Author Topic: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent  (Read 5197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« on: March 13, 2012, 06:15:52 PM »
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).

Although ID proponents insist that it is a viable alternative to evolution, they are vague as to when and where an intelligent entity intervened and they contend that evolution is mostly wrong while offering no alternative to common descent.

A critical component of intelligent design is Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity. It does not hold up in a court of law or in the court of scientific opinion.

Although, Behe doesn’t claim that a particular deity intervened in the course of earth history, it is clear his agenda is a Christian one. Behe is affiliated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). He is a senior fellow of the CRSC. The director of CRSC has stated that the goals of the institute are to “promote Christian theism and to defeat philosophical materialism.”

Since the Supreme Court had ruled that creationism is religion, and therefore not to be taught in school, creationists repackaged creationism as intelligent design. To see their agenda, read The Wedge Document as reprinted by the National Center for Science Education:

Quote
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Since the failure to get ID or creationism in school, creationists have tried different tactics, using their wedge approach. This is from The National Science Center for Education website (http://ncse.com/book/export/html/116):

Quote
Although in the 1990s IDC advocates had encouraged the teaching of ID in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution, in the early 2000s they shifted their strategy. IDCs currently concentrate their efforts on attacking evolution. Under innocuous-sounding guises such as "academic freedom," "critical analysis of evolution," or "teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution," IDCs attempt to encourage teachers to teach students wrongly that there is a "controversy" among scientists over whether evolution has occurred. So-called "evidence against evolution" or "weaknesses of evolution" consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier.
Not only are the leaders of the Intelligent Design Creationists dishonest, they are not very intelligent. All these attempts are doomed to failure and will fade away in the clear light of science and reason. As science continues to strip away the myths and superstitions of past ages, and paint over man’s ignorance with the bright colors of knowledge and understanding, the image of an intelligent designer fades and disappears into the background.

Perhaps a better approach for creationists to take, is to agree with the obvious fact that evolution is the best explanation that we have for the history of life on earth. They could take the higher ground, align themselves with fact not fiction, and still keep their notion that, “God did it.”

Creationists could take their cue from Francis Collins, physician and geneticist, former leader of the National Human Genome Research Institute and current director of the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian that rejects Intelligent Design.

Collins works within the scientific community apparently with no religious agenda or conflicting interests:
Quote
In October 2009, shortly after his nomination as NIH director, Collins stated in an interview in the New York Times, “I have made it clear that I have no religious agenda for the N.I.H., and I think the vast majority of scientists have been reassured by that and have moved on.” [Harris, Gardiner (October 6, 2009). "For N.I.H. Chief, Issues of Identity and Culture". The New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010.]

From Wikipedia -
Quote
Francis Collins: In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship". In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.

Let’s take a look at Behe’s irreducible complexity and compare it to emergent complexity.

Irreducible complexity from wikipedia:
Quote
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]

In 2000, biologist Massimo Pigliucci criticized The Design Inference in BioScience writing, "Too bad he missed the solution to this riddle, which has been proposed several times during the last few centuries, most prominently (and in various fashions) by Hume (1779), Darwin (1859), and Jacques Monod (1971). According to these thinkers, if a given phenomenon occurs with low probability and also conforms to a pre-specified pattern, then there are two possible conclusions: intelligent design (this concept is synonymous with human intervention) or necessity, which can be caused by a nonrandom, deterministic force such as natural selection."

Emergence from wikipedia:
Quote
In philosophy, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

Rather than spend a lot of time dissecting the idea of irreducible complexity, let’s look at what science says and common observation shows us. We can then easily recognize pseudoscience when we see it.

Neurons organizing into neural networks, water molecules forming snowflakes and chemicals forming single cells are all examples of the simple becoming the complex.

Telecommunication companies find the optimum location for their com towers, bees find the optimum location to put their bee hives and prediction markets find their customers, all using swarm intelligence (a form of emergence).
.
Bottom-up, self correcting systems such as Amazon.com and wikipedia, are
based on the principal of emerging complexity.

Emerging complexity involves a few simple rules and lots of interactions between individual components, to produce hurricanes in the ocean, the creatures in the desert and the plants in the tropics. What science has discovered in all these examples are a few basic principals. Here are three: Quantity produces quality, the simpler the better, and the more random the interactions the better.

What is the mechanism of evolution? Heritability, natural selection and mutation….and lots of time. Couldn’t be a better recipe for life!

Cellular automata can be used as a metaphor for the evolutionary process
which can result in convergence, divergence and extinction.

For a visual representation of how this works, spend a little time looking at cellular automata. Apply a few simple rules and watch divergence, extinction or convergence in action. A successful random combination of black and white boxes, and a beautiful complex pattern emerges. An unsuccessful combination and extinction. Extinction happens most of the time, just like in nature.

Professor Robert Sapolsky, of Stanford University, gives an excellent lecture explaining the principal of emerging complexity and uses cellular automata here:


Here is a real life illustration of how this emerging complexity works with bees determining where to nest optimally near a food source.

A first generation bee leaves the hive, finds food and returns randomly to the hive. It gets in the middle of the group of bees there and does a figure eight dance wiggling its tail. The angle of the tail indicates the direction to the food source, the extent to which it wiggles its tail indicates how far away to the food source, and the duration of time it wiggles its tail indicates how good the food source is.

A 2nd generation bee returns randomly and bumps into another bee doing a dance and goes where the longer dancing bee tells it to go. So we see random interaction between bees as they come and go. Longer dance increases odds of other bees bumping into them. Briefly dancing bees are less likely to bump into other bees, and all this optimizes the route to the food source. Eventually the hive moves closer to the best food source.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 06:28:44 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2012, 06:26:46 PM »
Emergence could be a viable theory, if it is science.

Is it falsifiable?
Are there predictions and experiments that can be performed repeatedly?

"Intelligent Design" meets neither of those criteria, so it's basically a non-starter as far as science goes.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2012, 08:45:14 PM »
Emergence could be a viable theory, if it is science.

Is it falsifiable?
Are there predictions and experiments that can be performed repeatedly?
Of course, natural selection is probably the best example of emerging complexity.

Quote
Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

In some theories of particle physics, even such basic structures as mass, space, and time are viewed as emergent phenomena, arising from more fundamental concepts such as the Higgs boson or strings. In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the perception of a deterministic reality, in which all objects have a definite position, momentum, and so forth, is actually an emergent phenomenon, with the true state of matter being described instead by a wavefunction which need not have a single position or momentum.

Most of the laws of physics themselves as we experience them today appear to have emerged during the course of time making emergence the most fundamental principle in the universe and raising the question of what might be the most fundamental law of physics from which all others emerged. Chemistry can in turn be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of physics. Biology (including biological evolution) can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry. Finally, psychology could at least theoretically be understood as an emergent property of neurobiological laws.

Emergence can be observed in spontaneous order, economics, internet, architecture and cities, computer AI, language, political philosophy, religion, art, human sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Introduction to emergent order video (5 minutes):



Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2012, 12:18:39 PM »

Perhaps a better approach for creationists to take, is to agree with the obvious fact that evolution is the best explanation that we have for the history of life on earth. They could take the higher ground, align themselves with fact not fiction, and still keep their notion that, “God did it.”


No they couldn't. The whole point of ID/creationism is the idea that "god" placed us on this planet for a reason and that we as humans have a special relationship with this "god" that no other species on this planet has. Evolution states that we are no more or less special than any other species that has managed to make it this far. Under evolution we are no different to ants in as much as they have found a way to adapt and evolve to their present state just as humans have. Now to say to creationists that humans are no more special to "god" than ants is simply unacceptable.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2012, 12:29:30 PM »
Except that if they say God did evolution, then they can still claim specialness.  The specialness of being the most intelligent species on the planet, if nothing else.  After all, "intelligence wouldn't exist if God didn't want it to".

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2194
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2012, 12:34:15 PM »
Except that if they say God did evolution, then they can still claim specialness.  The specialness of being the most intelligent species on the planet, if nothing else.  After all, "intelligence wouldn't exist if God didn't want it to".

That would raise the interesting problem of "original sin" though.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2012, 01:10:42 PM »
Except that if they say God did evolution, then they can still claim specialness.  The specialness of being the most intelligent species on the planet, if nothing else.  After all, "intelligence wouldn't exist if God didn't want it to".

Would the most intelligent species on the planet vote for Rick Santorum? Why does religion have more followers in places were there is the highest levels of ignorance. Intelligence has got nothing to do with it.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2012, 01:18:36 PM »
Would the most intelligent species on the planet vote for Rick Santorum? Why does religion have more followers in places were there is the highest levels of ignorance. Intelligence has got nothing to do with it.
*eyeroll*  Come now, do you really think those are good proofs that humans aren't the most intelligent species on the planet?

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2012, 01:36:16 PM »
Would the most intelligent species on the planet vote for Rick Santorum? Why does religion have more followers in places were there is the highest levels of ignorance. Intelligence has got nothing to do with it.
*eyeroll*  Come now, do you really think those are good proofs that humans aren't the most intelligent species on the planet?

Firstly how do you know that human are the most intelligent species on the planet? Take dolphins. Do they make war on each other? Do they allow other dolphins to starve to death? If we're the most inteligent then I'd sooner be a dolphin.

Secondly what I'm saying is that creationists don't want to be special because of intelligence they want to be special because we are the only species that "god" designed in his own image. The only species that is endowed with a "soul" which no other species have.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2012, 01:58:47 PM »
Firstly how do you know that human are the most intelligent species on the planet? Take dolphins. Do they make war on each other? Do they allow other dolphins to starve to death? If we're the most inteligent then I'd sooner be a dolphin.
Tell you what, once you can prove that dolphins are more intelligent than humans, then I'll be happy to recant my statement.  But you missed the point, in any case.

Quote from: Frank
Secondly what I'm saying is that creationists don't want to be special because of intelligence they want to be special because we are the only species that "god" designed in his own image. The only species that is endowed with a "soul" which no other species have.
It doesn't matter why they think they're special.  You're just assuming that it has to be because "God created us in his own image", and so it is for a number of people.  But they could just as easily use the fact that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet, or the dominant species on the planet.  It doesn't have to be what you said, and if they were sensible, they'd go with something like that rather than hysterically trying to pretend evolution is untrue.

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2012, 02:27:27 PM »
Firstly how do you know that human are the most intelligent species on the planet? Take dolphins. Do they make war on each other? Do they allow other dolphins to starve to death? If we're the most inteligent then I'd sooner be a dolphin.
Tell you what, once you can prove that dolphins are more intelligent than humans, then I'll be happy to recant my statement.  But you missed the point, in any case.

Quote from: Frank
Secondly what I'm saying is that creationists don't want to be special because of intelligence they want to be special because we are the only species that "god" designed in his own image. The only species that is endowed with a "soul" which no other species have.
It doesn't matter why they think they're special.  You're just assuming that it has to be because "God created us in his own image", and so it is for a number of people.  But they could just as easily use the fact that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet, or the dominant species on the planet.  It doesn't have to be what you said, and if they were sensible, they'd go with something like that rather than hysterically trying to pretend evolution is untrue.

But they are not sensible that's why they are religious. Which brings us back to where we started.

BTW. I don't know if dolphins are more intelligent than us then again I don't know that they're not. We live on the land they live in the ocean. They have their own society, language, as do we. So what do I use as a measure to decide which species is most intelligent?

"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2012, 02:47:39 PM »
But they are not sensible that's why they are religious. Which brings us back to where we started.
I don't buy into axioms like this.  Further, this is sloppy thinking.  There are atheists who are not sensible; there are religious people who are quite sensible in general.  You can't argue that there are not sensible religious people by saying that being religious makes them not sensible, because that's a circular argument.

Quote from: Frank
BTW. I don't know if dolphins are more intelligent than us then again I don't know that they're not. We live on the land they live in the ocean. They have their own society, language, as do we. So what do I use as a measure to decide which species is most intelligent?
It's becoming more and more clear that other mammals have their own societies and languages as well, so clearly that is not a good gauge.  But tool use is generally considered to be a sign of intelligence - not just using tools which happen to be handy, but being able to make and store tools.  So, too, is the ability to change the environment.  In any case, this is not especially important.  Unless you can show that other animals are more intelligent than humans, it is a reasonable presumption that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet.

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2012, 03:09:29 PM »

It's becoming more and more clear that other mammals have their own societies and languages as well, so clearly that is not a good gauge.  But tool use is generally considered to be a sign of intelligence - not just using tools which happen to be handy, but being able to make and store tools.  So, too, is the ability to change the environment.  In any case, this is not especially important.  Unless you can show that other animals are more intelligent than humans, it is a reasonable presumption that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet.

I don't accept that. It appears to me that every species on this planet is as intelligent as it needs to be. Dolphins don't have a need to change their enviroment or use tools we on the other hand do. They appear to be quite happy without these things. So if a species doesn't do something because they have no need for it does that make them less intelligent than a species that does.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2012, 03:23:47 PM »

Perhaps a better approach for creationists to take, is to agree with the obvious fact that evolution is the best explanation that we have for the history of life on earth. They could take the higher ground, align themselves with fact not fiction, and still keep their notion that, “God did it.”


No they couldn't. The whole point of ID/creationism is the idea that "god" placed us on this planet for a reason and that we as humans have a special relationship with this "god" that no other species on this planet has. Evolution states that we are no more or less special than any other species that has managed to make it this far. Under evolution we are no different to ants in as much as they have found a way to adapt and evolve to their present state just as humans have. Now to say to creationists that humans are no more special to "god" than ants is simply unacceptable.

Francis Collins' Biologos is a "better approach" than Intelligent Design in my opinion...but I'll let the religious fight that out among themselves.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2012, 03:35:26 PM »
I don't accept that. It appears to me that every species on this planet is as intelligent as it needs to be. Dolphins don't have a need to change their enviroment or use tools we on the other hand do. They appear to be quite happy without these things. So if a species doesn't do something because they have no need for it does that make them less intelligent than a species that does.
Well, that's fair.  But nonetheless, the point still stands that without criteria to compare their intelligence to ours, we can make no reasonable judgment on how intelligent they are.  If we don't know what their intelligence is, how can we rationally decide whether they're smarter than humans?

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2012, 03:41:17 PM »
Quote
Evangelical attitudes on evolution are two-sided: all polls show a fat majority for total rejection, about 65%, but a little over a quarter of US evangelicals affirm the statement that “humans and other living things have evolved over time” (a recent Pew Forum survey).  Evangelicals who accept evolution, the basic organizing principle of modern biology, are therefore a far from endangered species: in fact, there are about 19 million of them (i.e., 25% of the evangelical 26.3% of 300 million Americans), about the same as the 18.4 million or so Americans who tell Gallup that they believe in no God or universal spirit.  Going by the Pew survey, only 83% of “seculars” believe in evolution, so that’s, uh . . . calculator . . . about 15 million people in the USA who believe in no God and also accept evolution.  Significantly less than the 19 million evolution-accepting evangelical Christians.

For me, that’s an eyebrow-raiser.  You’re more likely to meet an evolution-accepting evangelical Christian on a typical American street than to meet an evolution-accepting atheist or agnostic.
http://theotherjournal.com/s-word/2011/10/16/at-biologos-evangelicals-break-with-stereotype/
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 04:36:20 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2194
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2012, 12:18:52 PM »
Quote
Evangelical attitudes on evolution are two-sided: all polls show a fat majority for total rejection, about 65%, but a little over a quarter of US evangelicals affirm the statement that “humans and other living things have evolved over time” (a recent Pew Forum survey).  Evangelicals who accept evolution, the basic organizing principle of modern biology, are therefore a far from endangered species: in fact, there are about 19 million of them (i.e., 25% of the evangelical 26.3% of 300 million Americans), about the same as the 18.4 million or so Americans who tell Gallup that they believe in no God or universal spirit.  Going by the Pew survey, only 83% of “seculars” believe in evolution, so that’s, uh . . . calculator . . . about 15 million people in the USA who believe in no God and also accept evolution.  Significantly less than the 19 million evolution-accepting evangelical Christians.

For me, that’s an eyebrow-raiser.  You’re more likely to meet an evolution-accepting evangelical Christian on a typical American street than to meet an evolution-accepting atheist or agnostic.
http://theotherjournal.com/s-word/2011/10/16/at-biologos-evangelicals-break-with-stereotype/

Interesting. So, I wonder what the seculars, who don't accept evolution, think all these species came from?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2012, 12:27:11 PM »
Yeah, I thot about that too. ^^^

My reason for posting this is to show that there is room for Christians to incorporate science into their beliefs. Ken Ham and PZ Myers would argue from their opposing POVs, of course. I'm offering a sort of middle ground as an option to theists.

Offering a little wiggle room is OK sometimes. Here is an extreme example:If a terrorist offers to let women and children hostages go, but says he's going to keep the men, I would probably agree to that, before continuing to negotiate.

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2012, 03:01:50 PM »
That would raise the interesting problem of "original sin" though.

THIS is the problem they have with evolution, and I wish more atheists would recognize it.


If Adam and Eve were not real people, then Original Sin never existed, and so there was no reason for Jesus to come down and "save" us.


Really, seriously, evolution strikes at the very CORE of Christianity in a way that is ONLY apparent to the "smart" fundamentalists and those intimately versed in bible scripture.  For those who view Genesis as a metaphor, this isn't problematic, but for the literalists out there, evolution eviscerates the "salvation of christ" and the whole purpose of the fairy tale.  Granted there are a lot of stupid evangelicals, but they are the sheep.  The evangelical "shepherds" see evolution as an "anti-christ", literally, since it MOOTS christ's purpose.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2194
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2012, 03:23:14 PM »


If Adam and Eve were not real people, then Original Sin never existed, and so there was no reason for Jesus to come down and "save" us.


I can't recall ever seeing any kind of argument against this from any xian, ever.

Quote
<snip> For those who view Genesis as a metaphor, this isn't problematic,

Seems to me that it would be quite problematic. How would those believers that accept evolution justify the sacrifice? Perhaps the sacrifice was metaphorical as well?  ;)

Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2012, 04:00:44 PM »
OK, well not where I wanted to go...

But yeah, evolution does pose problems for the literalist.

Quote
The Bible is clear about our origins. Genesis 1–3 were written in a historical narrative style, like the rest of Genesis, depicting historical people and events. Moses later confirms that Genesis was a literal, historical account of God’s creation “in six days” (Exodus 20:11). Jesus Christ confirms that God made Adam and Eve “at the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6). These passages exclude any possibility of evolution and an “old earth.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n4/blurring-the-line
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2012, 04:09:25 PM »
Let the theists argue it out!


Hovind vrs Callaghan


Behe vrs Fox
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/michael-behe-and-keith-fox-debate-theistic-evolution-vs-intelligent-design/


Quote
    First, good hermeneutics and sound exegesis must leave the room. Texts in Scripture (Romans 5, I Cor 15, Luke 3, Gen 1-3, etc.) either have to be reinvented and reinterpreted in ways so creative that even the Apostle Paul would have been confused, or, they are simply turned upside down (i.e. I Cor. 15:45 “the first man Adam” = “the first man is not actually Adam”). Every historical reference to Genesis 1-11 must simply be mistaken or radically reinterpreted; every reference to Adam as the first human being must be mistaken or radically reinterpreted, etc.
    When sound exegesis is sacrificed, then sound theology goes out the window as well. Not only does the doctrine of sin and its imputation (both penalty and guilt) become difficult to attain in Paul’s writing, but the very essence of human nature – being an image of God – comes under fire. Since human beings evolved from apes (theistic ev. presupposition), then human beings couldn’t possibly have been created in God’s image – at least immediately and directly.


http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2010/05/19/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-theistic-evolution-debate/

« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 04:15:37 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2012, 07:11:19 PM »
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).


Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition. 

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1816
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2012, 07:32:19 PM »
Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition. 

Why not? Teach it as philosophy, or as the offshoot of creationism that it is. As part of the repeated failure of creationists to get their religion taught in public schools. Just not as science.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2012, 07:53:37 PM »
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).


Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

No it doesn't.

It's a widely held belief in American society that the president is secretly a muslim, fascist, communist, socialist, the anti Christ. Maybe they should teach that as well.

Just because something is "widely" believed doesn't make it true.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2012, 08:14:39 PM »
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).


Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

I'm all for creationism being taught in school, as long as it is taught as part of religious instruction along side other religions, not as an alternative to evolution in science class.

In my opinion all the major religions should be taught in school with equal billing. That would be the best way for children to see it for what it is.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 08:32:56 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2012, 09:18:15 PM »
Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

Why do you support the idea of religious instruction supplanting fact based learning?
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2012, 09:49:36 PM »
Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

Why do you support the idea of religious instruction supplanting fact based learning?

There is no mention of Christianity in Creationism.  And evolution is NOT fact based.  It's a theory.  There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence. 

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2012, 10:18:44 PM »
There is no mention of Christianity in Creationism.

That's because they're trying to hide the religion angle.


Quote
And evolution is NOT fact based.  It's a theory.


I'm sure someone said this to you before, but if you're going to criticize something... KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

----
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
-----


Quote
There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence.

I agree 100%  So................... what does this have to do with evolution.




Oh wait... you think evolution means "things 'poofed' into being"

Again... know what you're talking about before criticizing it.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.