Intelligent-less Design? WTF?

[itsrainingkarma]

Ok now I may be confused but one of the main points of ID is that life is too complicated for it not to have been created by some higher being. It doesn't however specify who or what this higher being is. So isn't it then possible that ID is teaching our kids that we're all created by aliens? I mean if you say I'm to complicated to spring from nothing then wouldn't god also be too complicated to spring from nothing? I understand the inherant flaws in Darwinian Theory but that's why it's called a Theory and not a fact. Hell, I know Gravity works but no one can really explain how or why (yes I know greater mass equals greater gravity but they don't know why). I mean this just seems to be opening up the door for greater scrutiny against a god. I'm not religious but any stretch of the imagination but this is just outrageous. I wish I hadn't been banned from Hannity's message board repeatedly I want one of them to explain this idiocy to me.

karma, it's a wonderful thing

[Warpy]

1. Well, evolution is an established fact.

Natural selection as the mechanism is the theory.

My main problem with ID is that once you stick god into the picture, it tends to stifle further inquiry. After all, if god did it, any more questioning or speculation or testing of other theories would be blasphemy at best. "God did it" is the answer to everything.

ID is for people who look at the scientific method and feel tired. It quite properly belongs in the churches and the homes, but has absolutely no place in a science classroom.

[itsrainingkarma]

2. god didn't it...?

i look at the scientific method and feel tired lol... that's hard work!

[Tux]

3. Confusion

Science doesn't mention God since science only deals with the material universe. We can't put God in a test tube thus God is left out and scientists only deal with material universe. Science is a method for a body of knowledge that changes. If you have questions about God or anything spiritual, get a minister. Otherwise, God is left out on purpose so science can never disprove God.

[K-W]

13. That isnt entirely true.

It doesnt have anything to do with the material universe. There is nothing outisde of the material universe. If God exists, he is material. The important destinction is that many claims made by religion are unfalisifiable and therefore do not qualify for consideration as theories.

The problem is, science has falsified all of religions falsifiable claims and as technology and knowledge advance we have only falsified more and more religious claims. So people who want to reconcile science and religion must limit thier faith to unfalsifiable claims, such as positing a god that exists in a way we cant detect.

People who have no such respect for reason believe in fully falsifiable gods. It is really a myth that God cannot be disproven, only a very specific form of God cannot be disproven, the god of the gaps.

[K-W]

12. ID doesnt belong anywhere.

It is propaganda meant to pray on peoples poor understanding of science.

Creationism is one thing. ID is deception.

[HereSince1628]

21. While evolution is about as established as any biological explanation

can be it is far from a finished work.

Tentativeness and a willingness to admit that conceptual constructions about nature are imperfect is an underlying principle of science in general and evolution in particular.

I recognize your good intention to support evolution, yet, your statement about natural selection is imprecise. Perhaps you did this intentionally to keep your comments simple.

Yet I feel compelled to write that natural selection is not THE mechanism of evolution, it is one of MANY mechanisms influencing evolution.

True enough Darwinism (that stage of development in evolutionary theory attributable to Darwin) did rely on natural selection.
But, strictly speaking Darwinism (that very Darwinism attacked by American religious zealots)is far too narrow to accommodate contemporary biological understanding.

As a theoretical population biologist I welcome challenges to evolutionary theory. As an insider, I am quite aware of problems with the theory. Knowledge of imperfection drives research and gives evolutionary scientists a reason to exist (My personal hot button is the very elementary concept of "species" and the manner in which this semantic device actually _impedes_ progress toward a single framework for both micro- and macroevolution).

I find ID and creationism to be ultimately founded on the same worthless rock:humans' inability to conceptualize "just so" stories about evolution. This inability is pervasive and present in every one of us, but with respect to evolution it is much worse among those who are ignorant of biology. Irreducible complexity is nothing but surrender to this human limitation. Accepting the whitewashing of human lack of conceptual ability by the introduction of unknowable designers or creators is a rather absurd way to proceed with the investigation of nature.

As you suggest if one accepts a complete working explanation it puts an end to the need to undertake further scientific investigation.

BUT, Supporters the blind acceptance of evolution and intentional ignorance about the inadequacies of contemporary evolutionary theory would have the same effect. With no questions deserving inquiry there would be no reason to continue research.

[Maple]

4. We know evolution happened

We don't know how or why.

We know nothing about how everything started, so you can still say God started the ball rolling, or maybe aliens did.

The truth is, we don't have enough knowledge yet to make definitive statements on the 3 basic questions of humanity: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What is our purpose?

Religion explains it one way, our current science explains it a different way. Although they still both have some common ground.

Being an atheist, I opt for an entirely different viewpoint than the Sky Fairy one...but 'evolution' is not the entire answer either, nor was it ever meant to be.

[Demit]

5. the concept of "Intelligent Design" has always bothered me.

As a graphic designer, I know the best design is the simplest, not the most complicated. Why religious people think they have to back-form this explanation for human life is the real mystery to me. Also a mystery is why they feel that the concept of God and science is incompatible.

God being all-powerful, I imagine he'd be a crack designer, and would have rejected our current form as overdesigned for its intended function; He would have come up with a strong, elegant design solution for a human being that would have blown everyone away in its power and simplicity.

[bemildred]

6. So, like, who created the higher being?

The higher being has to be too complicated too, right?
So it had to be created too, right? And then the things that
created it has to have a creator too, and so on.

Or if the higher being is not so complicated, then we just showed
you don't need to be complicated to create complicated things, i.e.
that is simple things can lead to more complicated things.

These people don't need drugs, they are confused as they are.

[TrollhunterX]

7. That's the 64 and a half pence question...

ID advocates can't rule out the possibility of design by non-divine means because it would then be confined to religious studies, and not be in competition with evolution study. Asking certain fundamentalist proponents of ID to confirm the possibility that aliens may have been responsible for life on earth is the surest way to embarrass them. IMO.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi TrollhunterX!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TrollhunterX]

23. Nice to be here...

>Posted by newyawker99: Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Cheers! :beer:

[justgamma]

8. Heard on a Christian radio station,

"God breathed life into dust" They said that is creationism. I still maintain that it is God who started evolution.

[GaYellowDawg]

9. Please, please, please read this.

First:

In science, a theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

A theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom entirely replaced.

ID is not a theory. There are no sets of related observations or events supporting it. It has never been verified. It cannot be changed or improved upon, as it is a final answer.

Second: Evolution can be described as both theory and fact.

Evolution in its simplest form is exhibited as a change in allele frequency; in other words, the shift in ratio of different forms of the same gene. These frequencies change. It's a FACT. Evolution is a FACT.

The mechanism by which evolution occurs is the theory of evolution. Natural selection, migration, mutation, and sexual selection are the most commonly mentioned components. The relationship of these different components and other components comprise the THEORY of evolution.

[TrollhunterX]

24. Re: "Please, please, please read this"

>Posted by GaYellowDawg: Evolution in its simplest form is exhibited as a change in allele frequency; in other words, the shift in ratio of different forms of the same gene. These frequencies change. It's a FACT. Evolution is a FACT.

Abiogenesis is what the religious right should be harping on, but not even evolutionists claim to be certain of how life began, so it's difficult for the thundering preachers to work up a head of steam...

[K-W]

10. What "inherent flaws" in Darwins theory?

As of last time I checked, Darwin's theory has yet to be falsified.

[KittyWampus]

19. It Cannot Account For Consciousness Or The Astronomical Number

of 'random' mutations that just apparently occured over an astronomical amount of time.

When something happens close to an infinite number of times... Occam's Razor would suggest its no longer 'random' or blind chance.

It'd be much more efficient & efficacious for Nature to have, from the very beginning, an inherent capacity for expressing Consciousness in ever more complex ways then it is to suggest that Physical Matter is all there was at point zero and it eventually gives rise to Consciousness.


After all, Evolution of species occurs in response to and part of the larger environment. And Response as a universal principle relies on Communication which in turn relies on Intelligence.

The problem seems to be that people have a very hard time accepting the fact that Intelligence/Cosnciousness is NOT dependant on a Being or Locus.

[K-W]

20. Theories are not required to match your philosophical beliefs.

You are going to have to find me an actual empirical fact that contradicts natural selection. Simply saying that you think it doesnt account for things doesnt cut it. Natural selection is not contradicted by mutation frequency, nor any percieved conciousness.

[PowerToThePeople]

11. The thing is "who gives a s#*t !!"

It does not matter how the big bang started, if some higher power said "poof." What matters is everyting after the beginning of time. And evolution certainly exists and is the reason we are in our current form as human beings. 'Nough said.

[atommom]

14. I'm inclined to agree that ID is just a smokescreen for creationism.

There are a few who can divorce the concept of ID from Christianity, but those people are few and far between. To most people, the "designer" just has to be the Christian God. Here in Kansas, we're holding an embarrassing public trial of evolution at the taxpayers' expense, because religious conservatives gained a foothold in our state school board. Their attorney, John Calvert of the ID network, says that part of the goal is to get more Christianity into the public schools. And we have board members like Kathy Martin, who insists our nation was built on Christianity, not science (and who also admits she never read the full draft of the other science standards ... the one that wants to continue the teaching of evolution).

I know some here will disagree with me, but I see this movement as a purely religious one.

[K-W]

15. I cant see why anyone would disagree with you.

ID is psuedo science. Intelligent Design is propaganda specifically designed to misinform people about science.

Dont confuse Intelligent Design with those who believe in both God and science.

[Imperialism Inc.]

16. What does an "Intelligent Designer" add to our understanding?

Why not call it spontaneous speciation? Or some other name without religious overtones. Do we call gravity the "Stickiness of God's love"? Would that add anything to theory?

Either spontaneous speciation happens and there is data to support it or ir doesn't and their isn't. Adding in an implied entity called a designer adds nothing. There are two possibilities. Either an entity called a designer can be observed directly or it cannot. If it can be, then show the evidence. If it cannot then there is no point in it being present in the theory, and causes the theory to become unscientific (non-falsifiable). After all, we don't call electric fields "electric force fairies" (implying that unobservable entities called fairies exist). Describe what can be observed, give it a name and go discuss the unobservable implications in philosophy class.

[KittyWampus]

18. Please Remove the "er" From Design. I Know It's Difficult To Remove

the concept of a being from the equation. But that's the key.

Intelligence that is independant of a locus.

[KittyWampus]

17. Aliens? Why Suppose Nature/Univerese Can't Generate Its Own Intelligence?

That's the whole point.

Not that a Being or Beings created Intelligence/Consciousness but that it is inherent in Nature FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

In other words, Life isn't just Physical Matter... it's both Consciousness AND Matter... with some things having very low 'levels' of Consciousness (like Hannity and rocks). :)

[mmonk]

25. Isn't a whale intelligent?

What is intelligence except the ability to perceive the world in where that being lives. But not exactly knowing how that world got there, the intelligent being is left with only imagination to contrive an answer.