What is the point of intelligent design?

[AlexCrowley 0]

How can one teach Intelligent design?

How can one study Intelligent Design.

If the answer is GOD DID IT what is there to study?

Thats not science. it's like a non-ID scientist saying 'IT JUST IS!!!!'

At least it'll free up the school curriculum for critical thinking and logic classes.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[micro 0]

Quote

How can one teach Intelligent design?

How can one study Intelligent Design.

If the answer is GOD DID IT what is there to study?

Thats not science. it's like a non-ID scientist saying 'IT JUST IS!!!!'

At least it'll free up the school curriculum for critical thinking and logic classes.

there's a lot more to it than that.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

there's a lot more to it than that.

Yeah there is. Bible study.

But what exactly would there be to studying ID? I mean this. Seriously. If there is an intelligent designer, what exactly would you need to teach?

I have been to the creationist websites. All refute evolution and geology and use the Bible as their "science" study.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Umm.

What exactly?

After 'God did it' what is there?

Sorry Sink, but the ID stuff is an American phenomenon that is so dark ages and erroneous that it's very difficult to have a serious discussion with anyone that believes in it because its so incredibly fscking stupid.

And you're an intelligent guy so it doubly baffles me - dont think i'm insulting your intelligence, because that really isnt it - I'm just boggled at what information you must have read (outside the bible) that could have possibly led you to believe in ID.

And yes, believe in ID does not have the opposite: believe in Evolution.

Language is poorly suited in discussing these issues as the word 'belief' has several connotations, and they mean different things in the two sentences up above.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I think people are confusing theology with science.

Personally I believe evolution IS intelligent design.

The Bible is about the spiritual aspects of life and science is for studying the physical mechanisms of life. One does not replace the other.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I think people are confusing theology with science.

Personally I believe evolution IS intelligent design.

The Bible is about the spiritual aspects of life and science is for studying the physical mechanisms of life. One does not replace the other.

That is correct. Tell that to Kansas. At least my homestate of PA got its shit together.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If the answer is GOD DID IT what is there to study?

To be more fair to ID, there IS more to it than that.

The basic concept is that one can scientifically measure how quickly complexity accumulates through natural random chance, then go out into the world and measure the complexity of things as they really are.

The one would show that they could not have occurred randomly in anything like the time frame available.

So while the motivation seems to be to show that "GOD DID IT", the methods one uses are much more akin to science as it's commonly understood.

And to be very generous, one could theoretically imagine a scientist who did this work without a theological motive but came to the theology through the work itself.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[AlexCrowley 0]

I can see how coming to the conclusion of ID might be possible.

However, if you already assume that ID exists - as we see through the various ID books - everything becomes viewing things in hindsight where it's quite easy to make the error that things were intended.

It just seems incredibly UNscientific.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[TrophyHusband 0]

what time frame are you using, the biblical time frame of 6000 years, or the scientific time frame of 4.5 billion years?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[narcimund 0]

Quote

what time frame are you using, the biblical time frame of 6000 years, or the scientific time frame of 4.5 billion years?

I believe the ID studies typically use the longer, scientifically accepted time scales.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I can see how coming to the conclusion of ID might be possible.

However, if you already assume that ID exists - as we see through the various ID books - everything becomes viewing things in hindsight where it's quite easy to make the error that things were intended.

It just seems incredibly UNscientific.

Well, you're probably right about that, but it's hardly a unique complaint in the sciences.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

If the answer is GOD DID IT what is there to study?

To be more fair to ID, there IS more to it than that.

The basic concept is that one can scientifically measure how quickly complexity accumulates through natural random chance, then go out into the world and measure the complexity of things as they really are.

The one would show that they could not have occurred randomly in anything like the time frame available.

So while the motivation seems to be to show that "GOD DID IT", the methods one uses are much more akin to science as it's commonly understood.

And to be very generous, one could theoretically imagine a scientist who did this work without a theological motive but came to the theology through the work itself.

Well, they did that with the eye. Unfortunately, shortly after the ID theorists "proved" that the eye could not have developed in the time available, several transitional forms were discovered which they had predicted would not exist, and the molecular biology to refute their claims has also now been done.

So if ID is science, then it has been disproved already by the standard scientific method.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AlexCrowley 0]

but did a creator-like intelligence refute it? I think not!

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Well, they did that with the eye. Unfortunately, shortly after the ID theorists "proved" that the eye could not have developed in the time available, several transitional forms were discovered which they had predicted would not exist, and the molecular biology to refute their claims has also now been done.

So if ID is science, then it has been disproved already by the standard scientific method.

Well, isn't that the nature of science? One does the best one can, then later one does better with new discoveries and tools.

Your example of a theory that's later supplanted by new fossil discoveries is hardly sufficient to discredit an entire approach. If that were the standard then every field of science would have been "disproven" thousands of times over.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Well, they did that with the eye. Unfortunately, shortly after the ID theorists "proved" that the eye could not have developed in the time available, several transitional forms were discovered which they had predicted would not exist, and the molecular biology to refute their claims has also now been done.

So if ID is science, then it has been disproved already by the standard scientific method.

Well, isn't that the nature of science? One does the best one can, then later one does better with new discoveries and tools.

Your example of a theory that's later supplanted by new fossil discoveries is hardly sufficient to discredit an entire approach. If that were the standard then every field of science would have been "disproven" thousands of times over.

If a fundamental tenet of the theory makes a prediction that is later shown be be false, the theory is in really bad shape.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, they did that with the eye. Unfortunately, shortly after the ID theorists "proved" that the eye could not have developed in the time available, several transitional forms were discovered which they had predicted would not exist, and the molecular biology to refute their claims has also now been done.

So if ID is science, then it has been disproved already by the standard scientific method.

Well, isn't that the nature of science? One does the best one can, then later one does better with new discoveries and tools.

Your example of a theory that's later supplanted by new fossil discoveries is hardly sufficient to discredit an entire approach. If that were the standard then every field of science would have been "disproven" thousands of times over.

The problem lies in that too often those that tout ID fall back to simply "God did it." There may indeed be a scientific method to some of it, but that is not used nearly enough. Nearly all of the creation sites which attempt to use science use as reference OTHER creation sites or scientists. And they seem to rely on one or two studies to draw their conclusions.

And on this whole "complexity of random mutations" idea. If you don't BELIEVE in evoultion and the idea of random mutation that goes along with it, how exactly does one go around to defining how long something SHOULD take to randomly become more complex?

That is, if the driving force of your action is the premise "Someone created this as is" how would you them measure the (as they would believe) non-existent change in that item? What data would you use to make your models if you don't think the item evolved its complexity to begin with?

This is not a joke post. I am serious about wanting to know (man, i find I have to type that more and more often these days.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[AlexCrowley 0]

But i think thats just confusing for the ID folks because 'darwin's theory was refuted by later discoveries, even you've said that its changed over time' yadda yadda.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[tcnelson 1]

the point of ID is to present a theory as to how the universe came to be. that's it.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If a fundamental tenet of the theory makes a prediction that is later shown be be false, the theory is in really bad shape.

But that's not the situation in your example. I know it seems like it is, but look closely.

ID didn't PREDICT that eyes would be found to be too complex. Instead, it offered an alternative development explanation since it appeared that eyes were too complex.

When it turned out eyes were NOT too complex, the theory simply became irrelevant in this case.

There's a very big and critical difference.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[AlexCrowley 0]

Rigggggggggggggggght.

Thanks for missing the rest of the discussion that clarified the title of the thread

nice example of how the ID thing has legs though.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

the point of ID is to present a theory as to how the universe came to be. that's it.

If that were all it is, it would be much less interesting than it is.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If you don't BELIEVE in evoultion and the idea of random mutation that goes along with it, how exactly does one go around to defining how long something SHOULD take to randomly become more complex?

I don't believe the ID people dismiss random mutations. It would be terribly silly if they did.

If I understand right, they acknowledge that mutations occur, and do science to discover the rates. Actually, the rates of change are already quite well established by biology.

The ID result is, "given the observed rates of change, we couldn't have gotten here from there without some extra help."

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

If you don't BELIEVE in evoultion and the idea of random mutation that goes along with it, how exactly does one go around to defining how long something SHOULD take to randomly become more complex?

I don't believe the ID people dismiss random mutations. It would be terribly silly if they did.

If I understand right, they acknowledge that mutations occur, and do science to discover the rates. Actually, the rates of change are already quite well established by biology.

The ID result is, "given the observed rates of change, we couldn't have gotten here from there without some extra help."

"Take the eye, for example" .... " Uh-oh".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

"Take the eye, for example" .... " Uh-oh".

Look, I already showed that your eyeball example is not an argument against ID. If you don't (A) accept or (B) refute what I said and just keep on using the example anyway, I'm going to assume you're just preaching.

And isn't that what you object to ID for?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

"Take the eye, for example" .... " Uh-oh".

Look, I already showed that your eyeball example is not an argument against ID. If you don't (A) accept or (B) refute what I said and just keep on using the example anyway, I'm going to assume you're just preaching.

And isn't that what you object to ID for?

ding ding ding! folks we have a winner!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...