Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[marksinvirginia]

The oxymoron in this debate is Intelligent Designer. Some say He/it exists and some say He/it does not. If a designer existed in a void of nothingness, how would He/it possess intelligence (which compares to nothing that then existed) or how would He/it maintain a capacity to design anything (without any points of reference).

God is the Almighty and eternal God of the imaginable and the unimaginable. He is not limited to man's ignorant references to "intelligence". God is not within the confines of man's stupid criteria of structural engineering... nor is He subject to the framework of the laws of singular dimensional physics.

God laughs at your arguments as it were freeking ants on a railroad track arguing as to whether or not the railroad has a president.

Don't degrade your mentality by believing that what you see and feel is all that exists.


~Mark

 

[SmarterThanHick]

God laughs at your arguments

I laugh at your arguments. Guess which has more of an affect on this world?

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

God is the Almighty and eternal God of the imaginable and the unimaginable. He is not limited to man's ignorant references to "intelligence". God is not within the confines of man's stupid criteria of structural engineering... nor is He subject to the framework of the laws of singular dimensional physics. ~Mark

How do you know all this, you just think it up?

 

[eagleseven]

God looks like this:

 

[Foxfyre]

i offered deism or species of deism as being more accurate and subsequently defended the fact with a 3rd party definition aligned with einstein's quote corroborating spinoza.

i've offered the 3rd party definition of ID which i've entertained your dissent to, but which precludes your inclusion of anyone but yourself in support of the term itself. i've characterized your consistent inclusion of others whose names or arbitrary quantities you've alluded to as a dishonest tactic due to your choice to coopt an established term or the beliefs of those whose support for its alternative use has not been established.

i've challenged that you define your term plainly as the established version so that when you say fire, i could be certain you dont mean flame. its a simple challenge, but one which you'd have to rise to in order for your 100% validity to have any value as dialectic argument, rather than a schizophrenic one.

And I've used any number of great thinkers' analogy to describe what I mean by I.D. Sorry you think we're all schizophrenic because we don't narrow down the concept to a nice neat one sentence explanation. It is far broader than that. You must have missed all that.

for me language is more powerful that many give it credit. in summary any detailed concept can be describe succinctly. in this case, it is important because there is a line between what constitutes a belief derived from faith and one derived from science. science has an obligation to constrain beliefs derived from within it to theory presented within a specific paradigm. without this, the credibility of the study is undermined by those who would aim to establish that their faith in a god or in the absence of a god is supported by science.

i feel that your predilection for the term ID is disingenuous, and that you aim to blur this line in argument as to propose that what is included in the concept of ID or teleology is also inclusive of those who i would characterize as deists or stoics, despite the latter characterizations being safely outside of this threat to scientific integrity. it is plain, however, that you will persist in co-opting adherents to something very different than what you support through persistence in making your position as ambiguous or shifty as needed to do so. what to do?

It is obvious that you don't accept my explanations for different concepts of I.D. That's fine. It does make you one who will accuse another of disingenuousness, however, rather than open your mind and see that there might be more than the narrow and rigid definition that you have adopted. My observations and conclusions have not been developed in a vacuum or without considerable thought, debate and MUCH reading.

I have not even gotten into what definition of I.D. I personally embrace as that, to me, is irrelevent to a discussion of how Intelligent Design can be defined, described, and understood. That you see only one definition for I.D. and I see the many ways concepts of I.D. have been described throughout history makes one of us rather narrow minded don't you think?

What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?

 

[rightwinger]

If God is such an intelligent designer....Why do men have nipples?

 

[eagleseven]

What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?

Some versions of ID have God ejaculating upon the Earth.

Some versions of ID have God speaking at the Earth.

Some versions of ID have God creating lots of little gods, who do the majority of the designing.

---

I have never seen a version of ID which acknowledges the existence of evolution as a process in the natural world.

 

[Foxfyre]

What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?

Some versions of ID have God ejaculating upon the Earth.

Some versions of ID have God speaking at the Earth.

Some versions of ID have God creating lots of little gods, who do the majority of the designing.

---

I have never seen a version of ID which acknowledges the existence of evolution as a process in the natural world.

Then you have never sat down and read or discussed the wonderful theories of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Wm. Provine, Blavatsky, Bene, Dembski, Spinosa, Einstein, or the concepts of the Dalai Lama who does not embrace the idea of a god or gods, but does hold a concept of a 'cosmic mind' that is shared by a number of Buddhist sects.

My goal here is to enlarge the narrow Abrahamic deifnitions and/or some pagan sects that the Atheists and anti-religionists wish to assign to "Intelligent Design" and show that it can be far larger and more logical and reasoned than that.

My goal here is not to incorporate intelligent design into science curriculum because it does not belong there. But neither is there any room in science curriculum to suppose that we know all there is to know about anything and dismiss intelligent design as having no part of the larger picture that includes science and everything else.

I would vigorously oppose Creationism being taught as sicence. I would vigorously oppose science presuming to dismiss any form of intelligent design including creationism. Keep the two separate and we have no quarrel whatsoever.

 

[antagon]

That you see only one definition for I.D. and I see the many ways concepts of I.D. have been described throughout history makes one of us rather narrow minded don't you think?

i contend that the narrower mind is the one which persistently uses a term established with a different connotation than the historical concepts she describes.

What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?

your understanding of individual's beliefs don't seem to recognize the point when science is responsible to maintain the integrity of conclusions based on science itself. as i have pointed out, it is not acceptable to portend that science supports these beliefs. some concepts of ID -- the prevailing concept for example -- to include your references earlier to teleology, constitute this sort of trespass which science is responsible to defend the baselessness of what is concluded. science should be clear that nothing scientific as yet supports the belief that there is certainly or theoretically is or isn't a god. by maintaining ambiguity about your nebulous ID, which being a philosophy, at least, can be defined as others have, you include ideologies which maintain that science provides evidence of a designer, for example, with those which clearly don't. this is obstinacy or dishonesty in light of the obvious conflict of science, faith and ideology among your 'billions'. this is what's disingenuous.

 

[Foxfyre]

That you see only one definition for I.D. and I see the many ways concepts of I.D. have been described throughout history makes one of us rather narrow minded don't you think?

i contend that the narrower mind is the one which persistently uses a term established with a different connotation than the historical concepts she describes.

What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?

your understanding of individual's beliefs don't seem to recognize the point when science is responsible to maintain the integrity of conclusions based on science itself. as i have pointed out, it is not acceptable to portend that science supports these beliefs. some concepts of ID -- the prevailing concept for example -- to include your references earlier to teleology, constitute this sort of trespass which science is responsible to defend the baselessness of what is concluded. science should be clear that nothing scientific as yet supports the belief that there is certainly or theoretically is or isn't a god. by maintaining ambiguity about your nebulous ID, which being a philosophy, at least, can be defined as others have, you include ideologies which maintain that science provides evidence of a designer, for example, with those which clearly don't. this is obstinacy or dishonesty in light of the obvious conflict of science, faith and ideology among your 'billions'. this is what's disingenuous.

But I have not been mixing science and Intelligent Design. It is only you who have been doing that in this discussion. I keep them 100% separate. I.D. is not science and should not be included in any science curriculum. Science is not I.D. and has no way to verify or falsify I.D. concepts and therefore is not concerned with I.D.

If you hold only to science and what we know from science, however, you leave out most learning there is to know. And I think that would be unfortunate.

 

[antagon]

That you see only one definition for I.D. and I see the many ways concepts of I.D. have been described throughout history makes one of us rather narrow minded don't you think?

i contend that the narrower mind is the one which persistently uses a term established with a different connotation than the historical concepts she describes.

What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?

your understanding of individual's beliefs don't seem to recognize the point when science is responsible to maintain the integrity of conclusions based on science itself. as i have pointed out, it is not acceptable to portend that science supports these beliefs. some concepts of ID -- the prevailing concept for example -- to include your references earlier to teleology, constitute this sort of trespass which science is responsible to defend the baselessness of what is concluded. science should be clear that nothing scientific as yet supports the belief that there is certainly or theoretically is or isn't a god. by maintaining ambiguity about your nebulous ID, which being a philosophy, at least, can be defined as others have, you include ideologies which maintain that science provides evidence of a designer, for example, with those which clearly don't. this is obstinacy or dishonesty in light of the obvious conflict of science, faith and ideology among your 'billions'. this is what's disingenuous.

But I have not been mixing science and Intelligent Design. It is only you who have been doing that in this discussion. I keep them 100% separate. I.D. is not science and should not be included in any science curriculum. Science is not I.D. and has no way to verify or falsify I.D. concepts and therefore is not concerned with I.D.

If you hold only to science and what we know from science, however, you leave out most learning there is to know. And I think that would be unfortunate.

actually, you presented some hypothetical kid and advocated that a science teacher should support his belief that an IDer explains how nature is. remember?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It is obvious that you don't accept my explanations for different concepts of I.D.

Could it be because you made it up and stuck a previously established term onto your made up "explanation"? Yeah, that MAY be why people don't accept it.

My observations and conclusions have not been developed in a vacuum or without considerable thought, debate and MUCH reading.

You mean your opinion was developed from reading other people's opinions and "debating" by talking at people regarding your opinion? Your "observations and conclusions" have not been developed in a vacuum. I'm quite sure there's air between those ears of yours. What your "observations and conclusions" lack is EVIDENCE.

What possible difference does it make what version of I.D. I personally embrace in order to consider all the many versions out there?

Except you're not considering all the many versions. You are in fact REJECTING all other versions, including the established version of the term.

I have never seen a version of ID which acknowledges the existence of evolution as a process in the natural world.

Then you have never sat down and read or discussed the wonderful theories of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Wm. Provine, Blavatsky, Bene, Dembski, Spinosa, Einstein, or the concepts of the Dalai Lama who does not embrace the idea of a god or gods, but does hold a concept of a 'cosmic mind' that is shared by a number of Buddhist sects.

No. These authors have NEVER acknowledged nor mentioned evolution. Only one of them was even alive to see the birth of molecular genetics, which is the underlying basis to modern evolution understanding. So no, you can't cite ancient thinkers with out of context quotes as linked to a concept THAT DIDN'T EXIST WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE.

My goal here is not to incorporate intelligent design into science curriculum because it does not belong there. But neither is there any room in science curriculum to suppose that we know all there is to know about anything and dismiss intelligent design as having no part of the larger picture that includes science and everything else.

The science curriculum does NOT presume that we know everything. You once again show a lack of knowledge on the topic. Scientific reasoning promotes the identification of areas which we don't know about, so as to AVOID propagating false and unsupported beliefs such as the ones you are proposing.

Please do not begin to pretend you are interested in preserving persecuted but valid ideas which have not been proven incorrect. You cannot disprove the existence of ANY fictional story, and it's clear you have no interest in ANY other possibility that similarly has absolutely no evidence. So drop the act that you are advocating such a principle. You are nothing but biased, failing to push ONE idea. Nothing more.

 

[JBeukema]

Monism as Connecting Religion and Science by Ernst Haeckel - Full Text Free Book

 

[chikenwing]

The one unavoidable fact we will,at some time ether totally cease to exist or will understand much more than we can in this life.The big question will never be proven,by debating what we are cable of understanding on this earth.The is much evidence supporting both schools of thought,and neither proves one way or the other.To put is simply,stop beating your head against the wall,you ether believe or you don't.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

The one unavoidable fact we will,at some time ether totally cease to exist or will understand much more than we can in this life.The big question will never be proven,by debating what we are cable of understanding on this earth.The is much evidence supporting both schools of thought,and neither proves one way or the other.To put is simply,stop beating your head against the wall,you ether believe or you don't.

Hold on a minute there bald eagle, there is no evidence supporting the notion of a god, there is massive evidence supporting the scientific explantions of the universes existence: notice the difference...

 

[chikenwing]

The one unavoidable fact we will,at some time ether totally cease to exist or will understand much more than we can in this life.The big question will never be proven,by debating what we are cable of understanding on this earth.The is much evidence supporting both schools of thought,and neither proves one way or the other.To put is simply,stop beating your head against the wall,you ether believe or you don't.

Hold on a minute there bald eagle, there is no evidence supporting the notion of a god, there is massive evidence supporting the scientific explantions of the universes existence: notice the difference...

No not at all,you haven't done much research then have you,there is plenty from both schools from the moment man started recording events.Its called looking with an open mind,judging from your post,you are ot employing that tactic.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The one unavoidable fact we will,at some time ether totally cease to exist or will understand much more than we can in this life.The big question will never be proven,by debating what we are cable of understanding on this earth.The is much evidence supporting both schools of thought,and neither proves one way or the other.To put is simply,stop beating your head against the wall,you ether believe or you don't.

Hold on a minute there bald eagle, there is no evidence supporting the notion of a god, there is massive evidence supporting the scientific explantions of the universes existence: notice the difference...

No not at all,you haven't done much research then have you,there is plenty from both schools from the moment man started recording events.Its called looking with an open mind,judging from your post,you are ot employing that tactic.

Opening your mind does not produce evidence. Examining the physical world does. Notice how science can accomplish that task to come up with evidence based conclusions, and religion cannot. In fact, religion has historically IGNORED evidence in the physical world to preserve ignorant beliefs. This has produced such beliefs as the sun revolving around man, the earth being flat, "witches" should be burned, genetics doesn't exist, evolution doesn't exist, etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

i contend that the narrower mind is the one which persistently uses a term established with a different connotation than the historical concepts she describes.
your understanding of individual's beliefs don't seem to recognize the point when science is responsible to maintain the integrity of conclusions based on science itself. as i have pointed out, it is not acceptable to portend that science supports these beliefs. some concepts of ID -- the prevailing concept for example -- to include your references earlier to teleology, constitute this sort of trespass which science is responsible to defend the baselessness of what is concluded. science should be clear that nothing scientific as yet supports the belief that there is certainly or theoretically is or isn't a god. by maintaining ambiguity about your nebulous ID, which being a philosophy, at least, can be defined as others have, you include ideologies which maintain that science provides evidence of a designer, for example, with those which clearly don't. this is obstinacy or dishonesty in light of the obvious conflict of science, faith and ideology among your 'billions'. this is what's disingenuous.

But I have not been mixing science and Intelligent Design. It is only you who have been doing that in this discussion. I keep them 100% separate. I.D. is not science and should not be included in any science curriculum. Science is not I.D. and has no way to verify or falsify I.D. concepts and therefore is not concerned with I.D.

If you hold only to science and what we know from science, however, you leave out most learning there is to know. And I think that would be unfortunate.

actually, you presented some hypothetical kid and advocated that a science teacher should support his belief that an IDer explains how nature is. remember?

No sir. I did not do that. And you'll have a damnedly difficult time finding any post of mine that even suggests that. There is a world of difference between a science teacher not presuming to destroy a student's religious beliefs and in supporting them. I believe, however, that I was quite clear in saying that the science teacher should do neither.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

The one unavoidable fact we will,at some time ether totally cease to exist or will understand much more than we can in this life.The big question will never be proven,by debating what we are cable of understanding on this earth.The is much evidence supporting both schools of thought,and neither proves one way or the other.To put is simply,stop beating your head against the wall,you ether believe or you don't.

Hold on a minute there bald eagle, there is no evidence supporting the notion of a god, there is massive evidence supporting the scientific explantions of the universes existence: notice the difference...

No not at all,you haven't done much research then have you,there is plenty from both schools from the moment man started recording events.Its called looking with an open mind,judging from your post,you are ot employing that tactic.

I done a bit of research alright, chicken, an its not looking too good for creationists .

 

[antagon]

But I have not been mixing science and Intelligent Design. It is only you who have been doing that in this discussion. I keep them 100% separate. I.D. is not science and should not be included in any science curriculum. Science is not I.D. and has no way to verify or falsify I.D. concepts and therefore is not concerned with I.D.

If you hold only to science and what we know from science, however, you leave out most learning there is to know. And I think that would be unfortunate.

actually, you presented some hypothetical kid and advocated that a science teacher should support his belief that an IDer explains how nature is. remember?

No sir. I did not do that. And you'll have a damnedly difficult time finding any post of mine that even suggests that. There is a world of difference between a science teacher not presuming to destroy a student's religious beliefs and in supporting them. I believe, however, that I was quite clear in saying that the science teacher should do neither.

this is where you propose handling fundiekid in a way which understates scientific findings to (what i would call) support the scientific plausibility of theory which is not scientifically plausible:

When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it

you've also proposed that a good teacher might propose the belief in ID in the classroom them self. i think your good teacher invites the misunderstanding that science and religious faith are juxtaposed in the way ignorant pastors miseducate their flocks.

apart from going to great length to separate ID from a religious belief system, you conversely propose that it should be treated as a religious belief in the context of a classroom. this type of direct contradiction is characteristic of your ambiguous, shifty definition of ID. i have pointed out that there is a huge difference between religious and faith-based beliefs and science or natural observation-based beliefs like mainstream ID. the latter constitute mischaracterizations of science. mainstream ID proposals present fallacies like irreducible complexity which employ misinformation to empower their conclusions. lending credence to such concepts in your billions-served umbrella of ID constitutes a breach of obligation for a science teacher, and as you have argued part of the time, ought not offend religious belief at all. this would merely be a correction to a misunderstanding or malpractice of science, much like correcting the nawmsayn kid i hypothesized.

nawmsayn?