obvious Child

How is Intelligent Design not Religion?

SouthernDemocrat

I suppose that arguably it could also be considered a form of philosophy, but either way its certain not science.

__________________
Charles Krauthammer describing Obama:

"He's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament."

DarkWizard12

The same way "undocumented workers" are not "ILLEGAL immigrants".

niftydrifty

ID tries to be science because it attempts to explain the natural world. ID resembles religion because it requires "faith." but understanding the natural world does not require faith. there are plenty of suitable explanations for occurrances in nature that rely on evidence.

religion shouldn't be about explaining the external, natural world. it's about understanding our inner nature.

ID "science" is nothing but recycled arguments which originated with William Paley. Paley was a Christian, whom unfortunately neglected to notice that Christ tended not to use God as an explanation for how our bodies got to be the way that they are, etc. it was an unfortunate, and deluded excursion in theological history, and deserves to be discarded as nonsense.

ID is neither religion nor science, it's garbage.

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

Hymns

ID is based not solely on faith, but of observations of the natural world. It came about the same way evolution did:
EVOLUTION: Some guy looked at natural evidence he found and determined that the evidence supported a new theory that can't neccessarily be proved by scientific means, only suggested and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

ID: Some guy(s) looked at natural evidence he (they) found and determined that sed evidence supported a new theory that can't neccessarily be proved by scientific means, only suggested and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

__________________
être et durer (to be and to last).

rathi

Really. Why don't you explain the history of the people who proposed intelligent design.

Actually evolution was determined by the simple observation: animals change into other animals over time. Then people like Darwin and Lamark developed theories of how and why animals evolve. Darwin was ultimately correct while Lamark was not. Fossil records and knowledge of DNA and genetics has been expanding evolutionary theory ever since.

Actually some religious guy in the U.S. realized that its impossible to get creationism into public schools because of the separation between church and state. He then decided to create a bogus hypothesis to try and hide the fact he was trying to get religion into public schools.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

galenrox

It would be science if it were judged on its scientific merits, but if it were judged by its scientific merits it would be clear that it's pretty ****ing weak, namely because it ignores that the odds of something, even when astronomically small, get a lot ****ing bigger when you have the repetition that happens over millions of years and in a practically infinite amount of space. I believe there is something else and that is backed up by Hawkins and Einstein, but to presuppose that this is "intelligent" as we understand intelligence is unfounded. On top of this, I think it cheapens the concept of God when we attempt to attribute human features to God. God is far greater than any human, and human concepts of thought and intelligence are WAY too small for God.

__________________

Hatuey

ID is religion with a lab coat. Nothing more nothing less.

__________________
Wasilla : Population 7,000 - Alaska : Population : San Bernadino.

niftydrifty

are you saying ID is not religion? I'm glad we agree.

Mach

Correct. And it's not for "some guy", it's for "any guy". We can all observe the same evidence and methods, the scientific community usually does this, but if you want, you can too.

You make a common mistake here.
Science BY DEFINITION is falsifiable.
Science by definition cannot be "proven"

You imply that because evolution is not "proven", it's therefore not necessary to believe it to be true. That's incorrect, because nothing we believe is true about reality, CAN be proven. It's not a weakness in evolution, it's an error in your understanding of science.


It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis, that has no evidence, and is rejected on many reasoned and scientific grounds. It's faith. That's why I can't access any 'evidence" of this "intelligent designer", because there is NO such evidence.

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan