A question - Intelligent Design

[freeandfun1]

I saw a leader of some atheist organization on TV last night stating that, while we don't know the order in which evolution occurred, we do know that it has occurred but we have NO proof that intelligent design is a possible reason for our being here and therefore, ID has no room in the discussion of science.

Well, do we really know that intelligent design is not possible? No, we don't. Think of it this way: We hear everyday about intelligent design and its possibilities. Have we (humans) not discovered that we can alter DNA, that we can create clones, that we can develop designer babies, etc? Now, is that not a form of intelligent design? I believe that it is and I am not sure how anybody could argue that it is not.

Therefore, the argument that intelligent design has no place in the discussion of science is all bunk. JMHO!

 

[MissileMan]

I saw a leader of some atheist organization on TV last night stating that, while we don't know the order in which evolution occurred, we do know that it has occurred but we have NO proof that intelligent design is a possible reason for our being here and therefore, ID has no room in the discussion of science.

Well, do we really know that intelligent design is not possible? No, we don't. Think of it this way: We hear everyday about intelligent design and its possibilities. Have we (humans) not discovered that we can alter DNA, that we can create clones, that we can develop designer babies, etc? Now, is that not a form of intelligent design? I believe that it is and I am not sure how anybody could argue that it is not.

Therefore, the argument that intelligent design has no place in the discussion of science is all bunk. JMHO!

There's a bit of difference between doing some cloning, and actually inventing a new form of life, like one that is silicon based instead of carbon based. There's also a really big difference between cloning, and creating a universe out of nothing and filling it with galaxies and solar systems. I'm not saying that ID is beyond possibility, but until there is actual verfiable evidence to back it up, it kinda falls into the science fiction category.

 

[freeandfun1]

There's a bit of difference between doing some cloning, and actually inventing a new form of life, like one that is silicon based instead of carbon based. There's also a really big difference between cloning, and creating a universe out of nothing and filling it with galaxies and solar systems. I'm not saying that ID is beyond possibility, but until there is actual verfiable evidence to back it up, it kinda falls into the science fiction category.

I understand, I am just saying that if we are just now beginning to realize the thing we can do genetically, etc., just think what we might actually be able to do another say, 100 years from now. At one time, people said we would never be able to fly.... or sequence DNA, or clone, etc., etc.

There has been discussions on how we MIGHT be able to create an atmosphere on Mars so that one day humans could colonize the planet. Sure, it is sci-fi now, but in the future? Remember Biosphere in AZ?

I guess what I am getting at, is one day we (humans) might just be the people that introduce life on another planet, possibly, even in another solar system. Therefore, we cannot discount the idea that that is not what happened here. I just think it is lunacy to not look for signs to either verify or deny the possibility.

At one time it was said that Christopher Columbus was going to fall off the edge of the earth when he headed west. If he had not tried, we might still be sitting in Europe looking west and wondering if it were true or not.....

Again, I just feel it is totally idiotic to deny that ID could be a serious possibility an therefore, should not be examined. Don't forget, the "Big Boom Theory" is just that, a THEORY.

 

[Shattered]

If we can waste money to test the possibility of getting cancer while eating carrots in the shower, we can certainly spend money on this type of research...

 

[MissileMan]

I understand, I am just saying that if we are just now beginning to realize the thing we can do genetically, etc., just think what we might actually be able to do another say, 100 years from now. At one time, people said we would never be able to fly.... or sequence DNA, or clone, etc., etc.

There has been discussions on how we MIGHT be able to create an atmosphere on Mars so that one day humans could colonize the planet. Sure, it is sci-fi now, but in the future? Remember Biosphere in AZ?

I guess what I am getting at, is one day we (humans) might just be the people that introduce life on another planet, possibly, even in another solar system. Therefore, we cannot discount the idea that that is not what happened here. I just think it is lunacy to not look for signs to either verify or deny the possibility.

At one time it was said that Christopher Columbus was going to fall off the edge of the earth when he headed west. If he had not tried, we might still be sitting in Europe looking west and wondering if it were true or not.....

Again, I just feel it is totally idiotic to deny that ID could be a serious possibility an therefore, should not be examined. Don't forget, the "Big Boom Theory" is just that, a THEORY.

I can see things like terra forming occurring in man's future. I think we are still in our scientific infancy.

I guess maybe where we aren't having a meeting of the minds is after going through the theory of evolution and all of its supporting evidence, how would telling kids in science class that some people believe earth may have been visited by aliens who altered the genes of existing primates to create human beings accomplish anything? You wouldn't be able to support it, so the entire lesson for ID would be one simple statement similar to the one above.

Another side of that coin would be this argument: What if indeed, the life on Earth is unique, that we are the only living beings in all the universe and mankind is destined to be the Interstellar Johnny Appleseed. ID might well be a suitable topic in a galaxy far, far away a millenium from now. I just don't think it is appropriate curriculum at this time.

I have no objections to it being funded for college level research though.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I saw a leader of some atheist organization on TV last night stating that, while we don't know the order in which evolution occurred, we do know that it has occurred but we have NO proof that intelligent design is a possible reason for our being here and therefore, ID has no room in the discussion of science.

Well, do we really know that intelligent design is not possible? No, we don't. Think of it this way: We hear everyday about intelligent design and its possibilities. Have we (humans) not discovered that we can alter DNA, that we can create clones, that we can develop designer babies, etc? Now, is that not a form of intelligent design? I believe that it is and I am not sure how anybody could argue that it is not.

Therefore, the argument that intelligent design has no place in the discussion of science is all bunk. JMHO!

Agreed. None of the evolutionists can actually prove how anything truly began any more than the ID believers.

So why should we leave out the scientific possibility of ID? ID doesn't even have to be religiously-related, but of course, the possible religious aspect is why the Secularists want to keep it in the closet - even if it is a major ALTERNATIVE theory. (however, they are all FOR alternative lifestyles being out of the closet. )

 

[clumzgirl]

Wasn't there something in "The DaVinci Code" that supported ID? Some fraction or ratio that keeps coming up in science that points to the conclusion that the number has some significance or was at least repeated on purpose. Like, the number of cells in a plant leaf is the same as the amount of water in the human body (that's just a for instance).
Of course, I'm assuming the author didn't make that up...

 

[no1tovote4]

I saw a leader of some atheist organization on TV last night stating that, while we don't know the order in which evolution occurred, we do know that it has occurred but we have NO proof that intelligent design is a possible reason for our being here and therefore, ID has no room in the discussion of science.

Well, do we really know that intelligent design is not possible? No, we don't. Think of it this way: We hear everyday about intelligent design and its possibilities. Have we (humans) not discovered that we can alter DNA, that we can create clones, that we can develop designer babies, etc? Now, is that not a form of intelligent design? I believe that it is and I am not sure how anybody could argue that it is not.

Therefore, the argument that intelligent design has no place in the discussion of science is all bunk. JMHO!

I have always thought of Science as the Art of discovering how God put all this together. The way it all fits together is so far amazing and exciting. Wow and to imagine, in my belief system we are all part of that! It confirms my Faith with every new discovery and excites my curiosity in ways that are thrilling. In my opinion and by the way that I feel every Science class was a way of teaching me how it was all designed and was just as religious as going to the Temple.

 

[5stringJeff]

I saw a leader of some atheist organization on TV last night stating that, while we don't know the order in which evolution occurred, we do know that it has occurred but we have NO proof that intelligent design is a possible reason for our being here and therefore, ID has no room in the discussion of science.

False premise. What we know is that life exists. What we dont know is how life came to be. Evolution is not a proven fact, as much as this atheist wants it to be so. Evolutionists have a theory, using some evidence found in nature. ID-ers have a theory, using much of the same evidence. Both theories, IMO, should be taught, using the scientific evidence each side claims to support its theory.

 

[MissileMan]

False premise. What we know is that life exists. What we dont know is how life came to be. Evolution is not a proven fact, as much as this atheist wants it to be so. Evolutionists have a theory, using some evidence found in nature. ID-ers have a theory, using much of the same evidence. Both theories, IMO, should be taught, using the scientific evidence each side claims to support its theory.

Have you actually looked at what the ID-ers are calling evidence to bolster their theory? It goes like this. You look around nature and find something complicated, like the structure of a snowflake. You assert that because it is complicated, that it couldn't have occurred naturally, and therefore it is evidence of ID.

Do you honestly believe that ever since Darwin published his theory, that there haven't been religious scientists working feverishly around the clock trying to come up with evidence to refute evolution? If they had found it, we'd have heard about it and school curriculum would have been adapted to account for it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Have you actually looked at what the ID-ers are calling evidence to bolster their theory? It goes like this. You look around nature and find something complicated, like the structure of a snowflake. You assert that because it is complicated, that it couldn't have occurred naturally, and therefore it is evidence of ID.

Do you honestly believe that ever since Darwin published his theory, that there haven't been religious scientists working feverishly around the clock trying to come up with evidence to refute evolution? If they had found it, we'd have heard about it and school curriculum would have been adapted to account for it.

Now I think we may be working on two different definitions of Intelligent Design. Those that I know who believe in ID believe that God guided evolution. Thus when looking into evidence of evolution find in it the foundation of their Faith. Most IDers believe that it wasn't 6 days and one night of rest and think that Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive and that evidence of evolution may just be the same as evidence of ID.

They also have theories like natural evolution works in micro steps and always creates creatures with the same characteristics, while macro evolution seems to be much larger steps and may be evidence of a Design rather than natural selection. They can prove or disprove by actual scientific evaluation of current life and its evolution, it may take centuries but it can actually be proven or disproven with valid scientific observation.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Now I think we may be working on two different definitions of Intelligent Design. Those that I know who believe in ID believe that God guided evolution. Thus when looking into evidence of evolution find in it the foundation of their Faith. Most IDers believe that it wasn't 6 days and one night of rest and think that Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive and that evidence of evolution may just be the same as evidence of ID.

They also have theories like natural evolution works in micro steps and always creates creatures with the same characteristics, while macro evolution seems to be much larger steps and may be evidence of a Design rather than natural selection. They can prove or disprove by actual scientific evaluation of current life and its evolution, it may take centuries but it can actually be proven or disproven with valid scientific observation.

Right, another way to look at non-faith ID: what would be the alternative to ID?
Stupid randomness?
Can one really look at the universe and really say it is the random result out of a gadzillion possibilities? Wouldn't chaos have been a more likely result?

 

[no1tovote4]

Right, another way to look at non-faith ID: what would be the alternative to ID?
Stupid randomness?
Can one really look at the universe and really say it is the random result out of a gadzillion possibilities? Wouldn't chaos have been a more likely result?

Plus there is exactly as much evidence for the randomness as there is for ID, however the actual scientific observation supports current ID theories better as evidence of Macro Evolutional steps is not found within the current living examples.

It is a fascinating study and one which unfortunately it is very unlikely for us to be alive for the conclusion.

 

[MissileMan]

Now I think we may be working on two different definitions of Intelligent Design. Those that I know who believe in ID believe that God guided evolution. Thus when looking into evidence of evolution find in it the foundation of their Faith. Most IDers believe that it wasn't 6 days and one night of rest and think that Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive and that evidence of evolution may just be the same as evidence of ID.

They also have theories like natural evolution works in micro steps and always creates creatures with the same characteristics, while macro evolution seems to be much larger steps and may be evidence of a Design rather than natural selection. They can prove or disprove by actual scientific evaluation of current life and its evolution, it may take centuries but it can actually be proven or disproven with valid scientific observation.

I was basing my argument on the info I found on this link provided by another member a while back.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136

 

[nosarcasm]

Right, another way to look at non-faith ID: what would be the alternative to ID?
Stupid randomness?
Can one really look at the universe and really say it is the random result out of a gadzillion possibilities? Wouldn't chaos have been a more likely result?

isnt quantum mechanics suggesting no random at all ?

 

[no1tovote4]

I was basing my argument on the info I found on this link provided by another member a while back.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136

So we were working on two differing definitions. However my posit still stands regardless of this particular website my personal experience with people who believe in ID is that they are intelligent and scientific and not unreasonable. They have created theories that will or will not be proven with the scientific method and are not looking for shortcuts. While the website was interesting it likely would be taken apart by my friends that do believe in ID.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I guess what I am getting at, is one day we (humans) might just be the people that introduce life on another planet, possibly, even in another solar system. Therefore, we cannot discount the idea that that is not what happened here. I just think it is lunacy to not look for signs to either verify or deny the possibility.

Our ability to manipulate DNA through experimentation does not provide "proof" that our DNA was intentionally manipulated in the past.

By who? Who was the past historical DNA manipulator and where have they gone? Surely you're not suggesting that these alleged manipulators hung around for a few BILLION years manipulating the entire evolutionary chain, then TOOK OFF without a trace?

If you are claiming that they came down and did a quick DNA fix - a nip and tuck if you will - and then let evolution take it's course, that still means that evolution is responsible for the vast (99.999999999999%) of what has developed. That's hardly "ID" as most people wild have it.


Regards


Andy

 

[dilloduck]

Our ability to manipulate DNA through experimentation does not provide "proof" that our DNA was intentionally manipulated in the past.

By who? Who was the past historical DNA manipulator and where have they gone? Surely you're not suggesting that these alleged manipulators hung around for a few BILLION years manipulating the entire evolutionary chain, then TOOK OFF without a trace?

If you are claiming that they came down and did a quick DNA fix - a nip and tuck if you will - and then let evolution take it's course, that still means that evolution is responsible for the vast (99.999999999999%) of what has developed. That's hardly "ID" as most people wild have it.


Regards


Andy

What if the DNA was originally DESIGNED to evolve ? No nip or tuck would be neccesssary.

 

[dmp]

What if the DNA was originally DESIGNED to evolve ? No nip or tuck would be neccesssary.

...but DNA hasn't evolved to the point where one species becomes another. Ever. That's the foundation of most evolutionist teachings.

 

[dilloduck]

...but DNA hasn't evolved to the point where one species becomes another. Ever. That's the foundation of most evolutionist teachings.

So you're saying Divine Intervention could not have occured through DNA ?