New buzzword for Creationism so that it can be injected into public school science curriculums!! A news program reported that the believers in Intelligent Design argue that "Life is to complex to have developed randomly and on it's own, therefore ther must have been Intelligent Design". I find that very interesting, I actually believe the opposite. Life is so complex, there is no way that any "entity" could have designed every function, of every cell, of every organism in the universe.
Intelligent Design?
- Thread starter chrisjor
- Start date
Not sure how you can call it a new buzzword for creationism when they are different ideas. It's like saying Christianity is a new buzzword for judaeism.
they just want to put it in the wrong place, its fine to discuss such things in a PHILOSOPHY class, not a science class
for all we know we were created by a comitee of aliens or gods. not to mention that arguement always gets funky cuz the creator would also require intelligent design
for all we know we were created by a comitee of aliens or gods. not to mention that arguement always gets funky cuz the creator would also require intelligent designI have also heard a "creationist" argue that...our bodies are 98% water and a watermelon is 98% percent water therefore we are related to watermelons!!!!!! haha! This was in response to the fact that Humans and Orangutans share 98% of our DNA. I don't think they get it!
<< they just want to put it in the wrong place, its fine to discuss such things in a PHILOSOPHY class, not a science class
for all we know we were created by a comitee of aliens or gods. not to mention that arguement always gets funky cuz the creator would also require intelligent design >>When the science behind a concept is incomplete, shoddy, and often half-assed, is it right for that to be taught in a science class?
There are legitimate arguments for creationism, evolution, and guided evolution... many of the ones for Creationism or guided evolution are completely ignored, when in reality, they should at least be considered and put up for debate.
The idea of a "creator" should definitely be taught in school, but it should be made certain that this belief is not attributed to any one religious belief.
Maetryx
Diamond Member
- Jan 18, 2001
- 4,849
- 1
- 81
It's not really a new argument. It's called the teleological argument, or argument from design. Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God.
<< The Design Argument
This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty the product of intelligent design and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer, to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.
The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end--for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
Not chance.
Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer. >>
<< The Design Argument
This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty the product of intelligent design and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer, to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.
The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end--for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
Not chance.
Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer. >>
When the science behind a concept is incomplete, shoddy, and often half-assed, is it right for that to be taught in a science class?
um says u, not the scientific community. i suppose quantum mechanics is incomplete, shoddy and often half-assed too
intelligent design is pure philosophy and nothing else. since world is rational there must have been a creator. um yea...it would seem more likely that an irrational world be the result of intelligent design to me
Anyways the arguement that rational design always implies the existence of an intelligent creator, which in turn implies that an intelligent creator created the intelligent creator... and on and on and on and on...---- BEGIN VOICE OF AGNOSTICISM ----
you have no way of knowing whether it is within the capabilities of a single entity to have designed the universe.
---- END VOICE OF AGNOSTICISM ----
you have no way of knowing whether it is within the capabilities of a single entity to have designed the universe.
---- END VOICE OF AGNOSTICISM ----
Anyways the arguement that rational design always implies the existence of an intelligent creator, which in turn implies that an intelligent creator created the intelligent creator... and on and on and on and on...
Nope. The kernal of the idea is that not only is the ultimate creator intelligent but also infinite. The creator must be the one thing that the existance of the universe is ultimately based on. I tend to believe that something exists in eternity. Materialists say it is the universe itself-- or the matter that makes up the universe; I believe it is a person.
I am the one who is.
I am the beginning and the end.
I am.
Nope. The kernal of the idea is that not only is the ultimate creator intelligent but also infinite. The creator must be the one thing that the existance of the universe is ultimately based on. I tend to believe that something exists in eternity. Materialists say it is the universe itself-- or the matter that makes up the universe; I believe it is a person.
I am the one who is.
I am the beginning and the end.
I am.
<< Anyways the arguement that rational design always implies the existence of an intelligent creator, which in turn implies that an intelligent creator created the intelligent creator... and on and on and on and on...
Nope. The kernal of the idea is that not only is the ultimate creator intelligent but also infinite. The creator must be the one thing that the existance of the universe is ultimately based on. I tend to believe that something exists in eternity. Materialists say it is the universe itself-- or the matter that makes up the universe; I believe it is a person.
I am the one who is.
I am the beginning and the end.
I am. >>
So... these lifeforms which people call 'gods' exist 'in eternity'? Got proof?
What you're actually suggesting, even though you don't notice it, is that these gods were formed during the formation of the universe. They were spontaneously generated.
The universe did not exist forever, therefore the above reasoning is correct.
No elledan. I'm suggesting that a person has always existed, and will always exist. AND that this person is the creator of the universe, and is transcendent of the universe.
I know you don't share my view, but, if you also don't believe the matter that makes up the universe is eternal, what do you propose then? What made it come into being? (I know you probably will say that it is "unknowable", which I understand. But if you had to guess, what would you guess existed before the universe?)
I know you don't share my view, but, if you also don't believe the matter that makes up the universe is eternal, what do you propose then? What made it come into being? (I know you probably will say that it is "unknowable", which I understand. But if you had to guess, what would you guess existed before the universe?)
<< ---- BEGIN VOICE OF AGNOSTICISM ----
you have no way of knowing whether it is within the capabilities of a single entity to have designed the universe.
---- END VOICE OF AGNOSTICISM ---- >>
VOICE OF EPISTEMIC SKEPTIC
you have no way of knowing whether or not 'you have no way of knowing whether it is within the capabilities of a single entity to have designed the universe."
END VOICE OF EPISTEMIC SKEPTIC
"What you're actually suggesting, even though you don't notice it, is that these gods were formed during the formation of the universe. They were spontaneously generated."
I think you missed his point.
I think you missed his point.
<<
<< "Life is to complex to have developed randomly and on it's own, therefore ther must have been Intelligent Design". >>
Isn't that a fallacy of circular logic? >>
no it is not.
if the statement was stated as a conditional (i.e. if life... then must have been) then it would be circular. assuming the first premise wasn't directly derived from the second, it is not circular. of course the second premise doesn't necessarily follow from the first, but i digress.
logic tells us that everything has a beginning. what is logic based on? intuition. what is intuition based on? observations.
if everything around you tells you things have a beginning, then by logic you would think all things must have beginnings. that is why we are tempted to think of "God" as having a beginning, or the "universe" as having a beginning. then we have to ask "what came before God" or "what existed before the universe"? maybe the answer is that some things don't have beginnings, then just always were. i think that would be the less radical of the two notions.
if everything around you tells you things have a beginning, then by logic you would think all things must have beginnings. that is why we are tempted to think of "God" as having a beginning, or the "universe" as having a beginning. then we have to ask "what came before God" or "what existed before the universe"? maybe the answer is that some things don't have beginnings, then just always were. i think that would be the less radical of the two notions.
<< The idea of a "creator" should definitely be taught in school, but it should be made certain that this belief is not attributed to any one religious belief. >>
I would be comfortable with that.
<< Anyways the arguement that rational design always implies the existence of an intelligent creator, which in turn implies that an intelligent creator created the intelligent creator... and on and on and on and on... >>
You can look at it that way if you want. Tell me, what is the origin of the universe? If you can't show WHERE it came from, then I suppose that it falls into the same boat as your view of the intelligent creator and is thus just as invalid, right?
BTW... if people think that things which cannot be proven by the scientific method should not be taught as science, then I suppose that we shouldn't teach evolution, the big bang, ice ages... or anything else which we cannot replicate.
For that matter, since "theories" seem to be disallowed, let's get rid of the "theory" of evolution since it is incomplete and unprovable.
It's funny how some people will call someone a "homophobe" on one thread and then act like "theophobes" in another, full of fear and hate towards God. Hmmm...... theophobe... yeah, nice word, I think I'll keep it.
Joe
"guided evolution"?
God created evolution or God created life and it evolved from there? Were Adam and Eve human in the form we are in now? Were they some form of early man (Neanderthal, Cro Mag) who evolved?
Darwin is/was correct.
God created evolution or God created life and it evolved from there? Were Adam and Eve human in the form we are in now? Were they some form of early man (Neanderthal, Cro Mag) who evolved?
Darwin is/was correct.
"Another symptom of the stupidifying of the American educational system. "
stupidifying?
I think our English classes must need more work as well.
stupidifying?
I think our English classes must need more work as well.
<< Another symptom of the stupidifying of the American educational system. The kids can't do fundamental math and civics has become an elective. What next?? The earth is flat?? >>
Care to do a historical search on the origin of all of the best and oldest institutions of learning in the world? I think you'll find that almost all of them are religious in origin.
<< Darwin is/was correct. >>
Darwin thought the cell was the smallest building block and that life generated spontaneously... like maggots springing from nowhere in rotting meat. You believe these things?
I think that one of the fundamental problems that many of you have with God is that you are looking at Him as if he were chrono-bound. If time didn't exist until the creation, then there wasn't any before, now or after... only an eternal NOW... hmm.... what does He call Himself? Oh yeah... I AM. A consistant and constant state. Fits pretty well.
Joe
what are you trying to say? whenever we mix cheese with peanut butter and straw, and place it in our barn....rats appear. seems obvious to me peanut butter+straw+cheese = Rat. It is just am matter of finding the right combinations. Your question reminds me of my earlier post:
<< I have also heard a "creationist" argue that...our bodies are 98% water and a watermelon is 98% percent water therefore we are related to watermelons!!!!!! haha! This was in response to the fact that Humans and Orangutans share 98% of our DNA. I don't think they get it >>
Of course I do not think everything Darwin wrote was/is accurate, nor should you believe that everything that MAN wrote in the bible is accurate either. My statement was simply meant to convey that Darwin was able to develop theories that will continue to hold out 100+ years later. He has a sound argument for his theories, hence this current debate.
Your question reminds me of my earlier post:<< I have also heard a "creationist" argue that...our bodies are 98% water and a watermelon is 98% percent water therefore we are related to watermelons!!!!!! haha! This was in response to the fact that Humans and Orangutans share 98% of our DNA. I don't think they get it >>
Of course I do not think everything Darwin wrote was/is accurate, nor should you believe that everything that MAN wrote in the bible is accurate either. My statement was simply meant to convey that Darwin was able to develop theories that will continue to hold out 100+ years later. He has a sound argument for his theories, hence this current debate.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter