Intelligent Design?

[Valoran]

I just want to say that the poll options are slanted.

(sorry, I didn't read all 20 pages, so this may be repeated)

Intelligent design does not necessarily preclude evolution. The idea that evolution might have been the process of intelligent design has been around since about 5 minutes after the two ideas began to coexist.

Faith is not stupid. All of science is based on faith in the principle, "The Future will be like the Past." Dead serious. Everyone has faith in something. Some people have faith in their friends, some have faith in their countries, some have faith in their linkshells , and some have faith in some higher power.

To say that "religion" -- that is, when multiple people share a faith regarding the metaphysical underpinnings of the universe -- is all myth or merely appeases stupid people, is, in my book, a very narrow-minded approach.

People who want to call christians idiots should consider whether the following principles are idiotic:

People should not do harm to each other, but treat each other well.
Forgiveness is good and powerful in human lives.
People should take care to respect the beliefs of others, whether they are correct or not. (don't call foul; it's in Corinthians 12)

For those who want to bicker about the holiness code of the old testament (laws regarding selling your daughter or purifying mildewed clothes, among other things): nearly all christians do not use these principles. If you think this is hypocritical, consider that they have a religious justification for this in the idea that Jesus came to create a new law.



I don't mean to be preachy, but Christianity gets a lot of flack, and there are a lot of good people who get it right, in my opinion. People don't attack the views of buddhists categorically, or those of hinduism.

If you don't believe in the force and being that I call God, that's fine with me. Just don't pretend that you're being smooth and intelligent and that I'm a blind child being led along by a myth that makes everything bright and sunny. I don't mean this angrily; it's just become fashionable to say, "I'm an atheist therefore I am smarter than anyone who believes in something." This can be as much of a thoughtless supplication as a churchgoer with unexamined beliefs.

 

[Kat]

Good Lord Valoran I love the way you write. If I wasn't already married, I'd be hunting you down^^.

Um yahhhhh, rough day at work. I'm a tad slap-happy here, I admit it.

 

[Valoran]

Good Lord Valoran I love the way you write. If I wasn't already married, I'd be hunting you down^^.

Um yahhhhh, rough day at work. I'm a tad slap-happy here, I admit it.

Made my day, Kat! XD

Now back to my plato paper; hope my prof loves the way I write too. ; ;

 

[Sculli]

I just want to say that the poll options are slanted.

(sorry, I didn't read all 20 pages, so this may be repeated)

Intelligent design does not necessarily preclude evolution.

The poll was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the two main options are still there. The question is whether Intelligent Design is science, and the answer is that it is not. Those in Kansas who think differently are in fact idiots. Which is sad, because they are sitting in positions of power which decide what those who grow up in Kansas should learn about science.

This is not a question about whether ID is right or wrong, it's not a question about whether faith is a valid concept or not, it's really only about whether ID is science as argued by those who are supporters of ID.

We got carried away discussing God and fairth and whatnot in this thread, I certainly did my part to contribute to that. I do get agitated with religious people quite often, but maybe that is because most of the ones I meet in real life are not like the people on here who say "I believe in God, whether you do doesn't make any difference to me."

The ones I meet in real life are to 99% like "I believe in God, and so shall you!".

It's a free country, people can believe whatever they want. I couldn't care less what others believe, until such belief would affect my way of living, in which case I would get pretty upset about it (i.e. teaching kids ID as science in school, with the pledge of allegiance being a close second - neither affect me right now, but I would go to court and call to arms if it would).

Do I think I am smarter because I do not believe in God? Nope, I do think I am more rational than those who do believe in God. Does that make me a better person? It depends, since I do not have to consider faith when making decisions I can simply look at the facts in reality and go from there. Does that makes me a more responsible individual? Again, it depends, I take responsibility for my action and do not use "I was meant to do this" whenever such things come up. Do all of those who have faith use "God has a plan for me" as their excuse? Nope, but again, I personally know a few who do.

 

[Valoran]

The poll was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the two main options are still there. The question is whether Intelligent Design is science, and the answer is that it is not. Those in Kansas who think differently are in fact idiots. Which is sad, because they are sitting in positions of power which decide what those who grow up in Kansas should learn about science.

This is not a question about whether ID is right or wrong, it's not a question about whether faith is a valid concept or not, it's really only about whether ID is science as argued by those who are supporters of ID.

We got carried away discussing God and fairth and whatnot in this thread, I certainly did my part to contribute to that. I do get agitated with religious people quite often, but maybe that is because most of the ones I meet in real life are not like the people on here who say "I believe in God, whether you do doesn't make any difference to me."

The ones I meet in real life are to 99% like "I believe in God, and so shall you!".

It's a free country, people can believe whatever they want. I couldn't care less what others believe, until such belief would affect my way of living, in which case I would get pretty upset about it (i.e. teaching kids ID as science in school, with the pledge of allegiance being a close second - neither affect me right now, but I would go to court and call to arms if it would).

Do I think I am smarter because I do not believe in God? Nope, I do think I am more rational than those who do believe in God. Does that make me a better person? It depends, since I do not have to consider faith when making decisions I can simply look at the facts in reality and go from there. Does that makes me a more responsible individual? Again, it depends, I take responsibility for my action and do not use "I was meant to do this" whenever such things come up. Do all of those who have faith use "God has a plan for me" as their excuse? Nope, but again, I personally know a few who do.

Interesting . . . I've never disagreed with the site admin before.

Anyway, here's why the options are slanted:

ID? Good grief, why am I always getting carded?
I am way too sexy to not have been desgined.
I have to admit, looking in the mirror, it becomes obvious that I descended from apes.
Religion is the opium of the people.
Intelligent Design is most definitely science.
Intelligent Design is most definitely mythology.

Options 1 and 2 make fun of the idea of intelligent design. They make it sound illegitimate. Option 3 may function the same way towards evolution, but the rest of the options make the views of the OP likely.

Option 4 equates belief in intelligent design with membership in a specific religion.

Options 5 and 6, the "two main sides," force you to admit, by answering the poll, that it has to be one or the other. You do not leave room for shades of gray.

Here's the real poll:

Intelligent design is:
a) a religious means of accounting for the world that should have no share in scientific discussions
b) a valid way of considering an issue whose truth is unknown
c) a valid theory that could exist alongside prevailing scientific attitudes about evolution
d) an invalid theory which should have no place in informed discussions

I don't think it's appropriate to be tongue-in-cheek with regard to issues people feel strongly about, or to state that there is a right answer to a poll. If you want to find out how people feel, give them a few options, but don't tell me that you knew the answer all along. I don't mean this in the sense of a flame, but a real disagreement.

A poll such as:

How good is this argument?
a) awesome
b) awesome
c) I [the answering person] am an idiot.

is not useful. If you had a specific view you wanted to espouse, please just post your view, and don't become upset when people find the poll one-sided or too narrow or even want to discuss the issues.

On a separate note, I am from Kansas. I grew up and went to high school (during the ban on teaching evolution) and was never once bothered about my religious beliefs, nor were those of anyone else forced on me (I happen to fall in the camp of c, above). Furthermore, my biology teacher (and all of his friends at neighboring high schools) taught evolution and told anyone who didn't want to hear it they could wait in the hall. The bio teachers around the district had a sort of unofficial understanding that they would simply continue to do their jobs as they saw fit.

Ironically, I have found myself trying to defend the possibility of intelligent design far more often than evolution while home in Kansas. (And FYI, we're far more concerned about a couple of reactionary conservatives who now want to make sex-ed opt in instead of opt out; that is, children only get sex ed if their parents sign them up for it specifically -- any idea of the impact on the children of undercaring parents?).

Perhaps out in rural kansas there are teachers who control what their students read and learn, but that is typical of any closed social environment; small town schools will always teach what the town forces them to. But I bet you'll find situations like that in any state.

I know it's fashionable to take a shot at Kansas, but I promise that we're not camping out in dark churches by candlelight trying to figure out how we can overthrow science; there have been a few people on the school board -- most of them not representative of the districts that elected them -- who have managed to pass through a few things, to general public outcry, over the last ten years. If it were the legislature, they'd be history, but they've managed to stay largely under radar on the school board. Even so, some activist groups have been working to raise awareness, and recently the sex-ed movement I mentioned was overturned by a massive show of angry citizens who attended the BOE's meeting to get their voice heard.

The more you know, I suppose.

Incidentally, I agree with you about ID in schools. If you look up my comments on a post a month or two back about ID in science classes, I called it idiocy because the theory is not science. It might be worth mentioning in a social studies environment, or even as a caviat to evolution (many religions allow that evolution may have been the process used in ID; end of mention of it).

As for your final paragraph, I really understand where you're coming from. I happen to believe that it is more rational of me to figure out a system of morality (I use religious faith), examine it thoroughly, and make decisions from there. I find that this allows me to concentrate on a larger picture, as opposed to being overwhelmed by the immediate situation (I can ask questions such as, if I do this, will it be from revenge, and only to hurt someone -- from there, I can decide the action would not be helpful to any solution I might desire, such as me feeling better or a conflict de-escalating).

I personally have been so fortunate as to never encounter someone who claimed that God had laid out every action, and therefore whatever they did was God-willed; I'm sorry that you've had that experience influence your view of religious people as a whole.

I hope my arguments can at least serve to show that it is possible to believe in the tenets, principles, and histories of a religion and not to act in a blind or careless fashion. I'm sorry I've gotten worked up about this; ID isn't a huge issue to me, but a number of the early posts were making fairly broad claims about all religious persons, and I think it's too easy for people who are religious to feel like they will be labeled as zealots or crazies if they stand up for their beliefs; after all, there is no "proof" scientifically . . .

But please, scientists, remember that the Greeks "proved" using the information available to them at the time, that the Earth was flat, floating on liquid and covered by air, while they ridiculed the prevailing religious view that the earth was one of a number of spheres in the heavens (which were filled with more spheres). Perhaps in some centuries, extremely fine instruments will be able to determine the existence of some causal force for the universe, and define it as God . . . although personally I doubt we will ever be able to prove God.

 

[Sorrowfulturnip]

It is sad to see that wrong actions of those who "claim" to be followers of God, causes non-believers to view negitivly on those who are true believers. Just because one so called believer screws up doesn't mean that the entire religion is false. Look at satan. He believes that there is a God. He knows the whole bible inside and out. Yet look where he is gonna end up in the end. Anybody can claim to be a believer but that doesn't mean they will go to heaven.

When we get raptured, there will be church groups that will be left behind. Even preachers will be left behind. All because they didn't follow God the way the Bible instructs. The Bible also states that God would rather you be either hot for God meaning believing; or cold for God meaning not believing, but if your luke warm, He will vomit you from His mouth. Luke warm meaning being down the middle between hot and cold. Like going to church and worshipping, claiming you love God, yet you'll curse, be rude to people, maybe be addicted to drugs and not doing anything about it. (Just for a side note I'm using "you" as just an example, I'm not pointing fingers.)

It is true that some believers overdue it with the whole "turn or burn" idea and maybe down the non-belivers. Those people should recheck themselves as well. God says to hate the sin but love the sinner. He also states that if you can't save someone, just brush the dirt off your sandels and move on. It is better to save many than to focus all your time on that one person and miss out on saving the ones that can actually be saved.

Whether a person believes in God or not is between them and God. All the believers have to do is help them see the light and let them decide from there. God would rather see someone love Him on their own free will that He gave us rather than someone forcing us to believe in Him, like some parents do to their kids. If someone chooses not to believe, thats their own choice. Doesn't mean I'm gonna judge that person and look down on them. Thats not my place. And others shouldn't either.

Basicly the ones that claim to follow God yet don't act on it are the ones that get punished the most. So don't let these actions steer you away and looking at the "true" believers as lonatics or crazy people and that religion is such a bogus belief. If people continue to not believe thats fine. I just don't like to see that there are non-believers that base there opinions for their reasons from hypicritical actions of false believers.

 

[Reishu]

I agree with everything posted above

 

[Sculli]

Options 5 and 6, the "two main sides," force you to admit, by answering the poll, that it has to be one or the other. You do not leave room for shades of gray.

Of course there is no room for gray. Either ID is science, or it is not. ID is a little bit of science does not work as valid answer to the question asked.

It's a simple question: Should ID be taught in schools as science? That was the question asked. There is only one possible answer, which is; No. Unless you happen to be seated on the Kansas State Board of Education, in which case who knows what drives you to vote; Yes.

ID doesn't follow scientific method, therefore it can not be science. There is simply no room for "well, it can somehow be maybe related to science in some wierd and twisted way".

The U.S. isn't the only free country in the world, where else is religion being taught as science? I am not disputing that ID is religion (though those who support ID are disputing this, because obviously they consider it science). I am not disputing that religion in it's basic form should be taught in school, and electives on particular religions should be available.

All I am saying is that ID is not science, that's it, no more no less. There is a very clear definiton of the scientific method, and ID doesn't subscribe to that.

The damage, however, is that teaching something as science gives any subject validity, and ID is simply not worthy of that validity.

If you want to find out how people feel, give them a few options, but don't tell me that you knew the answer all along. I don't mean this in the sense of a flame, but a real disagreement.

That is the rudimentary difference about facts and faith. Regardless of one's opinion, the right answer exists, and it is correct, whether someone believes in it or not doesn't make it any less of a fact.

I hope my arguments can at least serve to show that it is possible to believe in the tenets, principles, and histories of a religion and not to act in a blind or careless fashion.

Good point. Then why believe in God at all? I mean what's wrong with saying "Hmm, here are some good values, I believe they are right, and just, I shall follow them because they makes sense to me", rather than "God's son told the guys to write it down, my religion follows God, I am part of my religion, thus I follow these values, and if I don't I will be doomed!!!".

Let's face it, religions are based on fear, fear what may happen to you if you do not follow the rules.

 

[Paulio]

Note: I did not read every post, and I am sorry if I repeat something.


Is Intelligent Design science?

Opinion:
I would have to say that Intelligent Design is as much as science as the Big Bang, or vice-a-versa the Big Bang is as much as faith/religion as Intelligent Design.

Both are theories , not FACT. Scientific method can not prove either one. Both theories are percieve by logical (yes logical) observations and conclusions. Both contradict scientific laws and theories (i.e. Chaos Theory, Law of Conservation (if thats the one that states "Energy can not be created, nor destroyed", can't remember),etc...). Both go against all probability.

Whether one believes in Intelligent Design or the Big Bang, the fact remains that it is believed in, not known, and any belief requires some faith. So if you think that the Big Bang is science, then I would have to say "yes" Intelligent Design is science also.


Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

Opinion:
If any other theory on the creation of the universe is taught, then most certainly Intelligent Design should be taught as well. It is one of the leading theories after all. I think that both leading theories should be taught and let the students decide for themselves. There needs to be more active thinking in schools nowadays anyway, instead of just regurgitated memorization.

Either teach both or teach neither. The worst thing ,in my opinion, is to just teach one (either one) and try to pass it off as fact.

 

[Sculli]

Opinion:
If any other theory on the creation of the universe is taught, then most certainly Intelligent Design should be taught as well. It is one of the leading theories after all.

I don't think that is correct. ID seems to be more of a way of a vocal minority to pass of religion as science.

Also something to consider, many developed democratic (European) nations do not teach religion in school (K-12) at all, even though they have clearly a much greater religious history.

 

[masterorion]

i honestly dont think any form of religion should be tought in schools. i grew up with saying the pledge of allegiance in school and the "under god" part of it was never an issue. however, the races and religions are vastly mixed in todays times. teaching a religious subject is basically forcing one religion onto all students as a whole regardless of their beliefs

 

[Paulio]

I don't think that is correct. ID seems to be more of a way of a vocal minority to pass of religion as science.

Ok, I'll give you that. ID is a branch of creationism, which is a leading theory. So replace creationism in for ID there.

Also something to consider, many developed democratic (European) nations do not teach religion in school (K-12) at all, even though they have clearly a much greater religious history.

I'm not saying religion should be taught in schools. Religion involves spiritually and worship. All I'm saying is to teach the theory, that there was a creator/creators. Let the different religions argue about the religious part.

 

[Trippyhippy]

The thing about this arugement is that it has all been said before. The arguement over god(s)/religion is older than the concept of time.

I can give you countless quotes about the topic...

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
- Denis Diderot (1713-1784)

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is ‘God is crying’. And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is ‘Probably because of something you did’."
- Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof."
- Ashley Montague

"The problem with being able to do what makes you happy as long as it bothers noone else is that some peoples idea of happiness is telling other people what they can and can't do." Gore Vidal

In the beginning there was nothing and God said, “Let there be light,” and there was still nothing but everybody could see it.
-Dave Thomas

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
-Emo Philips

When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.
-Peter O’Toole

The Bible contains legendary, historical and ethical contents. It is quite possible to consider them separately, and one doesn’t have to accept the legends in order to get the ethics. Fundamentalists make a grave mistake to insist on the letter of the writings, because they drive away many who can’t swallow the Adam-and-Eve bit.
-Isaac Asimov

Science has done more for the development of Western civilization in one hundred years than Christianity did in eighteen hundred years.
-Jeff Burroughs

The nearer to the church, the further from God.
-John Heywood

Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.
-Robert A. Heinlein

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
-Thomas Paine

We have fossils... We win!
-Lewis Black, on creationism

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
-H.L. Mencken

All of these are humorous in a way, but they are still nothing more than manipulation of words, that's why the Ultimate quote is ...

"A witty saying proves nothing."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)


But above all, I have to agree with what Honest abe said concerning religion:

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
-Abraham Lincoln

 

[Valoran]

Of course there is no room for gray. Either ID is science, or it is not. ID is a little bit of science does not work as valid answer to the question asked.

I don't think that's what the poll asked. It asked what your take on ID is, not how it related to science and education. Personally, I've already agreed with you that it is not science nor does it belong in a science class. I added that this does not preclude it from being a potentially true statement.

Beethoven's 9th symphony was written by Beethoven is a fact, although it has nothing to do with why it's a brilliant and complex piece of musical theory. Nor does the fact that it's a brilliant and complex piece of musical theory necessitate the fact that it was written by someone; it is possible that all of the elements of a symphony could have arranged themselves in rocks somewhere and been transcribed by someone else later.

Historically, there has always beeen a large portion of people in the world who have been willing to believe in a creator of some kind. This doesn't have to be in any discussion in any of their science classrooms, but you cannot claim that because it does not belong in a science classroom, that they are wrong.

The larger issue that has been raised in this thread, and which I do think ought to have been anticipated by the way the poll was written (what is your take on ID), has been one of views about the legitimacy of religion whatsoever.

As for this bit of what I'm almost willing to call self-indulgence,

Let's face it, religions are based on fear, fear what may happen to you if you do not follow the rules.

I must just say, that's funny; mine has always been based on love.
(And I don't know what "fact" your facing . . . I'd ask you to share it if I thought such a fact existed -- perhaps you are generalizing from a common stereotype of southern baptists?)

I don't personally believe in hell. Therefore, there is no punishment if I don't do things in a "pious" way. It is not because of faith. My religion doesn't offer many rules; but lots of suggestions about how one can be a good person.

I am not a man of faith because I do the things my faith tells me to do. I determine what it is to be a good man, and then I have faith that I am doing rightly (for me, yes this also happens to mean "in the eyes of God," but it doesn't have to for everyone, and if it didn't to me, I would still want to do what is right). Religion is not a limitation to this, but an invaluable asset full of the writings and thoughts of people who have studied the questions of morality for ages.

 

[Valoran]

And Trippy, fond as I am of Adams and Asimov, in particular, I must say that Voltaire is the most constructive quote you offered.

Perhaps here's an exception to prove Voltaire's rule:

Nothing worth debating can be resolved by a single sentence.
~"Valoran" 2005 AD

 

[Shaunessy]

See that's the problem with popular science today. Too much of it is devoted to where we came from when what is important is where can we go. Screw dawn of man and all the theories about it, restart the space program and see how far we can get. Maybe one day there will be a religion on another planet about us coming down from the heavens and creating life.

 

[Trippyhippy]

And Trippy, fond as I am of Adams and Asimov, in particular, I must say that Voltaire is the most constructive quote you offered.

Perhaps here's an exception to prove Voltaire's rule:

Nothing worth debating can be resolved by a single sentence.
~"Valoran" 2005 AD

The longer I live the more true I find that to be.

and I agree, voltaire did have the best contribution of that lot.

edit: I didn't put the 8) in the voltaire quote, the board did that by happenstance. Fitting.

 

[Answa~]

I don't see why people have to insult religions, and I don't see why people stamp all religious people as believing always one thing and never having their own thoughts. Catholicism, at least how I've lived it and how my religion teachers (took religion from 1-12th grade) showed me how l live it, is a very personal yet social religion and it leaves room for opinions and deicions that are of oneself. I don't see what's wrong in believing in ID, as I don't see anything wrong in believing in evolution.

If anyone believes word for word everything in the Bible, in the Old Testament, then they are exercising their opinion on it. My own opinion is that there are a lot of metaphors in the Bible, I believe Adam and Eve is a metaphor, too. (If it were true, then there was incest involved... but then again, maybe the rules were different then)

The book of Revelations (Apocalipsis in Spanish, which is Apocalypse in English) is a book that was written for the times. 666 is the sum of the Hebrew characters of the name Nero, the Caesar at the time who was persecuting the Christians. It is a book of hope not for us specifically, but for their own selves. It talks of their own future and how they will prevail if they are strong and keep their faith in the face of danger. It has a lot of symbols known to them (like the sum of the letters, and the use of numbers that have specific definitions) and actually, Apocalypses were a type of writing, not just that one.

Religion is about faith, and faith is nothing to mock anyone for. I am not close-minded, I don't have science, in fact, I love it as much as I love math. I love looking at how perfect life was established and I also love hoping that one day we'll be able to live in harmony with nature, and I do not consider this a childish wish, just one man's hope.

Stop thinking we're ignorant and open your own mind. I've heard atheists being more close-minded than the people they argue with about religion.

Besides, arguing is foolish, discussion and acceptance is better. I like learning about other religions, I loved discussing other religions in class (yes, our Catholic school made us learn about other religions, I have to make an oral report on one of the five main ones, but I got Christianity, the easy one, haha). I like seeing the similarities in them rather than the differences.

I'm not afraid of ID or evolution, I don't really care much for the past, whatever happened, happened, I only care how I live my own life and how I can serve those around me. My vocation is in Chemstry, others' is Priesthood, others' is teaching, whatever makes you happy.

Don't harm anyone and you're ok in my book.

 

[Valoran]

On an ironic note, keep an eye on the advertisements on QCDN . . . I just took a screenshot of one that had like 4 ads about why ID is right, lol. I'll try to post it here later.

 

[Answa~]

Yeah, I noticed that recently, lol.