This "intelligent Design" stuff makes me nuts

[LuckyTheDog]

Where, in any textbook that explains evolution, do the words "there is no God" appear? Where does it say that science thinks evolution is an "undirected process" with no supernatural input? Without that, it's clear that intelligent design is not an "alternative" to evolution in any way. ID merely deals in the kinds of theological and philosophical issues that science does not address.

It's like saying steak is an "alternative" to chocolate ice cream. Vanilla ice cream is an alternative to chocolate ice cream. Steak is in a totally different category.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. There is some reference to "random mutation" IIRC

[LuckyTheDog]

3. Not the same thing

Science never, ever says that there is no God and no divine master plan. It merely leaves that question to the theologians, as it should.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Not to belabor the point, but "random" and "directed" are different

[LuckyTheDog]

5. Spitting hairs

Merely because science refers to one specific aspect of evolution as random does not, in any way, imply that they are arguing against the existence of God. That merely means that, from a scientific perspective, there is no discernible pattern.

As I said, evolutionary science does not address that question.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Agreed.... they are nonoverlapping magisteria ("noma"). nt

[0rganism]

12. mutations are random, natural selection is not

Besides, one could always credit one or more deities with direct control of (apparently) random events.

[Birthmark]

2. Turns out evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive

At least the 8,000 or so clergy who signed this, http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_col...

don't seem to think that evolution negates God.

[formerrepuke]

7. It doesn't say anywhere that there is no divine involvement.. but

it's never been specifically suggested that there IS, either.. which is probably what makes ID proponents think evolution=atheism. Personally, I can accept that random mutations and evolutionary biology itself are themselves God's creation.

[ladjf]

8. The ID idea too dumb to even discuss. I don't think it will cause

any problems in the schools. ID is not a science and cannot be added to any curriculum. There is nothing there, nothing to teach. It's simply a theoretically based notion.

[dretceterini]

10. As a physicist...

the problem with ID is the same as with first cause....theology.

Why can't all the attributes given to "God" by theologists simply be an innate part of existance. Why is some "outside creative agent" needed?

...and which "ouside creative agent" (God) is responsible for everything?

[ladjf]

14. Frightened people want definitive answers without going

the trouble to investigate scientifically.

[Lexingtonian]

9. Oh, see ID for what it is.

ID is something of an improvement over unregenerate Creationism. ID means the fundies admit that the scientific method can't be refuted by serious people, and this switch to ID is mostly motivated by their realization that if they do that they're destined to become an irrelevant, utterly impoverished and ridiculed, socioeconomic group in a Modern, technology-centered, economy and society.

And while they're now all enthralled that they've found a way into the secular classroom this way, they've also let the wolves of rigorous thought in the door to their occultic (antiscientific) belief system.

You're right that ID amounts to nonsense, intellectually speaking, that rational people have no business taking seriously. As politics it gets them some amount of short term gains in the present because mainstream American standards are so low about rigorous thinking and science. But the key thing is that ID forces a retreat of the belief system away from trying to explain physical reality and into the trenches of personal imagination (or, better, lack thereof).

[MN ChimpH8R]

11. Why not just embrace evolution and

stand in awe of it. I was watching "Cosmos" last night on the Science Channel and Carl Sagan explained in accessible scientific lingo the process of evolution from floating cell nuclei to human beings. All I felt was a sense of awestruck wonder.

Being a part of a cosmic process that has taken billions of years gives me a feeling of connectedness with the universe and a sense of responsibility to try to preserve what we have and have become. Far more empowering that some goofball notion that an arbitrary and capricious "god" created life - presumably this "god" could snuff it out for no good reason other that its whim. We are not the center of the universe, but a fascinating, infuriating and sometimes insane part of it. As the Dalai Lama recently said, the world is all of us.

I guess the fundies just have to believe that they are "special" and that they are at the center of everything. Connectedness to anything they cannot imagine frightens them to death. Since they all seem to want a nasty, Dobsonish authoritarian daddy, they can identify with a wrathful "god" throwing thunderbolts and casting the sinners into the lake of fire. Not for me, thanks. I'd rather return to the stars.

[Marnieworld]

13. Well said

"We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old Carbon."