Why Intelligent Design is Completely Bogus

Originally Posted By ecdc

"Yes. But then, religious people have been dealing with ridicule for thousands of years..."

Ah yes, those poor persecuted religious types. Course, let's not forget that more often than not in history, they were persecuted by other religious people. Let's not make it sound like the Crusades were a bunch of scientists and mathematicians slaughtering innocent Christians and Muslims.

George Carlin is right: Thou shalt not kill--unless you believe in another God than mine.

 

Originally Posted By mnsharp

I just think it is absurd to say that evolution is a proven science, it's not proven, period. Just because scientist have these ideas that there can't be anything more intelligent than themselves, doesn't prove evolution. I go to ASU, so I have a little knowledge about this evolution theory. First, no solid evidence has proven it. Fossils in the rock don't prove anything, but for some reason scientists think it proves everything. The age of a rock is based on the fossils found in it and the age of the fossils is based on the rock it's found in, so where does the proof come. Second, there is no link. Do you realize that "Lucy's" (discovered by ASU professor) were found miles apart from each other, so the explaination was that erosion carried the bones around (very scientific). Also, the hip bone of Lucy made her walk straight up, like a human today. The explaination, erosion once again had altered the hip bone causing it to look identical to a modern human hip bone, the solution was - they literally sanded the hip bone untill she stood with the slight bend she has today. This is the great proven scientific link!! This all sounds very scientific and a tested and proven theory.

 

Originally Posted By mnsharp

sorry, "Lucy's" bones were found miles apart from each other.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

Eppur si muove

 

Originally Posted By mnsharp

Well, Galilleo had conclusive proof, modern evolutionists have none.

 

Originally Posted By itsme

>>This all sounds very scientific and a tested and proven theory.
--------

And a virgin women all of the sudden becomes pregnant out of nowhere with no one touching her and bears the only child of god in the tens of thousands of years humans have walked upright on this planet.
And how is this justifiable like in science and theories of fossils in rock.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>And a virgin women all of the sudden becomes pregnant out of nowhere with no one touching her and bears the only child of god in the tens of thousands of years humans have walked upright on this planet.<<

To the best of my knowledge, ID does not address the Virgin Birth, which, for millions of people is a matter of faith, and a cornerstone of a deeply held, reverant belief. That opponents of ID continue to mock and deride the beliefs of other makes reaching any kind of consensus increasingly difficult.

 

Originally Posted By itsme

>>To the best of my knowledge, ID does not address the Virgin Birth, which, for millions of people is a matter of faith, and a cornerstone of a deeply held, reverant belief. That opponents of ID continue to mock and deride the beliefs of other makes reaching any kind of consensus increasingly difficult.
--------

Im not mocking anything, simply asking.
I dont follow what they teach, but being that it is such a huge part of the history of religon how can anyone not address it.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

Believe me, the Virgin Birth has been addressed constantly ever since the Annunciation. It has not been (to my knowledge) subjected to the rigors of scientific inquiry because it happened long ago, and for those who believe it is a matter of faith.

(For what it is worth, it is now possible for a woman to conceive without engaging in sexual union. But I do not think anyone is promotimg the theory that the Virgin Birth was the result of artificial insemination.)

 

Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder

"But I do not think anyone is promotimg the theory that the Virgin Birth was the result of artificial insemination.)"

Only because it was legislated against sometime around 100 B.C. by the ancient ancestors of a certain Indiana state senator.

 

Originally Posted By jdub

Are there any Jews pushing for "Intelligent Design?" After all, Genesis IS their book...

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

Genesis, along with the rest of the Bible, belongs to us all.

 

Originally Posted By ElKay

Harbor1313: "Speaking of my personal views, I consider myself both a believer in God and a Christian (though not a fundamentalist Christian), as well as a person who tends to find most of the theory of evolution persuasive. I also believe that the "6 days" in which the world was created as described in Genesis is true more in a metaphoric sense than in a literal sense. We do not know, for absolutely certain, for example, that what is "a day" (to God) is the same as "a day" to us as humans."

I totally agree with what you say. Good point.

My problem with ID is that is clearly is an "evolutionary" link to Biblical Creationism. Proponents now throw around Macroevolution as a distinction to make ID a bit more acceptible. The problem with ID is has no evidence by itselfthat it is on par with evolution, but it really intended to knockdown evolutionary theory with a Christian belief.

ID cannot prove the existance of the intelligent designer, because it is an article of FAITH. Anyone who isn't Christian, trying to prove their deity is the true designer would be shot down along with biologists supporting evolution.

IMO, it's fine to BELIEVE in a deity that was the inspiration of life, but it has no place in science, especially if believers are trying to surplant evolution with something that's less descriptive.

 

Originally Posted By ElKay

"To the best of my knowledge, ID does not address the Virgin Birth, which, for millions of people is a matter of faith, and a cornerstone of a deeply held, reverant belief."

That's the whole problem. Relying on faith is not the same as seeking physical proof that Mary didn't have sex with an unknown man.

Trying to legitimize both Creationism and Virgin Birth cannot be proved to have been actually occured.

Early Christians need some "proof" that their teachings actually came from the one and true God, not the ramblings of another group of reformist Jews. So hence the story of Immaculate Conception, proving that Mary was the mother of a god in human form.

This is difficulty that the Religious Right when they try to elevate their beliefs ahead of other religions or into the field of science.

If they cannot prove Virgin Birth, how can they prove Creationism? You can't, it's just magic.

"That opponents of ID continue to mock and deride the beliefs of other makes reaching any kind of consensus increasingly difficult."

No you're wrong. It's the inappropreateness of their political campaign to discredit science.

Science should not be just another election where the majority of the uninformed or the politically connected can dictate physical reality.

If that was the case the law of gravity would have been repealed long ago by every kid on earth.

 

Originally Posted By ElKay

jdub: "Are there any Jews pushing for "Intelligent Design?" After all, Genesis IS their book..."

I don't think there's a single Jewish rabbi that trying to get the story of Genesis to replace evolution. It's really a evangelical Christian political campaign.

In some respects Jews are more accepting of science and demonstrable evidence than evangelicals. Most of Jewish thought is study and commentary on the nature of God and Jewish culture.

Maybe we should ask Madonna and her Kabbalist celebrity friends. ;-)

 

Originally Posted By schoolsinger

The How Stuff Works website now has an article called “How Intelligent Design Worksâ€. It is an interesting read with a neutral approach to the subject. Here is the link.

<a href="http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm" target="_blank">http://people.howstuffworks.co
m/intelligent-design.htm</a>

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

Thanks for that link schoolsinger. Very interesting article.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>I don't think there's a single Jewish rabbi that trying to get the story of Genesis to replace evolution. It's really a evangelical Christian political campaign.

In some respects Jews are more accepting of science and demonstrable evidence than evangelicals.<<

Is this based on any kind of statistics? Or is it anecdotal? I am interested, as I have seen no information on this subject.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

From the link in #192 (which was indeed interesting):

"Its arguments are mostly concerned with what it considers to be holes in the theory of evolution,"

Which is fine. There are gaps in our knowledge there.

"...and it claims that these holes scientifically prove the presence of an "intelligent designer" in nature."

This is the logical fallacy. The absence of one thing does not prove the existence of another. Or, as the linked site puts it: "The scientific method requires a positive hypotheses -- you cannot prove one thing simply by disproving another."

Another quote from the link:

"The science of intelligent design is very controversial -- the scientific community does not recognize its methods as scientific --"

and

"By its very nature, scientists claim, intelligent design is not a scientific argument but a philosophical one."

And I think that's true. Again, I BELIEVE in an intelligent Creator, but that's faith, not science.