Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[Foxfyre]

Why do some of you continue to claim that I attribute Intelligent Design to God when I have not been making my argument on that basis at all? In fact I have been intentionally going out of my way to not do that. Are you one of those who is incapable of understanding any concept other than that which supports a prejudice against God or religious belief?

i couldn't speak for others, but i make this connection because God is the only identity I attribute the capacity which you lend to your IDer. i don't have a prejudice against God or a religious belief. i believe in God and have religious belief myself. i think i've made some specific indictments of ID. are you one of those who is incapable of answering to those, resorting instead to claims of persecution?

I have not made any assertion re persecution either. But I have been repeatedly told here by some that the ONLY theory of Intelligent Design that is reasonable to consider is the Big Boss (God/Creator) theory. And that has been explained to me by several, including you, in most unflattering terms; and, in my point of view, that is a very narrow minded and incomplete way of looking at it.

So again, what proof do you have that Einstein's (and to some degree Socrates', Plato's, Aristotles, some Buddhists' et al) teleological theory is wrong? What rationale do you have to dispute it that has any more credibility than the hypothesis they offered? Not one of those believed in/believes in a personal God or identifiable Being.

I'm looking for one rationale mind here who can at least comprehend such a concept without deciding I'm an idiot or religious fanatic for asking the question or offering the theory.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

i wonder why the extent of our knowledge in 2010 should constitute the end of scientific exploration into the physical origins, nature and history of the universe or where the biblical mandate against studying the physical world is derived.

Christianity has historically made such boundaries countless times. It is no coincidence that one of the founding stories involves looking down upon someone for wanting to explore and eating "forbidden fruit" from the tree of KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge seeking is bad! Claiming the earth revolves around the sun is criminal! Look at how many times Christianity has had to concede on blatant scientific evidence years if not decades after it has been accepted by researchers. The very establishment of "Christian science" is proof of the agenda that knowledge should only be analyzed and applied in specific ways. Evidence is evidence. Leave the bias out.

Why do some of you continue to claim that I attribute Intelligent Design to God when I have not been making my argument on that basis at all? In fact I have been intentionally going out of my way to not do that.

Because you are making that argument. There's only one type of person who enters a discussion regarding ID and doesn't reference God: the person who believes it was God, but doesn't want to say it. You may have been avoiding using that word, but you've insinuated it and no other designers from the start. Or do you think aliens created life on Earth? And how do you explain atomic interactions? You make reference to an "authority" that would need to structure the atoms. Is that not another word for God? If not as a synonym, is that not simply another MEANING of the exact same concept of a magical being or process that designed physical interactions? Here's a simple way to settled this: what do you think is that "authority" you asked about previously?

Don't start backpedaling and victimizing yourself now. You're too transparent.

I have not made any assertion re persecution either. But I have been repeatedly told here by some that the ONLY theory of Intelligent Design that is reasonable to consider is the Big Boss (God/Creator) theory. And that has been explained to me by several, including you, in most unflattering terms; and, in my point of view, that is a very narrow minded and incomplete way of looking at it.

And yet, you've proposed no other view on the topic. It's your claim. Don't call us closed minded when you provide.... NOTHING.

So again, what proof do you have that Einstein's (and to some degree Socrates', Plato's, Aristotles, some Buddhists' et al) teleological theory is wrong? What rationale do you have to dispute it that has any more credibility than the hypothesis they offered?

You seem to have a habit of calling on famous people who had absolutely no knowledge past philosophy. The most recent on your list was born in a time when LIGHT BULBS weren't in most houses. And you want us to answer what new things we have today that make our ideas more credible? How about launching complex telescopes into space? How about genetics? How about every piece of laboratory equipment in the world that requires electricity?

I'm looking for one rationale mind here who can at least comprehend such a concept without deciding I'm an idiot or religious fanatic for asking the question or offering the theory.

The first problem with that is that you ARE a religious fanatic. You want someone to see you as something you are not as the only way to have a discussion? Why reference "authority" instead of just accepting that things ARE as they ARE? That's the heart of this matter: do things simply exist, or were they created by God? As of now, the evidence shows absolutely no indication of the latter, and every discovery throughout history has pointed to the former.

How about this: when you lose the religious pretext, I'll stop treating you like a religious fanatic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just one question STH before I put you on figurative ignore with several of the others.

Please point out any statement I have made in this discussion (or anywhere else for that matter) that would give you any credibility to conclude and state that I am a religious fanatic.

 

[JBeukema]

• For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

• A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

• Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)

• After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)

• [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

• ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

• Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I am quite familiar with that case JB and have discussed and debated it quite extensively on another forum. However, the thesis I have been dealing with here is unrelated to any specific activity by any group and is unrelated to any legal or social action including the Dover case.

As I see it, the thesis here boils down to one of three things:

1. A 'big boss" and/or intellgent design theory--ID not necessarily being related to any kind of spiritual being--as was reasoned by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and many others.

The main problem with this theory is that it cannot be tested, proved, or falsified using any known science at our disposal.

2. A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.

The main problem with this theory is that the science at our disposal leaves so many questions including how the materials involved in the 'big bang' got there in the first place and what process caused the subsequent explosion.

3. The 'vacuum cleaner' theory in which all the elements in the universe have always existed and been rattling around in space--there is no beginning and there is no end--and we are experiencing how they happened to be positioned at this time in eternity. In other words everything is just a fluke or happenstance.

The main problem with this theory is that it assumes that the scientific principles we know are also happenstance and of necessity will change with the next 'shake of the sack' in which a different universe will exist. And that flies in the face of our trust in the consistency of scientific principle.

My purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way is to defend Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, certain of the Buddhist community, and others, none of whom are Christian and none of whom believe in a personal God. All have scientific, rational, and well organized minds, but all came pretty much to the same conclusion that some things can only be explained by a concept of some sort of intelligent design being behind them. And not one of these are looney tunes, irrational, or religious fanatics.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

2. A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection. Please do not project your uninformed ideas regarding ID onto evolution. Evolution deals with how life evolved, and does not deal in what came before life, let alone what came before the planet or universe.

The main problem with this theory is that the science at our disposal leaves so many questions including how the materials involved in the 'big bang' got there in the first place and what process caused the subsequent explosion.

Existence of questions in one theory does not prove a completely different theory. Questions will always exist, regardless of how much we know.

3. The 'vacuum cleaner' theory in which all the elements in the universe have always existed and been rattling around in space--there is no beginning and there is no end--and we are experiencing how they happened to be positioned at this time in eternity. In other words everything is just a fluke or happenstance.

The main problem with this theory is that it assumes that the scientific principles we know are also happenstance and of necessity will change with the next 'shake of the sack' in which a different universe will exist. And that flies in the face of our trust in the consistency of scientific principle.

Where do you come up with this garbage? Is it because you think the "theories" that come out of your head are somehow just as valid as scientific theory?

My purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way is to defend Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, certain of the Buddhist community, and others, none of whom are Christian and none of whom believe in a personal God. All have scientific, rational, and well organized minds, but all came pretty much to the same conclusion that some things can only be explained by a concept of some sort of intelligent design being behind them. And not one of these are looney tunes, irrational, or religious fanatics.

That's because the NORM of ages past is religious fanaticism today. Again, you seem to have no problem completely ignoring the fact that hundreds of years of knowledge has been accumulated since these great thinkers. You rely on them as a crutch instead of presenting up to date supporting evidence of your own.

Just one question STH before I put you on figurative ignore with several of the others.

Please point out any statement I have made in this discussion (or anywhere else for that matter) that would give you any credibility to conclude and state that I am a religious fanatic.

Ignorance somewhat demands you ignore people like me who provide evidence based reasoning, so I don't expect the following answer will actually do anything.

Things you've said that insinuate you are coming from religious dogma instead of fact based reasoning:
"what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons"
"You would have to define 'magic'"
"By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed?"
"science is incapable of answering such questions"

The objective of science is to draw conclusions from evidence in the physical world. If you believe science is incapable of answering such questions, and need me to define what kind of "magic big boss" has the "authority" to create "expectations" of molecules, you're defining God. Even IF you claim you weren't talking about a biblical figure, you are nonetheless defining a deity.

But more than all the positive signs you've tried to suppress, and go so far as to continually restate "I never stated that" are the negative ones: despite being asked flat out whether you do or do not have a religious foundation to your argument, you avoid answering at all costs. At best, you will deflect with statements about what you DIDN'T say, instead of what you DO believe.

So let's just end the charade. Why not answer the question you've been avoiding so much? What is your idea of the underlying force behind ID?

 

[JBeukema]

2. A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.

I've never heard any such concept of 'BBT' put forth by any science or in any science book.

Where did you get this misunderstanding of the theory?

3. The 'vacuum cleaner' theory in which all the elements in the universe have always existed and been rattling around in space

Again... where are you pulling this stuff out of?

My purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way

-is to build men of straw grounded in your own ignorance.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, I am quite familiar with that case JB and have discussed and debated it quite extensively on another forum. However, the thesis I have been dealing with here is unrelated to any specific activity by any group and is unrelated to any legal or social action including the Dover case.

As I see it, the thesis here boils down to one of three things:

1. A 'big boss" and/or intellgent design theory--ID not necessarily being related to any kind of spiritual being--as was reasoned by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and many others.

The main problem with this theory is that it cannot be tested, proved, or falsified using any known science at our disposal.

2. A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.

The main problem with this theory is that the science at our disposal leaves so many questions including how the materials involved in the 'big bang' got there in the first place and what process caused the subsequent explosion.

3. The 'vacuum cleaner' theory in which all the elements in the universe have always existed and been rattling around in space--there is no beginning and there is no end--and we are experiencing how they happened to be positioned at this time in eternity. In other words everything is just a fluke or happenstance.

The main problem with this theory is that it assumes that the scientific principles we know are also happenstance and of necessity will change with the next 'shake of the sack' in which a different universe will exist. And that flies in the face of our trust in the consistency of scientific principle.

My purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way is to defend Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, certain of the Buddhist community, and others, none of whom are Christian and none of whom believe in a personal God. All have scientific, rational, and well organized minds, but all came pretty much to the same conclusion that some things can only be explained by a concept of some sort of intelligent design being behind them. And not one of these are looney tunes, irrational, or religious fanatics.

There you go again denying the existence of the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics, thus revealing your dishonesty in discussing this topic seriously. if you wish to eliminate the FLoT from the discussion you must FIRST disprove James Prescott Joule's experiment. To claim that energy must have "got there in the first place" as you do, you must prove that energy can be created, which violates the PROVEN FLoT.

Your "purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way" is to deliberately misrepresent the scientific argument because you KNOW, correctly stated, the scientific argument will prevail. That also explains your "purpose" in "ignoring" anyone who points out your misrepresentation of PROVEN science.

 

[marksinvirginia]

In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS, it has escaped the 'superior' minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others. Our, so called, "laws of physic" apply only to the dimension we occupy. In cross-dimensional logic, each dimension has its own laws... none of which our pathetic occupants have the remotest clue.

Right now... all you have are your little theories. You have heard, and read, of God and His laws. But...looking in the mirror, you see a wretch who stands light years in departure from God's laws. So you, as if a player in Aesop's Fables, decide that all you have to do is deny God's existence, and His rules, which encumber you, will no longer apply.

But wait.... God still doesn't go away. So you, in turn, develop theories and conjecture to support your disbelief. But, even in so doing, you continue to wallow in the discontent of your hearts.

"The fool saith in his heart that there is no God." You wear your badges of foolishness around your necks like millstones.

You know damn well that only a complete and utter, freaking fool spends his life trying to prove that something does not exist.

But you have become so steeped in foolishness that you are willing to chance being consigned into hell... wherein you smugly think you will be able to plead ignorance. But you will spend your eternity in realization that the appeal process ended when you died. You will wish a zillion times that you had become master over your "laws of physics" rather than letting them become the master over you.

To deny God is to deny cross-dimensional logic.

Protect your dignity and defer your insults until you see if this sinks in.


~Mark

 

[JBeukema]

In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS, it has escaped the 'superior' minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others.

Fail.


But thanks for 'debunking' Christianity (monotheism) while quoting the bible; I needed a laugh

 

[Foxfyre]

2. A 'big bang' theory in which everything was set into motion by a cosmic explosion of some sort and from there has evolved according to scientific principles including natural selection.

I've never heard any such concept of 'BBT' put forth by any science or in any science book.

Where did you get this misunderstanding of the theory?

3. The 'vacuum cleaner' theory in which all the elements in the universe have always existed and been rattling around in space

Again... where are you pulling this stuff out of?

My purpose of course in laying out an argument in this way

-is to build men of straw grounded in your own ignorance.

If you don't like my analogies or metaphors, then come up with your own. I am having a discussion with those willing to have one and refuse to have a 'fight' over this no matter how insulting and disagreeable some of you get. If you are here just to look for an excuse to be insulting, I'm sure you'll find plenty of ammunition.

However I will concede that the explosion is a metaphor for a characterization of the "Big Bang" coined, if I remember right, by a Dr. Hoyle ???? in the mid to late 40's. And I will concede that it wasn't a literal explosion but rather the theory of a rapid expansion of condensed hot matter. And where did I get it? Highschool and college science classes and various and other sundry places where origins of the universe have been discussed. That same Dr. Hoyle also didn't buy into the theory of the 'big bang' but was more of a static universe person which would be more consistent with the vacuum cleaner theory, but okay, you don't like that idea either.

So anyhow, if you aren't interested in a discussion of the various ways folks look at origins of the universe, please enjoy the others who also seem to find actual discussion disagreeable.

And do have a nice evening.

 

[JBeukema]

If you don't like my analogies or metaphors, then come up with your own.

They're not false analogies. They're simply misrepresentations. Come back when you know something about the subject you're trying to discuss.

And I will concede that it wasn't a literal explosion but rather the theory of a rapid expansion of condensed hot matter.

Not quite. Try more along the lines of the expansion of space-time itself.

And the term 'Big Bang' was coined Hoyle to confuse morons like you.

Steady State has been debunked. See: Red Shift

And I already linked before to the theory I find to be the best available model, despite it's most grievous sin: M-Theory.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS, it has escaped the 'superior' minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others. Our, so called, "laws of physic" apply only to the dimension we occupy. In cross-dimensional logic, each dimension has its own laws... none of which our pathetic occupants have the remotest clue.

Right now... all you have are your little theories. You have heard, and read, of God and His laws. But...looking in the mirror, you see a wretch who stands light years in departure from God's laws. So you, as if a player in Aesop's Fables, decide that all you have to do is deny God's existence, and His rules, which encumber you, will no longer apply.

But wait.... God still doesn't go away. So you, in turn, develop theories and conjecture to support your disbelief. But, even in so doing, you continue to wallow in the discontent of your hearts.

"The fool saith in his heart that there is no God." You wear your badges of foolishness around your necks like millstones.

You know damn well that only a complete and utter, freaking fool spends his life trying to prove that something does not exist.

But you have become so steeped in foolishness that you are willing to chance being consigned into hell... wherein you smugly think you will be able to plead ignorance. But you will spend your eternity in realization that the appeal process ended when you died. You will wish a zillion times that you had become master over your "laws of physics" rather than letting them become the master over you.

To deny God is to deny cross-dimensional logic.

Protect your dignity and defer your insults until you see if this sinks in.


~Mark

I appreciate your perspective Mark, but I don't think it is necessary to believe in God in order to believe in Intelligent Design as I have gone to some pains to illustrate. Whether or not it is rational to deny God is probably a different discussion, albeit it would be an interesting one.

And I am of the opinion, that you don't win many hearts for God by consigning folks to hell. I prefer to show them God's love and something of His eternal design.

My primary interest in this discussion at all is to illustrate how science can be taught and how even young people of faith can be encouraged to embrace it without compromising their personal beliefs at all but also not violating the establishment of religion clause of the Constitution. The JudeoChristian concepts of Creationism merit no place in Science Class any more than do the Hindu or Taoist or Islamic concepts of Creation.

And no form of I.D, even that embraced by scientists, can be taught as science. But For me it is criminal to allow science curriculum and/or teachers to not at least explain that I.D. is at least one means of explaining gaps in knowledge that science cannot answer, and that the concept is not irrational or without logic. The students should be told that I.D. will not be included in science class. But science should never be used to destroy their faith either.

 

[marksinvirginia]

In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS, it has escaped the 'superior' minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others.

Fail.


But thanks for 'debunking' Christianity (monotheism) while quoting the bible; I needed a laugh

**********************************************

Once again, Beukema, your vacuous intellect is manifest in the consummate stupidity of your replies.


~Mark

 

[edthecynic]

In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS, ...

You know damn well that only a complete and utter, freaking fool spends his life trying to prove that something does not exist

~Mark

 

[THE LIGHT]

I never stated Christians attributed the sun as God. I stated ignorant people throughout time have associated things they don't understand as God, be it cheap magic tricks by others or unexplained natural phenomena. It was YOU, and only you, who interpreted "ignorant people" to mean Christians. That's the association in YOUR mind.

Then you go on to claim I am lying because of your stupidity? You have no clue what the word "lie" means. Perhaps this thread will clarify for you.

You might want to go back and take a look at your post. You called Foxfyre (who I do believe is a Christian?) ignorant, and in the same breath stated that it was ignorant people like him that attribute the sun to God.

Also, so you don't make the "mistake" again, usually the word "God" with a capital 'G' is taken to be the Judeo-Christian god. Usually when referring to sun worshipers one would use the term "a god" as most of those who considered the sun as a god (small g) worshiped many gods.

So maybe it was a bunch of mistakes. If it was, don't make them a second time.

Here is your quote in part:

as the evidence trail runs cold and things aren't explained by modern science, you chalk it up to God. This has gone on by ignorant people such as yourself throughout history. The sun was too mysterious, so it was God.

 

[Cuyo]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk"]

[/ame]

This is what happened. There's no need to speculate further. In a sense, there was intelligent design, but not the kind you're talking about. It's natural selection. Most mutations are harmful to the next generation; These bloodlines simply die. Occasionally a mutation is better than it's predecessor and lives on. These eventually evolve into the species we see today. These include primates, which in turn include all of us.

I recommend anyone who hasn't seen this, go ahead and watch the whole series.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

And I am of the opinion, that you don't win many hearts for God by consigning folks to hell. I prefer to show them God's love and something of His eternal design.

And thus we finally get back to the conclusion I and everyone else was able to draw from your first post, which you skirted and failed to mislead people away from: your belief in ID is nothing short of a religious fanaticism, and NOT based on evidence.

And no form of I.D, even that embraced by scientists, can be taught as science. But For me it is criminal to allow science curriculum and/or teachers to not at least explain that I.D. is at least one means of explaining gaps in knowledge that science cannot answer, and that the concept is not irrational or without logic. The students should be told that I.D. will not be included in science class. But science should never be used to destroy their faith either.

No form of ID is embraced by scientists because it is not science. It is religion. It has absolutely no evidence to support it, and thus it has no scientific backing. How is it that you say earlier in that post that creationist ideas from any religion shouldn't be taught in the classroom any more than another religion, and yet here say it is CRIMINAL to not explain ID? It's the same thing! ID = creationism.

ID in no way has evidence that explains the gaps in knowledge science can't explain, because it has no evidence behind it at all. The correct answer for not knowing something is "I don't know", not "here's what some quack believes, so I'll pass it off as the next best thing". If a doctor doesn't know what's wrong with you, GUESSING IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE.

Science remains the objective investigation of evidence to explain the physical world. ID is a biased creationist movement with absolutely no evidence behind it. Why should such a thing that so drastically contradicts the core principles of science be taught in a scientific classroom?

Science doesn't give a crap about your faith, including but not limited to caring to disprove your faith. It only cares about conclusions drawn from the evidence of the physical world. If that contradicts your faith: too bad. Religions around the world are made by humans, and the evidence of this world doesn't care what garbage you've been spoon fed and asked to blindly believe. If world evidence so easily tears down your poorly constructed belief system, then you have a few options: ignore the evidence in a classic stereotype of ignorance, change your world view to accept the evidence, or make up some coerced fabricated explanation to allow the two ideas to co-exist. Just don't expect the science and evidence to change based on your irrational belief system.

 

[JBeukema]

In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS, it has escaped the 'superior' minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others.

Fail.


But thanks for 'debunking' Christianity (monotheism) while quoting the bible; I needed a laugh

**********************************************

Once again, Beukema, your vacuous intellect is manifest in the consummate stupidity of your replies.


~Mark

You're the one who said that if one god exists, there must be more than one. Hence, following your 'logic', monotheism (including xtianity) is bunk.

But feel free to dig yourself a little deeper.

 

[Foxfyre]

Please understand that I am not going to respond to your posts further STH. You refused to answer the one question I posed to you, and you obviously are not reading my posts in context and you are absolutely not representing what I have posted honestly.

Thank you for understanding.