Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This "intelligent Design" stuff makes me nuts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
LuckyTheDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:31 PM
Original message
This "intelligent Design" stuff makes me nuts
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.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. There is some reference to "random mutation" IIRC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyTheDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Not to belabor the point, but "random" and "directed" are different
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyTheDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Agreed.... they are nonoverlapping magisteria ("noma"). nt
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 12:48 PM by BlueEyedSon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. mutations are random, natural selection is not
Besides, one could always credit one or more deities with direct control of (apparently) random events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formerrepuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dretceterini Donating Member (329 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Frightened people want definitive answers without going
the trouble to investigate scientifically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
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).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MN ChimpH8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnieworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Well said
"We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old Carbon."

:woohoo: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC