Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

[Old Rocks]

52nd, what is the classification of man in the animal kingdom?



LINNAEAN CLASSIFICATION OF HUMANS
Classification of Living Things: Linnaean Classification of Humans


Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

 

[midcan5]

I've never understood the arguments for intelligent design, If one has faith in gawd, then believe, why argue with a theory used to explain the world, and specifically used to understand how change comes about. Evolution is key to medical science and integral to progress in medicine. It is a tool in man's constant quest to understand why. All ID does is posit a first cause, a entity with an amazing sense of humor given the complexity of life.

And a second skepticism I have is what is exactly intelligent? The animal kingdom is a literal dog eat dog world with so many weird forms of life it boggles my mind. What is intelligent about one life form eating another life form to live. And what is intelligent about the children who die every few seconds as I type this. Or those murdered every minute. Instead of arguing ID the religious should turn their attention to life and let gawd in all her glory sort it out. That is if she still cares, maybe not.

(repost)

 

[eagleseven]

And a second skepticism I have is what is exactly intelligent? The animal kingdom is a literal dog eat dog world with so many weird forms of life it boggles my mind.

Further, they would have us believe that this "intelligent designer" has created a second "perfect" world for us, a utopia which we can only enter after we are tortured enough in his first world.


With a God like him, who needs demons?

 

[Toronado3800]

Well if it much different, then there must have been many errors that other scientist had to make changes to it.
My point is humans did not evolve from apes, or Ameoba slime single cell life forms.
If we did evolve from Apes, why are these Apes still here on Earth?.What caused humans to diverge from these so called Apes or Primates?
Intelligent design , answers many of the gaps in Darwins theory, and the Big Bang theory. Many of these scientist are atheist , and just don't want to hear any theory that may point to the existence of God. This is the main issue that they and you, don't want to accept.

What caused humans to diverge? No one thing. Just one generation the fella in spot "A" who did the most improvements to the cave he was living in had 3 gals choose to live with him as opposed to the would be stud who was out climbing trees in the cold. Boy did that "smarter than average" ape man who put sticks up over part of the cave entrance to keep it warm get a chance to pass on his genes!

 

[Old Rocks]

Exactly. Those species, and individuals within the species, with the best survival stratagies passed their genes on. It does not matter whether those stratagies are hardwired in as instincts, or whether they are the result of concious thought.

 

[Lee Bowman]

I've never understood the arguments for intelligent design, If one has faith in gawd, then believe, why argue with a theory used to explain the world, and specifically used to understand how change comes about. Evolution is key to medical science and integral to progress in medicine. It is a tool in man's constant quest to understand why. All ID does is posit a first cause, a entity with an amazing sense of humor given the complexity of life.

Some Creationists disavow evolutionary theory in toto, but ID does not. An early descriptor of ID entailed the 'Big Tent' proposal, that ID would include proposals from Fundamentalist YEC theology to the scientific proposal of intervention at key evolutionary points. Today's designer proposal leans to the left, i.e. that intelligent intervention at certain points is proposed, and with natural selection in place as in the current TOE, (or NDE), but for adaptive genomic alterations within species, a mechanism to improve survival within changing environments, most likely a 'designed in' mechanism by the design team.

And a second skepticism I have is what is exactly intelligent? The animal kingdom is a literal dog eat dog world with so many weird forms of life it boggles my mind. What is intelligent about one life form eating another life form to live.

As a design proponent, I have toyed with renaming it, since many, like you, interprete intelligent to mean astoundingly brilliant. The Biblical version infers the same qualifier (omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omni[you fill in the blank]). But 'intelligent' in ID simply means 'directed', or an agent, agency or mechanism capable of makeing a decision, regardless of its merit. I have considered changing ID to DI (directed input), or GI (genomic intervention). I'm sure you get my point. Omniscience is a non sequitor within ID.

And what is intelligent about the children who die every few seconds as I type this. Or those murdered every minute. Instead of arguing ID the religious should turn their attention to life and let gawd in all her glory sort it out. That is if she still cares, maybe not.

These are questions raised by philosophers over the centuries, and even taken on by religious theologians (St Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Augustine of Hippo et al). Some judged it the result of 'original sin', while others applied philosophical arguments using the 'theodicy' concept. I attribute it to a logical result of free will, and that the competetive and combative naure of man makes life 'goal oriented', challenging, and something to work toward. What would the Super Bowl be if there were no losers. How can you have up without down? And of course, good w/o evil is also an impossibility. If 'all' was 'good' all the time, life would be one predictable and boring existence.

The examples given to discredit God (or other proposed interveners) are child rape, tsunamis, and of course 7.0 earth quakes. Free will, and the lack of divine intervention on a regular basis, has allowed these extremes to happen on a regular basis. But we have free will, unencumbered enterprise, and perhaps even the rejoiner of a redeemed existence later on. It all seems to fit a logical and purposeful game plan, IMO. And it certainly does nothing to rule out a designed existence. Random mutations to account for all novelty, complexity and aesthetics? What a joke.

 

[Vanquish]

If God were so powerful, He could have devised a way to teach us our spiritual lessons without pain, emotional or physical. If He were who you think he is, he could discover a way to reveal himself without negating free will. He hasn't discovered it yet.

 

[Lee Bowman]

If God were so powerful, He could have devised a way to teach us our spiritual lessons without pain, emotional or physical. If He were who you think he is, he could discover a way to reveal himself without negating free will. He hasn't discovered it yet.

There's always going to be more than one way to skin a cat .... oops, poor analogy.

Oh well, He didn't explicity direct us to skin cats (or cows, chickens and piglets).

We tend to assume that His sole purpose was to create a painless and perfect world. Isn't that man's reasoning tho ...

 

[Toronado3800]

I really don't have a problem with the theory "God set evolution in motion".

Rather difficult to prove or disprove also.

If any of our major religion's versions of God are correct I'll be amazed. Still, get me in a theological discussion while listening to some Floyd and I'll say the idea of time w/o a beginning almost invites there to be a god.

 

[IanC]

I don't have any problem with Darwin's Theory getting from first life to the present. My problem is getting the first life. someone equated it to a tornado blowing through a Boeing hangar full of parts that results in a functioning airplane being accidentally built. what did organisms use before DNA? where did they go and where is the shadow? is there a simpler mechanism than DNA? even if it was a million times simpler, what are the odds that it spontaneously appeared? once life is started it is comprehensible to see the development but the first step is HUGE and extremely improbable. I'm not saying that there is a God (as we understand it) that started life but I know for a fact that we are nowheres near being able to understand how life commenced.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, quite on the contrary. Many experiments have been done, and show that the building of complex and changing organic molecules inevitably occurs in an environment like that of the early Earth's. If there be a Diety, then all it had to do was set the rules of the universe, and set it in motion.

In fact, one could argue from what we see that the universe was designed to bring forth life. And I say that as an agnostic.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't have any problem with Darwin's Theory getting from first life to the present. My problem is getting the first life. someone equated it to a tornado blowing through a Boeing hangar full of parts that results in a functioning airplane being accidentally built. what did organisms use before DNA? where did they go and where is the shadow? is there a simpler mechanism than DNA? even if it was a million times simpler, what are the odds that it spontaneously appeared? once life is started it is comprehensible to see the development but the first step is HUGE and extremely improbable. I'm not saying that there is a God (as we understand it) that started life but I know for a fact that we are nowheres near being able to understand how life commenced.

Don't be sucked into that silly "airplane parts" argument. It's absolutely absurd. Metal doesn't self replicate, and self replication is the crucial fact of evolution. If anything, it's more in line with ID though in which a mysterious power comes along and magically slaps everything together.

You are delving into abiogenesis, which is less established than evolution. The hot theory of abiogenesis right now is of an "RNA world". RNA is simpler than DNA. Also, few things in nature are spontaneous (in the strictest thermodynamic definition of the world). The belief is that electrical (via lightning) and heat (via vents and volcanoes) catalysts in the primordial soup served to start assembling complex molecules. These notions can be replicated by experiment and were first done so by Miller and Urey in 1953 (for amino acids).

Once you realize that there isn't anything "magic" about proteins and nucleic acids, they are just a combination of basic chemicals that repel or attract based on their chemical properties, and then you account for the millions and millions of years of chemical reactions, it's not that big of a leap.

Maybe God had a hand in it, maybe he didn't. The point about God, though, is that the supernatural can't fit in the scientific method.

 

[52ndStreet]

I don't have any problem with Darwin's Theory getting from first life to the present. My problem is getting the first life. someone equated it to a tornado blowing through a Boeing hangar full of parts that results in a functioning airplane being accidentally built. what did organisms use before DNA? where did they go and where is the shadow? is there a simpler mechanism than DNA? even if it was a million times simpler, what are the odds that it spontaneously appeared? once life is started it is comprehensible to see the development but the first step is HUGE and extremely improbable. I'm not saying that there is a God (as we understand it) that started life but I know for a fact that we are nowheres near being able to understand how life commenced.

Don't be sucked into that silly "airplane parts" argument. It's absolutely absurd. Metal doesn't self replicate, and self replication is the crucial fact of evolution. If anything, it's more in line with ID though in which a mysterious power comes along and magically slaps everything together.

You are delving into abiogenesis, which is less established than evolution. The hot theory of abiogenesis right now is of an "RNA world". RNA is simpler than DNA. Also, few things in nature are spontaneous (in the strictest thermodynamic definition of the world). The belief is that electrical (via lightning) and heat (via vents and volcanoes) catalysts in the primordial soup served to start assembling complex molecules. These notions can be replicated by experiment and were first done so by Miller and Urey in 1953 (for amino acids).

Once you realize that there isn't anything "magic" about proteins and nucleic acids, they are just a combination of basic chemicals that repel or attract based on their chemical properties, and then you account for the millions and millions of years of chemical reactions, it's not that big of a leap.

Maybe God had a hand in it, maybe he didn't. The point about God, though, is that the supernatural can't fit in the scientific method.

You are making a statement that points directly to God."The ponit about God,though, is that the superantural can't fit in the scientific method." What you all fail to realize is that
"God" , is the ultimate scientist , adn bilogist he is the "Supernatural" . He created it all. The male and the female Gods, who once walked the Earth in Africa created us all. We did not evolve from ameoba slime or Apes.!

 

[geauxtohell]

:
You are making a statement that points directly to God."The ponit about God,though, is that the superantural can't fit in the scientific method." What you all fail to realize is that
"God" , is the ultimate scientist , adn bilogist he is the "Supernatural" . He created it all. The male and the female Gods, who once walked the Earth in Africa created us all. We did not evolve from ameoba slime or Apes.!

You have mistakenly inferred that I don't believe in God, while missing the crux of my argument.

Scientific methodology exists to explain the natural world. The supernatural is not allowed into the scientific methodology. It's a man made limitation we impose to keep the venture grounded in what we can actually explain through data and observation.

In order to allow God into scientific methodology, you would first have to admit that there is a possibility that God doesn't exist and that such can be proven.

 

[52ndStreet]

:
You are making a statement that points directly to God."The ponit about God,though, is that the superantural can't fit in the scientific method." What you all fail to realize is that
"God" , is the ultimate scientist , adn bilogist he is the "Supernatural" . He created it all. The male and the female Gods, who once walked the Earth in Africa created us all. We did not evolve from ameoba slime or Apes.!

You have mistakenly inferred that I don't believe in God, while missing the crux of my argument.

Scientific methodology exists to explain the natural world. The supernatural is not allowed into the scientific methodology. It's a man made limitation we impose to keep the venture grounded in what we can actually explain through data and observation.

In order to allow God into scientific methodology, you would first have to admit that there is a possibility that God doesn't exist and that such can be proven.

"Its a man made limitation we impose to keep the venture
grounded in what we can actually explain through data and observation"

So there is a lot that man can not or has not observed throughout the history of human existence. Or man has no data for certain human biological situations.
At one point, medeval Europeans thought certain sickneses were caused by evil spirits.They
finally discovered that the cause of the sickness were something called "Viruses". They further went on to find out that there were hundreds of thousands of these "Viruses". My point is the majority of or scientific knowledge comes out of Europe.
There are many African theories with regards to human existence here on planet Earth.

 

[geauxtohell]

So there is a lot that man can not or has not observed throughout the history of human existence.

Yes

Or man has no data for certain human biological situations.

I am not sure what you mean by this. If there is a "biological situation" of interest, it is studied and data defines the conclusion. Now, it might not be directly observable, but it can still be studied.

If you have interest in that, you should look up how the ATPase system was discovered and the methodology behind discovering the hydrogen gradient that runs it. Pretty fascinating.

At one point, medeval Europeans thought certain sickneses were caused by evil spirits.They
finally discovered that the cause of the sickness were something called "Viruses". They further went on to find out that there were hundreds of thousands of these "Viruses". My point is the majority of or scientific knowledge comes out of Europe.

Actually, the "germ theory" of disease far precedes the discovery and differentiation of bacterial and viral disease.

The reason that Western Society (I wouldn't say Europe) has contributed heavily to scientific thought, is that Western Societies were the first to derive and insist on the adherence of the scientific method.

That has propelled education, technology, and innovation.

This is the same method we are trying to preserve from ID'ers.

There are many African theories with regards to human existence here on planet Earth.

So what? Every culture has it's own origins theory. That doesn't make it "scientific".

 

[52ndStreet]

So there is a lot that man can not or has not observed throughout the history of human existence.

Yes

Or man has no data for certain human biological situations.

I am not sure what you mean by this. If there is a "biological situation" of interest, it is studied and data defines the conclusion. Now, it might not be directly observable, but it can still be studied.

If you have interest in that, you should look up how the ATPase system was discovered and the methodology behind discovering the hydrogen gradient that runs it. Pretty fascinating.

At one point, medeval Europeans thought certain sickneses were caused by evil spirits.They
finally discovered that the cause of the sickness were something called "Viruses". They further went on to find out that there were hundreds of thousands of these "Viruses". My point is the majority of or scientific knowledge comes out of Europe.

Actually, the "germ theory" of disease far precedes the discovery and differentiation of bacterial and viral disease.

The reason that Western Society (I wouldn't say Europe) has contributed heavily to scientific thought, is that Western Societies were the first to derive and insist on the adherence of the scientific method.

That has propelled education, technology, and innovation.

This is the same method we are trying to preserve from ID'ers.

There are many African theories with regards to human existence here on planet Earth.

So what? Every culture has it's own origins theory. That doesn't make it "scientific".

I mention Africa, because I was really fascinated by the Malian Dogon theory of Human existence. Which stated that " A mother ship with many of the Earths plants and animals
populated the Earth."
I did not mean to say that their story had to be "scientific." These were stories that were handed down for many generations.

 

[geauxtohell]

I mention Africa, because I was really fascinated by the Malian Dogon theory of Human existence. Which stated that " A mother ship with many of the Earths plants and animals
populated the Earth."
I did not mean to say that their story had to be "scientific." These were stories that were handed down for many generations.

That's all good and fine and would fit nicely in an anthropology class.

When talking about science, it has to fit into the methodology of science which excludes mother-ships and deities.

I mean, the Scientologists have an "origins" story too, but you don't hear anyone harping about how it should be taught alongside evolution.

 

[Dr Gregg]

no, ID is not gaining ground as there is no science to it. It's creationisms trying to pass itself off as science.

 

[Dr Gregg]

I saw a show the other night about the how scientist were at a lost to explain the tremendous amount of new species of animals and plants that suddenly appeared during the Cambian period millions of years ago on Earth.

They stated the info from the fossils , puts in question Darwins theory of Evolution. Darwins theory states that species developed from small single cell life forms , to more
complex advanced life forms. "From the bottom up".

The intelligent design theory, which the Cambian period in the Earths development shows,was from the "Top down". Which showed that they were many complex life forms
already developed, that then evolved into more complex life form. And this indicates some form of intelligent design with regards to life forms here on Earth.

The program stated that Darwin could never fully explain the abundance of new life forms
that were on the Earth during this Cambain period. And he felt it would eventually challenge his theory of evolution and natural selection.

I for one accept the intelligent design theory. It seems more logical and practical for todays world and for the world of the past.

Any other opinions?

it's not really unknown. The cambrian explosion came at a time when the developmental patterns we see today in nearly all animals was taking hold. BAsically an embryo gets segmented into 14 segments with varying levels of expression of transcription factors start there regions down the path of developing into a specific body region, which is essentially conserved from fruit flies to humans. This type of development allows for minute changes to lead to large structural changes thatg can lead to the wide variation in limbs size, shape, form, etc. It was not observed until the time of the cambrian explosion, hence how so much diversity of life arose at this time, plus probablyt he environmental conditions at the time.