Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[konradv]

can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.

If you want to say there's ID in the Big Bang when all physical laws were established, fine. From there, however, it was all evolution, first stellar, then planetary and finally life. There's no need and no evidence of ID. It all happened at the BB, if you're a theist.

But that alone IS intelligent design if one would want to argue.

I said I'd give it to you at the BB, but it has nothing to do with the evolution of life beyond that being the time when all physical laws were laid down. There's nothing inevitable about humans. If we were a waterworld, we could have ended up being highly intelligent dolphins.

 

[Leweman]

If you want to say there's ID in the Big Bang when all physical laws were established, fine. From there, however, it was all evolution, first stellar, then planetary and finally life. There's no need and no evidence of ID. It all happened at the BB, if you're a theist.

But that alone IS intelligent design if one would want to argue.

I said I'd give it to you at the BB, but it has nothing to do with the evolution of life beyond that being the time when all physical laws were laid down. There's nothing inevitable about humans. If we were a waterworld, we could have ended up being highly intelligent dolphins.

Not lot of science involved if you have to say IF ... to prove your point. I would think scientists were deeper thinkers and am a little dissapointed that the theory of evolution is so vague and can only go back so far which in turn disproves itself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The same Santorum who yesterday was ridiculing global warming studies as 'junk science'?

THAT Rick Santorum???

 

[The T]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

And then theories of 'Folding Space'...

 

[NYcarbineer]

But that alone IS intelligent design if one would want to argue.

I said I'd give it to you at the BB, but it has nothing to do with the evolution of life beyond that being the time when all physical laws were laid down. There's nothing inevitable about humans. If we were a waterworld, we could have ended up being highly intelligent dolphins.

Not lot of science involved if you have to say IF ... to prove your point. I would think scientists were deeper thinkers and am a little dissapointed that the theory of evolution is so vague and can only go back so far which in turn disproves itself.

So which is the better theory, from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint?

Evolution, for which there are mountains of evidence?

or Intelligent Design, for which there is absolutely no evidence?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So this just means that evolution and intelligent design can exist together.

No it doesn't. Evolution is a scientific explanation of observed phenomena. Intelligent design is a weak attempt to preserve religious doctrine in the face of scientific evidence that rejects those doctrines.

Wow... you have scientific evidence that God did not create the unviverse or worse, does not exist? Do share!!!

Science is not about the lack of proof that something does not exist being proof that it does.

If you get educated north of the Mason Dixon line, you learn that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a complex living being cannot occur without being designed by another intelligent being,

then God cannot exist unless he was in fact designed by an intelligent being,

unless of course you do not believe that God is a complex living being.

The theory of intelligent design refutes itself by its very nature.

 

[Leweman]

If a complex living being cannot occur without being designed by another intelligent being,

then God cannot exist unless he was in fact designed by an intelligent being,

unless of course you do not believe that God is a complex living being.

The theory of intelligent design refutes itself by its very nature.

Hmmmm i don't remember that being the concept of intelligent design. Just your interpretation. Still doesn't help prove evolution.

 

[Leweman]

I said I'd give it to you at the BB, but it has nothing to do with the evolution of life beyond that being the time when all physical laws were laid down. There's nothing inevitable about humans. If we were a waterworld, we could have ended up being highly intelligent dolphins.

Not lot of science involved if you have to say IF ... to prove your point. I would think scientists were deeper thinkers and am a little dissapointed that the theory of evolution is so vague and can only go back so far which in turn disproves itself.

So which is the better theory, from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint?

Evolution, for which there are mountains of evidence?

or Intelligent Design, for which there is absolutely no evidence?

Neither... for people who think.

 

[Leweman]

The same Santorum who yesterday was ridiculing global warming studies as 'junk science'?

THAT Rick Santorum???

You think God doesn't exist, yet man made climate change is disproved again and again and you refuse to believe that? Why would anyone bother having a discussion with you then?

 

[konradv]

But that alone IS intelligent design if one would want to argue.

I said I'd give it to you at the BB, but it has nothing to do with the evolution of life beyond that being the time when all physical laws were laid down. There's nothing inevitable about humans. If we were a waterworld, we could have ended up being highly intelligent dolphins.

Not lot of science involved if you have to say IF ... to prove your point. I would think scientists were deeper thinkers and am a little dissapointed that the theory of evolution is so vague and can only go back so far which in turn disproves itself.

Deep thinking often starts with an "if". So far, all ID has been in the real scientific world is a distraction with more poltical than scientific overtones. You can see it in the notion that they have a right to be heard and disseminate their views in schools, as if it were a political right! That's not how it works. You need real, hard evidence. It's not going to be handed out just because some people like to whine. It has to be earned.

 

[The T]

The same Santorum who yesterday was ridiculing global warming studies as 'junk science'?

THAT Rick Santorum???

You think God doesn't exist, yet man made climate change is disproved again and again and you refuse to believe that? Why would anyone bother having a discussion with you then?

Because those that hold discussions with Carbonated are into self-abuse?

 

[JScott]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Yes, really.

 

[JScott]

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

Darwin went on to say,"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

So what you did is took his words out of context.

 

[The T]

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

Darwin went on to say,"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

So what you did is took his words out of context.

o Darwin was admitting HE was as flawed as his theory.

Nice.

 

[JoeB131]

If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a first-rate science education.

Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools


Have to laugh to stop from crying as the anti-science wing of the GOP hands four more years to Obama.

ONce again, it falls to the resident atheist to lay a little common sense here...

Most Americans think that God had something to do with Creation. About half the country thinks He did it the way the bible says. Others think that God guided the process- which is what is colloquially called "Intelligent design".

This is not a loser issue. Only about 12% of the country believes that Creation happened with No Sky Pixie Involved.

My own thought is, why not include it in the cirruculum. Pretending the theory isn't out there doesn't make it go away.

No fundie student is going to think, "Ah, Mr. Jones isn't going to talk about intelligent design, that must mean it has no merit!" He's going to think, "Ah, Mr. Jones refuses to discuss the issue, it means he's part of the secularist Communist conspriracy to hide the truth of Our Lord, Jesus Christ." Just like Reverand Tightass says.

 

[JScott]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Cant teach old dogs...

 

[JScott]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter.

Wrong. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Do elaborate.

Tell us what evolution means.

 

[JScott]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter.

Wrong. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

Nothing?? really?? isn't the very base of the idea??

You explain evolution.

 

[JScott]

Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Indeed... I thoroughly believe these folks suffering from some severe mental trauma. They make up the weirdest shit, and then talk about God as a silly superstition.. yet mother ships and special universes makes perfect sense.

They're nuts.

Wow, who on these boards talk about about crap like this?