Scientific Forums


Pages: (3) [1] 2 3   ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Intelligent Design Is A Fact, All things are designed or natural
psychological_nudity
Posted: Jul 17 2007, 05:54 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29-June 07

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Design is a fact. Its a fact not “because of” anything. Its just a fact. The origin of anything falls into one of two categories: nature or design. Look around you; anything you see is either made by nature or designed. Intelligent Design is scientific because it is an observed material cause. ID does not need to be proved in order to be considered a possibility for the origin of species. ID is a fact and a real possibility for the origin of species because design is a real scientific cause.

Claims that ID is not science, or unprovable, or what have you, are irrelevant to the fact of design. If ID is unprovable then our science lacks the ability to distinguish the two major scientific causes: nature and design. The inability to distinguish nature from design is not a basis on which to claim that life was made by nature. In fact, just the opposite is true; evolutionists should hail the claim that ID theory can distinguish nature from design since it would finally prove once and for all that life evolved. However, evolutionists' claim that design is not identifiable only serves to undermine the theory that life evolved.

The current evolution of a thing is not necessarily its origin. Even designed things evolve(change.) Showing that something evolves does not explain how it came into existence(origins). Sand dunes change, and cars change, but both are not products of nature. Organisms change and genes change; does this mean they originated in nature? Maybe life did originate in nature, but until design is considered a real possibility, and until science can distinguish nature from design, and until design is disproved, the biological theory of evolution remains a belief, not a fact.

Evolution is a fact.
Intelligent design is a fact.
All things evolve.
Some things are intelligently designed.
All designed things evolve.
Therefore, the fact of evolution does not necessarily rule out design as the origin.

This post has been edited by psychological_nudity on Jul 17 2007, 06:01 AM
Top
yor_on
Posted: Jul 17 2007, 06:27 AM


Physics? Coming real soon...
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2303
Joined: 14-February 07

Positive Feedback: 79.73%
Feedback Score: 39


Awwwh then i will sprout horns, again :)


--------------------
The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat.

A.E
-----------
Those who lost dreaming are found
Top
Bryn Richards
Posted: Jul 17 2007, 11:26 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1348
Joined: 26-January 07

Positive Feedback: 59.26%
Feedback Score: -25


QUOTE (psychological_nudity @ Jul 17 2007, 05:54 AM)
ID is a fact and a real possibility

How can something be a fact, yet be a real possibility? huh.gif


--------------------
What part of "Question Everything", don't you understand?
Top
gmilam
Posted: Jul 17 2007, 12:33 PM


This line intentionally left blank
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 3004
Joined: 27-October 05

Positive Feedback: 81.97%
Feedback Score: 89


QUOTE (psychological_nudity @ Jul 16 2007, 11:54 PM)
The origin of anything falls into one of two categories: nature or design.

I look out my window and I see nature. The only designed things I see are made by humans.


--------------------
"I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused." - Elvis Costello
Top
yor_on
Posted: Jul 17 2007, 03:15 PM


Physics? Coming real soon...
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2303
Joined: 14-February 07

Positive Feedback: 79.73%
Feedback Score: 39


psychological_nudity, please don't hate me now. but that name? Is it 'the naked truth?'


--------------------
The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat.

A.E
-----------
Those who lost dreaming are found
Top
StevenA
Posted: Jul 17 2007, 04:32 PM


Forum counter-mafia
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2630
Joined: 20-February 06

Positive Feedback: 51.85%
Feedback Score: -70


Whether or not the universe was intelligently designed, I'd have to say we've got a bias toward intelligent observations. It's tough to say, if people only have that conscious window to see things through whether that's inherent to everything that could lie outside of those observations as well ... or is there even any useful knowledge outside the universe of intelligent observations?
Top
fivedoughnut
Posted: Jul 17 2007, 05:12 PM


Member of the "forum mafia"
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1667
Joined: 13-November 05

Positive Feedback: 57.14%
Feedback Score: 32


Everything is nature, whether it's a rose or a thermonuclear warpedo.
Top
Mirrorman
Posted: Jul 19 2007, 02:44 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 21-April 07

Positive Feedback: 41.18%
Feedback Score: -31


QUOTE (fivedoughnut @ Jul 17 2007, 05:12 PM)
Everything is nature, whether it's a rose or a thermonuclear warpedo.

Evolution is capable of intelligent design because we are products of evolution.
We can design children. We are now God who can manipualte evolution according to our desires. Let there be computers. And Bill Gates saw that his were going to beat the other competition.

Top
NLN
Posted: Jul 19 2007, 04:47 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19-July 07

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 1


I respect your view, "psychological_nudity," but I would like to ask: On what do you base your belief that life on earth was designed?
Top
yor_on
Posted: Jul 19 2007, 11:54 AM


Physics? Coming real soon...
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2303
Joined: 14-February 07

Positive Feedback: 79.73%
Feedback Score: 39


You might be right in that we soon are going to design children. But, that does not lift my 'soul' :) To me it reminds me of those that chose their carers over the joy of living.


--------------------
The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat.

A.E
-----------
Those who lost dreaming are found
Top
El_Machinae
Posted: Jul 19 2007, 12:00 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2961
Joined: 17-January 06

Positive Feedback: 87.76%
Feedback Score: 54


May I ask whether the OP has read Behe's new book? Is that the cause of this thread? Isn't Behe the guy who said that astrology is science?


--------------------
Stanford University's YouTube playlists, cleverly arranged by seminar topic. Free!
http://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity/playlists
Self-improvement is intentional and iterative
Send PM ·
Top
Mirrorman
Posted: Jul 19 2007, 12:22 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 21-April 07

Positive Feedback: 41.18%
Feedback Score: -31


QUOTE (yor_on @ Jul 19 2007, 11:54 AM)
You might be right in that we soon are going to design children. But, that does not lift my 'soul' smile.gif To me it reminds me of those that chose their carers over the joy of living.

That is very true, not a lot of soul lifting going on in those particular fields. There seems to be a missing element. You'll have to excuse yesterday's spot of sarcasm. It just seems that, even though many cling to evolution as the only entity, and without the idea of intelligent design, they are the very ones who are showing very much the intelligent design within evolution. Yet I fear, evolutionary design as manipulated by humans may bring about spiritless, or spiritually damaged products. Genetically modified crops may be an example. Not giving nature a spiritual entity means that we think we can merely use physical laws to obtain whatever we wish.
Top
GeneSplicer
Posted: Jul 19 2007, 07:05 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 3674
Joined: 2-May 05

Positive Feedback: 81.43%
Feedback Score: 84


So you would propose restricting science based upon supernatural claims of a “spiritual entity”?

Nothing in nature is designed as it is meant by the supporters of ID. Design exists in every living thing due to the forces that shape our environment and us, but it is not guided by any sort of testable or apparently rational intelligence.

As gmilian mentioned, the only things seen as being specifically designed are the constructs of mankind, mostly of the non-living variety.


--------------------
Check out my podcasts:

A Moment in Reason http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast amir.htm

The Shallow Gene Pool http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast.htm
Top
Mirrorman
Posted: Jul 20 2007, 12:20 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 21-April 07

Positive Feedback: 41.18%
Feedback Score: -31


So you would propose restricting science based upon supernatural claims of a “spiritual entity”?

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

Not at all, I love my scientific search in life. Still free over here to express my views, either right or later to be shown to be wrong, whatever. As far as science is concerned the onus is on someone to provide a suitable model for the introduction of a theory on Creation. From some of the things I am reading, I respect the fact that there are some making that effort.


>>>>Nothing in nature is designed as it is meant by the supporters of ID.

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

I think you are right there. From what I know of this ID movement at the moment anyway.


>>>Design exists in every living thing due to the forces that shape our environment and us, but it is not guided by any sort of testable or apparently rational intelligence.

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

Yes, I would be pretty bored having to constantly guide the whole of creation.
I'm not being funny, I just think that everything is capable of looking after itself, and there are parameters that give anything the ability to adapt accordingly.

>>>>>As gmilian mentioned, the only things seen as being specifically designed are the constructs of mankind, mostly of the non-living variety.


Doesn't GM crops count then as a design of man? Or does that fall under some kind of alteration? There was something on tv about Designer babies a while back too.

Personally I think there are aspects of evolution that don't make sense without the thought of something like a programmer or a creator of such. I can see and accept that evolution has the inherent ability to adapt to its environment, and I feel happy that I am free to dare to contradict what something like a bible would say about it. However, once most people of common sense stop laughing at the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old, it doesn't mean game set and match for those that wish to label life as an accident, without purpose or direction and leave the matter closed. Things don't quite add up in my mind, and so I cannot agree with what some are saying about this accidental creation. And by that I mean the "something coming from nothing" idea.
Top
GeneSplicer
Posted: Jul 20 2007, 12:53 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 3674
Joined: 2-May 05

Positive Feedback: 81.43%
Feedback Score: 84


QUOTE
Doesn't GM crops count then as a design of man? Or does that fall under some kind of alteration? There was something on tv about Designer babies a while back too.


Yes and I had that and other biological examples in mind. That’s why I stated “mostly of the non-living variety”. Animal husbandry would also be seen as mankind altering or trying to design an animal with traits considered “better.”

What I was questioning is your comment about giving nature a spiritual entity. Could you expand or clarify what you meant?

QUOTE
However, once most people of common sense stop laughing at the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old, it doesn't mean game set and match for those that wish to label life as an accident, without purpose or direction and leave the matter closed.

But again, life need not have any purpose other than inherently selfish and base motivations to survive and multiply. We know of only one animal that contemplates purpose in such a manner so far. Direction is determined along similar lines of survival.

While it may appear looking back along our own biological line that things were designed to insure our existence and survival, that appearance is an illusion and a very ego and theistic pleasing one, hence its attraction. If it were not for our ability to survive in our ever-changing environment, it is a simple fact that we would not be here.

QUOTE
Things don't quite add up in my mind, and so I cannot agree with what some are saying about this accidental creation. And by that I mean the "something coming from nothing" idea.

Are you specking of the origins of the universe or the appearance of life? I mentioned it before that theists tend to lump everything together and create confusion over the topic of evolution, the origin of the universe and similar subject because their religion addresses all of those topics so they assume that evolution is a defacto replacement. It is not nor is it presented to be.

The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of our solar system, and the origin of mankind are all separate subjects. They may collectively cross paths due to mankind’s tendency to arrange such topics in a nice, neat and simple timeline to foster a sense of order, but they are normally not bunched together in regards to active research or as in the view painted by theists.


--------------------
Check out my podcasts:

A Moment in Reason http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast amir.htm

The Shallow Gene Pool http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast.htm
Top

Topic Options Pages: (3) [1] 2 3 

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use