Interesting

Abra,

I will actually respond to you, because you are obviously befuddled.



That rule applies to changing the subject when you make a good point...trying to refut an argument by changing the subject. You made no arguments to support your position that were worth rebutting. You hypocritically attacked ID proponents for their beliefs, while you hold the same beliefs. I see absolutely no reason to waste any efforts in rebutting your obvious hypocracy.



I called you on your bad behavior, I wasn't trying to debate with you, a useless exercise, if I must say so.



I didn't break my own or the forums rules. I simply pointed out your hypocritical behavior. It's obvious to all who read your posts.



As I have said many many times, I don't have personal beliefs on creation. I don't believe that science or religion has all of the answers at this time and since "where did the universe come from" might be a fun topic of discussion, it plays no active role in my life. If the universe was created in 6 days or it was created by the Big Bang...how does that change the fact that on Tuesday I have to be at work? It doesn't, I was simply taking a moment to point out your incredibly hypocracy.

There was no hypocrisy in anything I said. And here you are continuing with more character assassination and personal mud-slinging that you state shouldn’t be done. Do you even know the meaning of the word hypocrisy?

There is no scientifically rigorous theory that suggests that there is any intelligent design. I clearly stated that the only argument that can be given for that is that things seem to be too well-designed to have happened by pure accident. Yet, that idea alone does not constitute grounds for an intelligent creator because that very same argument would also need to apply to the intelligent creator as well.

You can’t very well claim a need for an intelligent designer for the universe in one breath, and then proclaim that the intelligent designer did not need to be intelligently designed in the next breath.

The argument is circular and offers nothing new. Unless we have hard core evidence that such an intelligent designer actually exists, and didn’t require an intelligent designer of its own, we have no 'scientific theory’ for ID.

I think I made a perfectly clear and legitimate argument against Intelligent Design as being a “Scientific Theory”.

Yet you say that I’m foaming at the mouth and you call me a hypocrite?

What is hypocritical about the pure logic that I have offered for this debate?

Can you please explain what is hypocritical about my argument, and offer “logic and facts” to back up your position like you have proclaimed that you would do?

Continually weilding personal attacks and insults at me has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and only shows that you can’t even abide by your very own rules for polite and mature conversation.

The bottom line is that you can see that my argument is rock solid and you can’t even begin to argue against it. So you attempt to distract from the topic at hand by engaging in personal insults and innuendos against me personally.

Precisely what you suggested people shouldn’t do.

I have said nothing hypocritical, nor am I foaming at the mouth. I simply have a rock solid case that there can be no "scientifically rigorous theory" for Intelligent Design.

No need to be making up erroneous insults about me that have absolutely no basis in fact.

Is this typical of how Christians do things? Just make things up with no basis in fact whenever it suits their personal agenda? Your very accusations against me are totally without merit.

Complete hypocracy. That is not character assassination, it's the truth. You are a hypocrite and your hypocracy is on display for all to see. You condemn Christians for believing in ID, but you believe in it yourself. Please man, just claim down and think. I am posting the absolute truth, now ask yourself why can't you see that?

Let's assume that ID is true...if ID is true, then it means that the question of the origin of life on earth will probably never be answered. If ID were accepted as true, the sun wouldn't rise on a new world. Everyone would be the same. Many would assume we were created by aliens, some would beleive by God and others would insist that we were created by natural means and that science is wrong. Nobody's beliefs would really change significantly. Everyone would still go to work and love their families and shop in the grocery store. But if ID is true, the one thing we could be fairly sure of is that we will never know the answers. If life were created by aliens billions of years ago, we will never know for sure until they show up with proof. If life were created by God, then we will never know until God shows up with proof. If life really was a cosmic accident, we won't know for sure until we can also create life. Until then, it's a fun question to debate with friends over dinner and nothing more.

This is hardly the truth. It’s just your misconception.

For one thing I haven’t condemned anyone for believing in ID. That’s not true.

All I’ve stated is that they have no right to believe that it should be taught as a ‘scientific theory’. I have serious doubts that anyone has ever been expelled or rejected from a university for merely having a casual belief that there may be intelligence associated with the universe. Heck, like you say, I feel this way myself and no one has ever held it against me.

The only people who are having problems with this are radical fanaticals who want to use it as an excuse to teach religious views as though they have scientific merit. Let’s face reality here!



Sounds to me like your actually in agreement with me. Until we have evidence for it one way or the other it’s a fun question to debate with friends, but it has no place being taught as ‘science’.

That’s all I’ve ever even suggested. Yet you seem to be taking exception to this and agreeing with me at the very same time. This just seems strange to me.

I even stated that religious views of creation can, and still are, being taught as theology. So it’s not like they can’t be taught at all. They simply need to be taught as theology and not under the pretense of ‘science’ when they have no scientific basis.

So I don’t understand your attack on my character and claiming that I’m being hypocritical when you seem to ultimately be in complete agreement with what I’m saying.

I never said that I was condemning Christians for believing in ID. I merely condemn the notion that it’s a valid ‘scientific theory’. And I said that it shouldn’t be taught as ‘science’.

I fail to see where there is any hypocrisy in this.

Abracadabra,

"expelled" is actually talking about how scientists who support ID are expelled from the scientific community. It's not about students being expelled from school. If ID is possibly true, which you have already admited, then that means that conventional science is possibly wrong. There is nothing wrong with debating ID, if it's completely without support then prove the proponents wrong and be done with it. Science advances by one man saying "Hey, maybe we are wrong about X", but now it's acceptable for science to say "SHUT UP" to someone who suggests something that they disagree with.

This isn't about teaching ID in school, it's about scientists giving the ID arguments the time of day. It's about scientists being able to believe in ID or reasearch ID without losing their jobs and crediblity.

I'm fully aware of this. And I'm in total agreement that its about scientists who support ID when in truth there is no scientific support for it yet.

That's bad science. Therefore they are poor scientists.



This is incorrect because conventional science does not say that there can be no ID. On the contrary, if ID is true, it's going to have to agree with what conventional science already knows. There is nothing in conventional science that should conflict with ID if it is true. As I say, any theory of ID is going to have to embrace evolution. Even if ID is true, it was done through evolution. That is already well-established.



They have already considered it, and there is no evidence to support it. This is why it is not accepted as valid science. The arguments for it are circular, have no support in evidence, and are always religion based.

Face the facts Spider. This is a religious agenda. It's not true science.



This is totally untrue. Science would welcome any evidence for ID. So far no one has been able to produce any. It's all based on religious ideals. There is no scientific reasoning to support ID. Moreover there is no plan of study that would reveal it even if it were true. As you said earlier in your last post it would be next to impossible to find evidence for it. They would need to at least propose a means of investigation. Evidently no one has been able to propose a worthy plan to investigate it using scientific methods. I'm sure if someone could come up with a scientific plan to investigate it, that plan would have to be considered by the scientific community. Clearly no one has come up with any such plan.



You can believe that if you wish. I believe it's about religious fantatics with an agenda to try to teach religion under the pretense of science.

This is what I believe. And as I say, until someone can come up with a scientific approach to the topic then this is all it can be.

It's a religious thing. It's not science. Pure and simple.

It just doesn't belong in science until there is some scientific evidence for it.

Thus far there isn't.

I have to say this as well,...

Even if Intelligent Design is true what does that mean?

I don't think the term is well enough defined yet, and the very idea of Intelligent Design means differnet things to differnet people.

I think a lot of people think of it backwards. In other words, they think that if Intelligent Design is true, then our world as it is today was pre-designed to be this way. But that's not necessarily true at all.

Even if Intelligent Design is true it doesn't mean that human beings were necessarily the goal of the designer. I've stated this before, it could very well be like tossing dice. A pair of dice are intelligently designed, and then thrown randomly. Let's say they come up with a 5. Was it the designer's purpose to roll a 5? Clearly not. The designer designed in a lot of possibilities. The 5 just happened to be one of them.

Well, what if humans are like the 5 rolled on the dice?

The universe may have dice with infinitely many faces. Almost anything can come up. Human beings are merely one thing that came up. In that context, you still have intelligent design, yet the designer wasn't necessarily trying to roll humans.

So even if intelligent design could be scientifically established to be true, that still wouldn't tell us much about our place in the world as human beings. We could still be a chance roll even in an intelligently designed universe.

In fact, this is precisely how I view it as a pantheist.

I'm sure that Christians would view this entirely differently. They would take ID to mean that there is a God who purposefully created human beings as his sole purpose for creation.

But the mere fact that the universe was intelligently designed genuinely does not predict this nor even suggest that it might be the case.

So even if scientists were to discover that there is an Intelligent Design at work in the mix, they would still be a very long way from saying precisely what that might mean, or what the intelligent designer had in mind.

It would also fit in perfectly with the pantheistic view of creation.

There is no reason why anyone should run off and worship an ancient medieval religion just because the universe might have been intelligently designed.

There are many scenarios that could be associated with that notion. Pantheism and the Middle-eastern religions being only two of a myriad of possibilities.

I have nothing against the scientific research into Intelligent Design. In fact, I would actually be quite interested in any genuinely tangible evidence for such a thing.

The bottom line is that right now there is simply no scientific way to even begin to approach the question.

Using arguments that the universe is simply too complex to have been happenstance aren't valid arguments because as I say, that only leads to the conclusion that the Intelligent Designer would also be too complex to have just happened by happenstance. So it doesn't provide any basis. We may as well just save a step and say that the universe itself is the intelligent entity then.

After all, we know that we are sentient and we know that we are this universe (we came out of it and are made of it). Therefore if the universe is sentient then we are it!. We are the universe observing itself.

Bingo! If you want to use scientific reasoning you end up with pantheism. That's where it leads.

In fact, I would hold that pantheism already is science in this sense.

But there is no scientific evidence to support an external creator. At least none that I’m aware of.

This is where my problem originates. I know of someone that has been "expelled or rejected from a university for merely having a casual belief that there may be intelligence associated with the universe".
That doesn't seem like it leeds to an environment where even as you wrote "I have nothing against the scientific research into Intelligent Design. In fact, I would actually be quite interested in any genuinely tangible evidence for such a thing". As Expelled exposed, how can "research into Intelligent Design" be addressed in today's climate?

I personally find that very hard to believe. I’m not saying that you aren’t being truthful, but I do know that people often claim erroneous reasons when they are rejected from places. However, even it is should be true, I’m sure that there are injustices going on. There are many people are being discriminated against for their non-religious beliefs as well. And these things are quite often regional.



Well, again, this is not consistent with your previous comment. Wanting to actually do research into Intelligent Design is not just having a casual belief that it may be the case.

So the idea that someone being rejected for a casual belief that there may be intelligent design has nothing at all to do with actually wanting to formally research the idea. That’s hardly a casual view.

If your friend wanted to actually research Intelligent Design then you are incorrect to state that they merely had a casual view of it.

Like I stated before. What they would need to do to research it is to come up with a scientifically acceptable means of research. If someone had any such proposal I’m sure the scientific community would have no choice but to hear it out.

In fact, being a scientist I can assure you that the vast majority of scientists would welcome and embrace such a notion. The fact of the matter is that all arguments for Intelligent Design at this stage have no basis in the scientific method of investigation.

There simply is no evidence to study. Period.

What proponents of Intelligent Design would like to do is to make superficial arguments that there are far too many ‘coincidences’ that would need to come together for our universe to have just happened by chance. And if they were permitted funding for research all they would do is use that money to build a huge data-based of reasons why the world couldn’t have happened by chance.

But that’s not a valid argument for Intelligent Design to begin with for the reasons that I already gave in my previous posts. That’s just artificial persuasion to try to get people to start talking in terms of the need for an Intelligent Designer.

But as I stated before, it’s an erroneous argument. If the universe needs an Intelligent Designer, then following that same line of reasoning then the Intelligent Designer would also need to have been Intelligently Designed and so on, forever!

It doesn’t solve a thing, or answer any question. It just hazes over the issue and tries to draw attention away from the fact that an Intelligent Designer would also need to have an Intelligent Designer by the same reasoning!


If a false argument.

If the universe is intelligent then perhaps the buck stops here. Perhaps the universe is the Intelligent Designer.

You see, the problem is that there is no way to address these questions. And until someone proposes a way to address these then what’s to research???

In other words, if someone wants to research these question they would need to propose a scientific means of researching them.

But no one has been able to come up with a way to do that.

All the religious zealots want to do is build a huge database of reasons why they feel the universe had to have an Intelligent Designer and call that science!!!

But that’s not science. Many scientists are already aware that the universe is quite ‘Intelligently Designed’. But that’s not the issue.

The real issue is whether there is a scientific way of knowing anymore about that. And so far the answer seems to be no.

Moreover, if there is an intelligent designer behind the physical world who is to say that the convention methods won’t discover that anyway? Science seeks truth and will accept whatever truth it find.

The proponents of Intelligent Design aren’t interested in the discovery of truth. What they want to do is start with a conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. And build a case to support that conclusion.

But that is precisely the opposite of how science works.

Science is out to discover truth. They aren’t out to tell the universe what truth is.

The proponents of Intelligent Design just want to make a case for Intelligent Design and call that science to give it merit that it doesn’t deserve.

They're just looking for a way to claim that religion is science.

Bet your fun to argue politics with .
I do know someone "expelled" for merely stating "Intelligent Design", not teaching it, not pushing it...., not a friend, a sibling, and one of the scientists featured in the documentary Expelled.
Being very different from that sibling I was never very interested. In fact it had all happened a couple years before I was even aware. I think politics affect our lives in a much more immediate and direct fashion than this debate over Evolution, ID and Creationism. But, I do find it very interesting the hate and vitriol that even the mere discussion of ID can produce.
I have to look and see if there's a political sub forum here.

The problem here is that creationism cannot fly in the face of evolution so we have attempts to make a more "scientific" reference to the creationism ideal.

Religion should be taught at home or in a parochial school, it has no place in a public realm because of the differing of beliefs. Respect in a public realm means there can be no religious connotations at all that way no toes are stepped on religiously.

Religion faces hard questions when the children who are religious are taught evolution and that is the problem. Religious parents and leaders cannot seem to mesh the two concepts so they have to be at odds. How to solve this issue, I don't know because I cannot encourage the creationism concept for children because of the incestuous connotations of the teaching. So I do not know how to solve that issue for the parents and religious leaders but creationism must be kept out of the schools at all and any levels because it is not being respectful to all religions as not all religious are christian.

Yes, they do have a politics forum here.

I almost never argue politics. The reason being that, from my point of view, modern politics is so far away from where it should be that it's not even close to where I'd like to argue it should be.

For example. The entire world is pretty much locked into a mentality of competition and economy-driven politics. So what they argue over most of the time is how this economy-driven politics should be drive. Well, I have nothing to say about it because as far as I'm concerned we shouldn't be living life based on a competitive-driven economy in the first place.

Life doesn't need to be like this. This is entirely the choice of men. Many people will argue that competition is the way of nature. And that may very well be true. But doesn't that fly in the face that man is supposed to be more than just a natural-driven monkey?

I mean, the whole idea that man is above the other animals should speak for itself. Using the excuse that nature is competitive-driven and therefore it's natural that our societies be this way is utter nonsense. The whole idea that we are supposed to be above this natural animalistic instinct should override that notion.

We should be living in a cooperative-driven society, not a competition-driven society.

In fact, in referencing the teachings of Jesus wouldn't a competition-driven society be the same as worshiping mammon? When a cooperative-driven society would be based on brotherly love?

Everything is driven on competition, from our educational systems, to our careers, to our very act of trying to find a mate. This also drives the mentality of trying to 'keep-up' with the Jones, rather than helping lift up all those around us.

So I have very little to say about modern politics other than to say that it is so far off-track of where it should be that it's a miracle we are surviving at all.

I disagree with the methods of our educational systems. I disagree with the methods of our industries and commercialized system of management. I disagree with a lot of the way modern civilization lives. And I disagree in ways that are so profoundly and radically different from the status quo that in today's political arena I would be laughed at as 'Having no clue about reality whatsoever'.

It would require a major change in the thinking of modern man to even begin to entertain the ideas that I believe we should be entertaining. Also, a lot of people would be against it because it would fly in the face of the casual irresponsible lifestyles that they currently enjoy. Especially people who are well-off because they are riding on the broken backs of everyone else.

In order to implement the system I'm talking about everyone would need to be egalitarian. And no one is prepared to do that. They prefer to live in a dog-eat-dog world I guess. They prefer to worship mammon. It's easier. It's the lazy way out. It's the irresponsible path.

But it has bad consequences which they are beginning to face. A competitive economy-driven society is destined to fall. And when it falls everyone is going to land face-down in the mud.

That's where modern politics is headed today.

All they are arguing about is which bus-driver they are going to hire to drive them down that path.

I don't even want to go down that path at all. So from my point of view it doesn't matter who they get to drive the bus. They are heading down the wrong highway.

This is why I don't even bother to vote. All you're voting for is which bus-driver will drive the bus to where you don't want to go.

Abra always vote, we need your vote in this political environment

I was thinking about this intelligent design thing and I agree with Abra at this level, whatever it be that created us, who created them and so on and so on and so on? It is an unending question with no feasible answer. Intelligent design still calls for an "intelligence" to the design so it involves a being or beings that is capable of creating us. So then who created the creator?

I don't see any hate. All I see is logic and reason. Science is science, it is not religion.

If somehow the scientific community decided to state that ID was a fact, then they would have to face the monumental task of proving it.

All Abra is saying is that they cannot call it a fact or even a theory BEFORE they have proof.

They can come up with millions of amazing complex and unexplainable things going on that can't be explained by science or even evolution and say that there has to be an intelligent designer behind this, and they could probably convince a lot of people they are right but this is still not concrete proof, or even a theory according to real science.

It would be like me trying to convince people aliens exist just from talking to thousands of people who claim to have been abducted by them. Until I come up with an actual alien, I have no proof.

Imagine that the scientific community did do this. Now they are faced with finding the real proof. How easy do you think that will be and what would they accept as proof? Where would they look? What would they look for?

Perhaps some alien or some light being from another dimension shows up and claims to be that intelligent designer. Would that be accepted as proof?

(Not for me. I would question any such proof.)

Now personally I believe the Universe is intelligent and that it is filled with countless intelligent designers, but I don't think you are ever going to find a single entity that you can call "God" who created everything.

One day there might be concrete proof of intelligent design, but I don't think you will ever find a single entity who is responsible.

When this day comes, and I believe it could be sooner than you think, I believe science and spirituality will merge.

But I don't think it is a good idea for science to assume ID without proof because that is just the same thing as religions that seek to explain our existence by saying that "God did it" end of story, just because we can't figure it out scientifically.

JB