knower, has made the "probable," "reality." He has taken the many different results and found the one result for that instance. At another instance, another result could/would have been found.
This is called ontological indeterminacy. At its most basic level, reality is not governed by strict rules, but rather indeterminate probabilities. This concept has spread to all physical science. Therefore, using "design" in the description of the aggregate processes which occurred in the past to create the ?reality? in which we reside is patently silly.
For me, ?God? did not ?create? the laws that science and mathematics describe, but rather IS those laws. God did not set up the quantum jump between probability and reality. God is the fate that occurred out of the probable. God is the beauty that comes from the light interference patterns on soap bubbles.
The problem with ID is the terminology and the underlying assumptions held within them. "Intelligent" implies sentience. "Design" scientific determinism within universal system created by the sentient, "intelligent" assumed deity.
"Design" holds the most problems for a scientific theory of evolution. If you know anything about quantum theory, then you know that we can't predict the path of the elementary particles under study. Also we know that there is no "path," but rather, many different paths that can be followed. Using quantum mechanics we can predict the probability of the paths, but NOT the individual paths one at a time.
In an experiment, the scientist only knows the state of the particle of study at the start and end of the experiment. Between those points, the scientist does not know how the particle traveled. He does, however, know before hand, using quantum mechanics, the probability of the state (the uncertain position and velocity) of the particle at the end point. Therefore at the end of the experiment, the scientist, as knower, has made the "probable," "reality." He has taken the many different results and found the one result for that instance. At another instance, another result could/would have been found.
This is called ontological indeterminacy. At its most basic level, reality is not governed by strict rules, but rather indeterminate probabilities. This concept has spread to all physical science. Therefore, using "design" in the description of the aggregate processes which occurred in the past to create the ?reality? in which we reside is patently silly.
For me, ?God? did not ?create? the laws that science and mathematics describe, but rather IS those laws. God did not set up the quantum jump between probability and reality. God is the fate that occurred out of the probable. God is the beauty that comes from the light interference patterns on soap bubbles.
how can you not teach your child about your faith? I guess you didn't get to the part about fruit.
IMO,
ID - we don't really know how the world got to be the way it is, but we think God is responsible
Evolution - we don't really know how the world got to be the way it is, but we don't think God is responsible
i lean towards ID thought, but realize that historically this type of thought has been way behind the curve of what's known in Science.
First, in biology, there is no separate theory called macroevolution. There's natural selection, sexual selection, etc. but no theory called macroevolution.
Second, natural selection has been tested extensively in tests which other theories attempting to explain evolution such as Lamarck's have failed.
It's not a theory if it's not testable. However, the beginning of work in any science is coming up with hypotheses, which may or may not become accepted theories, and as such scientists come up with many things that aren't testable. It's part of the creative process, and perhaps one that's been poorly reported by the press, who often conflate the terms hypothesis and theory.
We have examples of a dozen or so species of human predecessors. Some look more like chimps; others have a structure more like that of humans. However, it's impossible to know which one was the last common ancestor of genus pan and genus homo.
Evolution is science. It isn't something you 'believe in' -- it's something you study, analyze, hypothesize about -- its based on observation and data, not belief.
Intelligent design is well and good, but its philosophy, not science. And yet some people think it should be taught in science classes...huh?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter