Intelligent Design Given a Fresh Look; Christianity & The Rest Completely Thrown Out (hell, Egyptian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've never been a total Darwinist. I've always thought that God or an Intelligent Designer could use evolution to bring about life and then get it to where we can begin to read recorded history (circa Sumerian empire for example) and then just leave it on its own (a more deistic approach to rational thought). I don't find anything wrong with pictures of ape-like humanoids walking the savannas of Africa 200,000 years ago and then eventually migrating outward over a period of a 100 thousand years until empires like the Egyptian begin to record history.
I've been watching a series of YouTube videos on Intelligent Design and am surprised by the level of scientists who embrace ID--names like Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzales, Johnathan Wells, and Paul Nelson. Surely this level of intellect is scaring the hell out atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Denton, Krauss et.al. This for example
So biochemist, Michael Behe for example, without getting into all the Christianity nonsense, can break apart a flagellum and show how the organism's tail is itself so complex that it is absurd to even conceive something this complex could have evolved on its own. Christian scoundrels like Lane Craig of course seize on these guys and then proceed to interject their own biases of "Come to Jesus". As if we could make a universe-wide bridge from the origins of life all the way to a fractured belief system of Jesus being born of a virgin (false) being God (false) dying for our sins (false) and resurrecting from the dead (false). In other words these fundamentalist leaders are using the beautiful work of these ID as propaganda for their own nefarious ends---dragging a whole new crop of brainwashed and then brain-dead zombie acolytes into their clutches.
I think a wonderful idea would be to embrace ID and then throw out all the garbage religious institutions that have cropped up from 6000 BC on. I mean start with an idea there is a nameless, faceless Intelligent Designer out there who designed us and then move forward from there. Forget Jesus, Forget Krishna, forget Vishnu and all the rest and just work toward understanding how the human race got to where it is without all the baggage that these vying religious institution bring with them.
Bebe has been a creationist for a long time. If I remember correctly I have even read a book or two of his.
Bebe and the other scientists you mentioned have only presented what they think are problems with theory of evolution and use those so called problems in an attempt to discredit evolution and then to claim that if evolution is false than intelligent design must be true. That is a false assumption. Their arguments have been addresses countless times but the Creationists keep bringing them up as if they are brand new ones.
The Catholic Church and other denominations and religions already accept the notion that God created life and used evolution to mold our current species. One does not have to accept intelligent design, which is actually creationism, in order to involve a god or creator and still accept the fossil record and what DNA tells us. Yours is not a new notion. There is zero science in intelligent design, meaning that no field work, lab experiments or modelling has been done to falsify it, ID rely solely 9n attempts to discredit evolution. I do not see how one can separate it from its religious faction.
Given an infinite World and infinite time anything is of course possible but the Earth is far from infinite and 4.5 billion years is far from infinite time
I've never been a total Darwinist. I've always thought that God or an Intelligent Designer could use evolution to bring about life and then get it to where we can begin to read recorded history (circa Sumerian empire for example) and then just leave it on its own (a more deistic approach to rational thought). I don't find anything wrong with pictures of ape-like humanoids walking the savannas of Africa 200,000 years ago and then eventually migrating outward over a period of a 100 thousand years until empires like the Egyptian begin to record history.
I've been watching a series of YouTube videos on Intelligent Design and am surprised by the level of scientists who embrace ID--names like Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzales, Johnathan Wells, and Paul Nelson. Surely this level of intellect is scaring the hell out atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Denton, Krauss et.al. This for example
So biochemist, Michael Behe for example, without getting into all the Christianity nonsense, can break apart a flagellum and show how the organism's tail is itself so complex that it is absurd to even conceive something this complex could have evolved on its own. Christian scoundrels like Lane Craig of course seize on these guys and then proceed to interject their own biases of "Come to Jesus". As if we could make a universe-wide bridge from the origins of life all the way to a fractured belief system of Jesus being born of a virgin (false) being God (false) dying for our sins (false) and resurrecting from the dead (false). In other words these fundamentalist leaders are using the beautiful work of these ID as propaganda for their own nefarious ends---dragging a whole new crop of brainwashed and then brain-dead zombie acolytes into their clutches.
I think a wonderful idea would be to embrace ID and then throw out all the garbage religious institutions that have cropped up from 6000 BC on. I mean start with an idea there is a nameless, faceless Intelligent Designer out there who designed us and then move forward from there. Forget Jesus, Forget Krishna, forget Vishnu and all the rest and just work toward understanding how the human race got to where it is without all the baggage that these vying religious institution bring with them.
As it should be. Dogma has no place in a discussion over the facts. This includes scientific dogma (never let resistance of religion lead you away from actual reason).
As it should be. Dogma has no place in a discussion over the facts. This includes scientific dogma (never let resistance of religion lead you away from actual reason).
The myth that scientists say "Let's see how we can disprove religion with science!" is silly.
I've never been a total Darwinist. I've always thought that God or an Intelligent Designer could use evolution to bring about life and then get it to where we can begin to read recorded history (circa Sumerian empire for example) and then just leave it on its own (a more deistic approach to rational thought). I don't find anything wrong with pictures of ape-like humanoids walking the savannas of Africa 200,000 years ago and then eventually migrating outward over a period of a 100 thousand years until empires like the Egyptian begin to record history.
I've been watching a series of YouTube videos on Intelligent Design and am surprised by the level of scientists who embrace ID--names like Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzales, Johnathan Wells, and Paul Nelson. Surely this level of intellect is scaring the hell out atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Denton, Krauss et.al. This for example
So biochemist, Michael Behe for example, without getting into all the Christianity nonsense, can break apart a flagellum and show how the organism's tail is itself so complex that it is absurd to even conceive something this complex could have evolved on its own. Christian scoundrels like Lane Craig of course seize on these guys and then proceed to interject their own biases of "Come to Jesus". As if we could make a universe-wide bridge from the origins of life all the way to a fractured belief system of Jesus being born of a virgin (false) being God (false) dying for our sins (false) and resurrecting from the dead (false). In other words these fundamentalist leaders are using the beautiful work of these ID as propaganda for their own nefarious ends---dragging a whole new crop of brainwashed and then brain-dead zombie acolytes into their clutches.
I think a wonderful idea would be to embrace ID and then throw out all the garbage religious institutions that have cropped up from 6000 BC on. I mean start with an idea there is a nameless, faceless Intelligent Designer out there who designed us and then move forward from there. Forget Jesus, Forget Krishna, forget Vishnu and all the rest and just work toward understanding how the human race got to where it is without all the baggage that these vying religious institution bring with them.
It is true that I/D was the best shot that Creationism had at proving a Creator scientifically. In fact from the start (as the current post Dover trial - q,v, Thrills, before you post any more on this subject - I/D initiative argues) it only proves an intelligent creator of some sort, and it could have been the god of any religion or none.
In fact while atheist Anthony Flew was accepting the argument and saying he was now a theist (though not interested in any religion), I/D, which could have been put forward as theistic evolution "the evolutionary steps could not happen without an intelligence intervening to help the organism over the time when a feature is changing and it is not organically viable" was actually argued as "Evolution cannot therefore be true and so everything was made in one Go as per Genesis."
This was so clearly at odds with their own theory that it looked odd and in any case we needed scientific comment. When it came it showed that Irrreducible complexity was FALSE. It was based on false science. It was not impossible for a feature having one purpose to evolve another purpose and for that other purpose to become the major purpose, and the organism is viable all that time.
I/C collapsed as invalid science and I/D with it. Nobody, Thrills, now seriously believes that I/C has any credibility at all. Science and Evolution is certainly not a bit intimidated about it and the only worry is that people will be fooled by the ongoing misinformation program, post Dover including "I/D is nothing to do with Creationsm. It doesn't say whom the Creator is". This, Thrills, is simply a way of getting around a legal ruling that Behe's I/C was not science, but Creationism, and Creationism was religion dressed up in a lab coat.
I have considerable respect for you, and I believe that you will look at the other side of the case (I might say the Facts) and come to the correct conclusion. There could be a god, of some religion or none. I even quite like the idea. but I/D and Behe's I/C is not the evidence for it. It and he has been comprehensively disproven, debunked and discredited.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-07-2016 at 06:12 AM..
I think a wonderful idea would be to embrace ID and then throw out all the garbage religious institutions that have cropped up from 6000 BC on. I mean start with an idea there is a nameless, faceless Intelligent Designer out there who designed us and then move forward from there. Forget Jesus, Forget Krishna, forget Vishnu and all the rest and just work toward understanding how the human race got to where it is without all the baggage that these vying religious institution bring with them.
ID is just another term for creationism, thus if falls under the same umbrella of "garbage religious institutions" that needs to be thrown out.
I would not put too much stock in anything a creationist says...especially those trying to represent themselves as scientists.
the christian god did not go "poof there it is". He did it through evolution. I don't believe in the christian omni dude but evolution seems to be the process no matter what you believe. descriptions of a belief that are independent of what you believe are "true-er" than those that are dependent only on what you believe. something is going on past "lots-o-time" and "pot luck". A brief analysis of those two claims comes up as false as quickly as omni dude.
But either way, evolution is not "proof" of the christian god, although it does rule out "pot luck" and "poof there it is". Both of those claims are debunked.
Bebe has been a creationist for a long time. If I remember correctly I have even read a book or two of his.
Bebe and the other scientists you mentioned have only presented what they think are problems with theory of evolution and use those so called problems in an attempt to discredit evolution and then to claim that if evolution is false than intelligent design must be true. That is a false assumption. Their arguments have been addresses countless times but the Creationists keep bringing them up as if they are brand new ones.
The Catholic Church and other denominations and religions already accept the notion that God created life and used evolution to mold our current species. One does not have to accept intelligent design, which is actually creationism, in order to involve a god or creator and still accept the fossil record and what DNA tells us. Yours is not a new notion. There is zero science in intelligent design, meaning that no field work, lab experiments or modelling has been done to falsify it, ID rely solely 9n attempts to discredit evolution. I do not see how one can separate it from its religious faction.
I thoroughly disagree. First of all, ID CAN be separated from religion. I just did it for you in my last sentence:
Accept ID as the mechanism that guided evolution and stop right there. The moment good-for-nothing opportunists like Craig or Slick step in to link it to the God of the Bible shoot them down intellectually. Neutral scientists try and succeed in keeping the theory of ID straying into religion where it has no business. We can accept the notion an ID'er is unidentifiable and not affiliated with any current man-made religions. The atheist belief has always been that man created God in his image--that no God exists. That part is not new. The idea that an ID'er guided religion is now coming to life again with this crop of new scientists and as long as they stay out of the proselytizing business then ID can have new life breathed into it.
BOLDED: Again, you're wrong. You shouldn't make such ignorant statements. Just to listen to Behe, a prominent biochemist you know that science is involved in ID to some degree. Just because they happen to be saying something you and others don't like hearing is no reason to dismiss ID so readily out of hand. Platforms and panels wouldn't be given to these scientists if they didn't something intelligent to say.
The videos I've watch show the ID'ers not trying to banish Darwin and evolution. What they try to do is show the areas where Darwinian evolution falls short of explaining certain things about evolution, like how many species evolved in the ways they did. One question I recall a scientists asking that made perfect sense to me is "Why have most species evolved to a point and stopped their evolutionary process? Why do we not see bacteria evolving to the next level? Why is a dog today basically the same as it was 100,000 years ago?"
I thoroughly disagree. First of all, ID CAN be separated from religion. I just did it for you in my last sentence:
Accept ID as the mechanism that guided evolution and stop right there. The moment good-for-nothing opportunists like Craig or Slick step in to link it to the God of the Bible shoot them down intellectually. Neutral scientists try and succeed in keeping the theory of ID straying into religion where it has no business. We can accept the notion an ID'er is unidentifiable and not affiliated with any current man-made religions. The atheist belief has always been that man created God in his image--that no God exists. That part is not new. The idea that an ID'er guided religion is now coming to life again with this crop of new scientists and as long as they stay out of the proselytizing business then ID can have new life breathed into it.
BOLDED: Again, you're wrong. You shouldn't make such ignorant statements. Just to listen to Behe, a prominent biochemist you know that science is involved in ID to some degree. Just because they happen to be saying something you and others don't like hearing is no reason to dismiss ID so readily out of hand. Platforms and panels wouldn't be given to these scientists if they didn't something intelligent to say.
The videos I've watch show the ID'ers not trying to banish Darwin and evolution. What they try to do is show the areas where Darwinian evolution falls short of explaining certain things about evolution, like how many species evolved in the ways they did. One question I recall a scientists asking that made perfect sense to me is "Why have most species evolved to a point and stopped their evolutionary process? Why do we not see bacteria evolving to the next level? Why is a dog today basically the same as it was 100,000 years ago?"
I do not know why the statement of not wasting your time as I am not a scientist went.
I have a BSc in Physical Geography with a minor in geology taking courses in paleontology and evolution. I did my course and most of my field work on a MSc but dropped out due to financial reasons. I have also taught science labs at a college and a university but you are right I would not count myself as a scientist. If you think I am too ignorant to comment on some of your false statements so be it. Obviously disagreeing with you is my wasting your time on a thread in a discussion form. I am so ignorant that I thought opposing views is what often makes up a discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
