View Poll Results: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 4.35%
  • no

    66 95.65%
Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 206

Thread: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  1. #151
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    How often? Please provide links to these often attempts.
    I guess you haven't figured out how to Google.

    From Wikipedia:
    Hoyle, a life-long atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) belief sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. Alfred Russel of the Uncommon Descent community has even gone so far as labeling Hoyle "an atheist for ID".
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #152
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I guess you haven't figured out how to Google.

    From Wikipedia:
    I guess you haven't figured out how to behave. You're probably the biggest atheist on this board, and yet you consistently set the poorest example of trying to prove your point.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #153
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    A relatively good synopsis of this issue:

    "
    Assume for a moment that you are a member of a local school board. At a board meeting one night, a parent stands and identifies himself as a spokesperson for a group of upset parents. They understand from their children that geography teachers in the district are teaching students that the earth is spherical—and are not giving the students any evidence at all for the contradictory theory that the earth is flat. The parents demand to know what you and other school board members are going to do about this dogmatic approach that is being taken to the question of the earth’s shape.
    What should be the board’s response? Insist upon equal time for the flat earth theory? Drop the controversial subject of the earth’s shape from the geography curriculum? Or option C: Should the board tell the parents, “While you have every right to believe the Earth is flat and even tell your children that the earth is a big blue and green pancake, we have a job to do—and that is provide children with a view of reality that comports with our best scientific understanding”? I think—in this example, at least—we all know the right answer.
    In this wonderfully diverse country of ours, it comes as no surprise that there is an outfit called the Flat Earth Society dedicated to making, in the words of its president, the United States “a flat earth nation.” (The president of the Flat Earth Society, until his death two months ago, was--some of you might find some irony in this—a man named Johnson from California. In this case the Johnson is Charles Johnson, not the Prof Phillip Johnson of Berkeley who has made Intelligent Design his crusade.) Charles Johnson was interviewed in Science Magazine in the 1980s—at a time when the Space Shuttle was making headlines. You might have thought that the space program would have created self-doubt among the flat-earthers, but no: Johnson was quoted as saying, “You can’t orbit the earth. The Space Shuttle is a joke—a very ludicrous joke.” As for the moonlanding, Johnson said he had information that the whole thing was scripted by Arthur C. Clarke and filmed in Hollywood. Flat earthers point to the Bible for their faith in the world’s flatness. Johnson noted in his Science Magazine interview that the New Testament says Jesus ascended up into heaven—not out into heaven. The Bible also refers to “the four corners of the earth” and tells of Jesus being taken to a mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the earth—something clearly not possible on a spherical earth. Johnson says, “Wherever you find people with a reservoir of common sense, they don’t believe such idiotic things as the earth spinning around the sun. Reasonable, intelligent people have always recognized that the earth is flat.” The Society, in case you weren’t told about this in your school, also has scientific evidence to support their flat earth theory. They have checked water surfaces on Lake Tahoe and the Salton Sea without detecting any of the curvature you’d expect if the earth were really spherical.
    Let’s return to our school board hypothetical. Would your view of what to do be any different if the parents’ complaints concerned teaching that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than what was to their way of thinking the correct view, that the sun revolves around the earth? After all, the parents point our, the Bible clearly suggests an earth-centered system: Joshua 10 tells of the sun standing still in the midst of the sky. In 2 Kings, God brings the sun ten degrees backward in the sky. And Ecclesiates tells of the sun going down and hastening to the place where it arises.
    This, of course, was once a big-time controversy. Friar Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that the earth traveled around the sun, rather than the other way around. The same belief, published by Galileo, led to his conviction and arrest in 1631. Not until the time of Pope Leo XIII in the late 1800s did the Catholic Church back off its earth-centered view.
    What should the school board do here? Same answer, right?—tell the parents that they have a constitutional right to believe whatever they want about the configuration of the solar system, but the board has a duty to recognize the scientific consensus in favor of the Copernicun system.
    Next example: Creationism. Parents show up and demand that biology teachers present evidence that supports their view that Genesis, not Darwin, got it right when it comes to explaining the variety of life on earth. It all happened in six days about 6,000 or so years ago. The earth was created first, then a few days later, God got around to installing the sun and a few thousand stars. Anything that suggests a contrary view—like radiometric dating or radio telescopes--is a hoax or somehow flawed.
    Should the Board respond any differently? Is there significant support for a young-earth view among scientists? The only thing that makes this situation different from our flat earth and earth-centered solar system examples is that there really are (difficult though it may be to understand) substantial numbers of Americans who cling to this young-earth, Creationist view. To tell our students that there is serious scientific doubt about the age of the earth is to mislead them. There isn’t. And to spend class time discussing a young-earth view would be fully as preposterous as would wasting time presenting evidence that Neil Armstrong took his “giant leap for mankind” in a movie studio in southern California.
    As a school board member, you’d have another reason not to accede to the parents demand that Creationism be given equal time with Evolution in the school’s curriculum: The United States Supreme Court has ruled, in a 1987 case called Edwards v Aguillard, that such so-called “Balanced Treatment” laws constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The Court found that the only justification for requiring discussion of Creationism whenever evolution is discussed is a religious one—not an academic one. Creationism, the Court concluded, was a religious theory, not a scientific one.
    Which brings us to the theory that has brought us here today. Once again you are working your way through a school board agenda when a group of parents rise to complain about the way biology classes are being taught in the district. They’ve learned in their churches, read books, visited websites, and seen videos that suggest biology teachers aren’t telling it like it is—they’re covering up evidence that suggests species don’t evolve into other species. They’ve learned, on the other hand, that scientific evidence shows that species do not evolve into other species: that species are separate and distinct and have all been put here as part of an intelligent design. They demand that you do something to insure this cover-up comes to an end. They want the school board to compel teachers to present scientific evidence that undermines Darwin’s theory of evolution. They want teachers, for example, to present evidence that some biological features are too complex to have evolved, and that the fossil record has failed to produce enough “missing links” to make the case for macro-evolution.
    What do you do? Is this the Creationism controversy all over again? Is Intelligent Design (to use a KU biology professor’s description) just “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” or is it something genuinely different?
    This is where it gets hard. And I want to be as fair as I can to those who believe in intelligent design. I have friends who believe in intelligent design. Our next-door neighbors—very nice people—believe in intelligent design. If by “intelligent design,” its proponents only meant that some intelligent designer (whether it be God, space aliens, or a giant slug) is using evolution to accomplish some intelligent purpose (one in which we humans might be major players), we wouldn’t be here. This evolution-is-part-of-God’s-plan view is, essentially, the view of the Catholic Church, most Jews, and most mainline Protestant denominations. There is no necessary conflict between a belief in evolution and a belief that God is real and working in the world. The theory of evolution says nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of a benevolent, intelligent designer. Evolution doesn’t require an intelligent creator, but it doesn’t exclude the possibility either. The theory of evolution simply provides a powerful scientific explanation for the variety of life on earth. It is the core concept of biology. It is not a disproof of religion.
    Moreover, let me say this: If a school board were to compel its teachers to tell students that “evolution proves that there is no God; that everything is explained solely in terms of chemicals and natural processes,” that school board would be violating the First Amendment. To dogmatically teach Atheism in the public schools would be just as unconstitutional as teaching Fundamentalism. Science teachers should teach science.
    The problem today arises because the proponents of Intelligent Design are not content with the weak view that accepts evolution. Instead, they argue that the evidence suggests individual species were individually and intelligently designed. Humans and the great apes, for example, did not have a common ancestor some 6 million years ago. The fact that humans and chimps share over 98% of the same genetic material proves little. The “missing links”—the early hominids that keep inconveniently popping up in Africa—all must be new and separate species. It’s just a coincidence that the most mammal-like of all reptile fossils appear just before the most reptile-like of all mammal fossils. The fact that no tenured biology professor (as opposed to law professors, hydrologists, or even a handful of biochemists) at any of the top-ranked universities shares their conviction in the folly of evolution shows only how widespread the Darwinian conspiracy is.
    Public schools shouldn’t teach Intelligent Design for the very same reason that they shouldn’t teach flat-earth or Creationist theory. Because it is nonsense. We do our students a disservice by suggesting to them that there is a raging controversy among the world’s most prominent biologists about the basic explanatory force of evolution. There isn’t any such controversy. We know—just as surely as we know that the earth revolves around the sun—that evolution has spawned earth’s wonderful diversity. We have an obligation to tell our students the truth, not whatever a group of well-meaning but misguided intelligent design theorists think we should tell them.
    Design theory is not science—at least not as we usually think about it. Scientists assume that the physical world operates through unbroken natural regularity. Every scientist who conducts an experiment assumes that neither God, nor the Devil, nor any other supernatural being will affect the results."

    Intelligent Design Theory and the Public Schools

  4. #154
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The missing link controversy probably deserves a thread of it's own. Every so often someone claims they found it but nothing so far has been widely accepted by scientist as "the definitive missing link that proves Darwinism".
    There is no missing link. Creationists want every single animal that ever lived fossilized and it just doesn't work that way. Every time science finds a new species, creationists jump up and go "Aha! You just created two new holes!" There really are no significant gaps in the human evolutionary chain and it's unrealistic to expect that every single species is going to be found, simply because fossilization is so exceedingly rare.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I guess you haven't figured out how to behave. You're probably the biggest atheist on this board, and yet you consistently set the poorest example of trying to prove your point.
    oh....the irony.

  6. #156
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Keep irrational crap^ out of this thread.
    the only "irrational crap" in this thread is Intelligent Design, as it is not based on science, or measurement, or evidence.

    Its based purely on faith, and that is irrational.

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The missing link controversy probably deserves a thread of it's own. Every so often someone claims they found it but nothing so far has been widely accepted by scientist as "the definitive missing link that proves Darwinism".
    I'm willing to start such a thread. But just to clear things up, between which of these specimens would you consider to be the "missing link"? You know, that we know we are all on the same page. Thanks.

    Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?-evo-jpg

  8. #158
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?-sausage-links-jpg

    Hey, there they are!

    I was wondering where they went.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  9. #159
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Two things to mention regarding a few of the recent posts:

    1) It is funny that Hoyle gets brought up, he even has an informal fallacy named after him because of his inaccurate (ignorant?) assumptions used in his calculations.

    Hoyle's Fallacy is rejected by evolutionary biologists, since, as the late John Maynard Smith pointed out, "no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step."
    Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2) The missing link is an outdated term and has been for 100 years or so, if we were to use this term then literally every single generation from the onset of life would be in itself a "missing link". As already has been pointed out, for every missing link found there are two new ones that suddenly "appear".

    If the usage of the term "missing link" was supposed to be synonymous with the accurate term transitional fossils, then there are is a vast multitude that have been discovered for a multitude of separate lineages. If the term is being used to question why some chimera such as a crocoduck, or some such has not been found, then it is impossible to satisfy this request because they do not exist and would actually disprove evolution if found. It also demonstrates a woeful misunderstanding of the subject being debated if this is the case. Unless the person misusing the term actually takes the time to educate himself on the topic, then it is futile to engage this "argument", it is a straw man (regardless of whether it is made due to ignorance or not).
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  10. #160
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?-sausage-links-jpg

    Hey, there they are!

    I was wondering where they went.
    wow, you found a picture of Intelligent Design.


Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •