Intelligent Design is Not Religion

[Viktor]

If ID were religion, the Discovery Institute would be quoting the bible. They don't.

 

[Augustine_]

If ID were religion, the Discovery Institute would be quoting the bible. They don't.

You can call anything a religion. It's all the same.

 

[Ringtone]

You can call anything a religion. It's all the same.

Naturalism is the atheist's religion.

 

[Augustine_]

Naturalism is the atheist's religion.

oh okay

 

[WinterBorn]

If ID were religion, the Discovery Institute would be quoting the bible. They don't.

There are plenty of religions that do not use, or believe in, the Bible.

However, Intelligent Design is certainly based on religion. Unless you can introduce us to the intelligence behind it.

 

[Viktor]

You can call anything a religion. It's all the same.

Why don't you pick up a cat and tell him to bark?

 

[jehanne1431]

There are plenty of religions that do not use, or believe in, the Bible.

However, Intelligent Design is certainly based on religion. Unless you can introduce us to the intelligence behind it.

The intelligence behind it is based on science and reason. Everyone knows you see a beautiful painting, by reason you know there had to be a painter. Matter does not create eye balls and nervous systems from a lump of coal based on chance with zero thought process. You do not have to call it God, but it is surely supernatural intelligent design.

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“the illusion of design and planning.” --- right. That’s not science, Richard… that’s agenda.

 

[Viktor]

The intelligence behind it is based on science and reason. Everyone knows you see a beautiful painting, by reason you know there had to be a painter. Matter does not create eye balls and nervous systems from a lump of coal based on chance with zero thought process. You do not have to call it God, but it is surely supernatural intelligent design.

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“the illusion of design and planning.” --- right. That’s not science, Richard… that’s agenda.

I read Dawkins book "The God Delusion". In the first 11 pages, I found 4 lies.

 

[MarathonMike]

Religion just means belief in a God, Gods or some greater power.

 

[BULLDOG]

The intelligence behind it is based on science and reason. Everyone knows you see a beautiful painting, by reason you know there had to be a painter. Matter does not create eye balls and nervous systems from a lump of coal based on chance with zero thought process. You do not have to call it God, but it is surely supernatural intelligent design.

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“the illusion of design and planning.” --- right. That’s not science, Richard… that’s agenda.

Interesting that you would mention eyeballs, since they are so poorly designed.

 

[Donald H]

Smart Christians should run away from the ID pseudo-science as fast as they can. ID was totally destroyed in this trial.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christians posing as scientists didn't research their phony talking points and set Christianity back even further by attempting their scam.

Unfortunately, many Christians still don't understand that they lost so convincingly.

 

[WinterBorn]

The intelligence behind it is based on science and reason. Everyone knows you see a beautiful painting, by reason you know there had to be a painter. Matter does not create eye balls and nervous systems from a lump of coal based on chance with zero thought process. You do not have to call it God, but it is surely supernatural intelligent design.

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“the illusion of design and planning.” --- right. That’s not science, Richard… that’s agenda.

Evolution is a process that creates simple eyespots and gradually improves them.

Any time the major point of a process is something that is, not only not known, but we are told it is unknowable, is not science.

 

[WinterBorn]

I read Dawkins book "The God Delusion". In the first 11 pages, I found 4 lies.

Dawkins appreciates you buying the book.

 

[WinterBorn]

 

[WinterBorn]

If ID were religion, the Discovery Institute would be quoting the bible. They don't.

I wanted to come back to this.


Try these alternate versions of what you said to see how ridiculous it is.


If Islam were a religion, muslims would be quoting the bible. They don't.

If Hinduism was a religion, swamis would be quoting the bible. They don't.

 

[jehanne1431]

Interesting that you would mention eyeballs, since they are so poorly designed.

Excerpt from creation.com: It pushed the long-refuted argument that your body is badly designed, a line of reasoning that Darwin used to argue that life was not created but evolved. It begins, “Your body succeeds despite a bunch of amazingly bad design flaws.” Here are some major flaws:

One tube for breathing and eating
Back-to-front retinas in our eyes
Knees that can’t cope with sport
A spine not designed for walking
Sinuses that drain up, not down

Yes, that is troubling, our theory collapses on it, even.
So let’s just skip over the fact quadrillions of biological and physiological transformations needed to take place (often simultaneous) for any masterful change to take place --- with nary a miss in the fossil record. And how two mice can conceive the same genetic “urge” to give birth to hybrid-mouse on its way to becoming an ant-eater is just a given, I suppose.

So instead, you remain steadfast evolution from primordial soup to human being still occurred by chance with no intelligent design. <<< God will always give man enough rope to hang himself with if he be that desperate to prove no evidence for a supernatural being. You block out reason.

 

[Augustine_]

Why don't you pick up a cat and tell him to bark?

Cats and barks are things that we know exist. So you can't compare them to any of the religions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why don't you pick up a cat and tell him to bark?

That's very different. A cat is a cat because it's a cat. However a cat is CALLED a cat, because it's been called a cat. It could be called anything. It's a "gato" in Spanish, "mao" in Chinese etc etc. Different labels for the same thing.

What is a religion? A religion isn't something "real". If all humans died tomorrow there wouldn't be anything called religion (as we know it), but there would still be cats.

And what a religion is is debatable, what God is is debatable. People will have different definitions for them.

 

[jehanne1431]

Smart Christians should run away from the ID pseudo-science as fast as they can. ID was totally destroyed in this trial.

The problem with your court case is the use of the phrase “Intelligent design.” They are interpreting ID to mean Creationism. Why? Evolution vs. Creationism can be a debate I would gladly take the Creationism side, but it is merely a red herring compared to the vastly more important and eternal question --- i.e. If evolution occurred, did it occur by thoughtless chance or was the process guided by an Intelligent Designer? That is all that matters. A great portion of science is still holding out there is no evidence for God in their research, they are desperate and driven to try to present a “scientific” explanation how a rock could create DNA life and then morph an infinite number of times giving birth to snakes and peacocks and little baby boys. This arm of science and government want us to buy the crock of B.S. that there is no need for a supreme intelligence to make an amoeba turn into a screaming eagle one day.

Even evolution hero Richard Dawkins admits to that which sounds impossible. I repeat his words >>> "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

Now how stupid is that? That is like saying a rocket ship has the appearance of design, but it is just an illusion it was designed. And you swallow that? And look how much “credit” he gives to your side’s belief of no ID required: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” <<< And that, which has "no purpose in view" is the great design process you people use to create the workings of a nervous system, a liver or a brain? Seriously? Since it cannot be a God as you insist, instead you all say "natural selection is this inert inanimate force that has no mind of its own, but is blowing ours by what it can create."

 

[WinterBorn]

The problem with your court case is the use of the phrase “Intelligent design.” They are interpreting ID to mean Creationism. Why? Evolution vs. Creationism can be a debate I would gladly take the Creationism side, but it is merely a red herring compared to the vastly more important and eternal question --- i.e. If evolution occurred, did it occur by thoughtless chance or was the process guided by an Intelligent Designer? That is all that matters. A great portion of science is still holding out there is no evidence for God in their research, they are desperate and driven to try to present a “scientific” explanation how a rock could create DNA life and then morph an infinite number of times giving birth to snakes and peacocks and little baby boys. This arm of science and government want us to buy the crock of B.S. that there is no need for a supreme intelligence to make an amoeba turn into a screaming eagle one day.

Even evolution hero Richard Dawkins admits to that which sounds impossible. I repeat his words >>> "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

Now how stupid is that? That is like saying a rocket ship has the appearance of design, but it is just an illusion it was designed. And you swallow that? And look how much “credit” he gives to your side’s belief of no ID required: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” <<< And that, which has "no purpose in view" is the great design process you people use to create the workings of a nervous system, a liver or a brain? Seriously? Since it cannot be a God as you insist, instead you all say "natural selection is this inert inanimate force that has no mind of its own, but is blowing ours by what it can create."

The basic problem with ID is that it relinquishes all pretense at science by relying on an outside force to explain everything. And yet, the outside force cannot be explained or shown.

So if there was an intelligence "designing" all that exists, there are two choices for what that is. Either you believe aliens created our planet and everything on it, or you believe a diety of some sort did. I doubt most ID proponents believe it was aliens. So the fact that you do not say "God" does not change what you propose created everything.