Why Intelligent Design is Completely Bogus

Originally Posted By schoolsinger

Is the standard in public school, that you can’t teach religion, but you can discredit it?

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

I think one problem here is a misunderstanding of ID. There are apparently people on both sides of this issue who believe that it is nothing more than a teaching of the book of Genesis. But, just as is the case with Evolution, scientists who promote ID are not all in fundamental agreement.

I know of no ID scientist who is promoting the "magic wand" theory, any more than I know of an Evolutionary scientist who is promoting spontaneous generation.

So can we all try and view each other's beliefs in this area with a little more respect and less sneering?

 

Originally Posted By ecdc

"If you discredit one part of the Bible you discredit the whole book."

Hey, if that's your approach, more power to you. But then you better not believe the whole Bible, because there's plenty that can be discredited. The Flood of Noah? Really? I heard a scientist speak on the flood (he also happens to be a believing Christian) and the impossibilities surrounding it.

Today, there are some habitats and environments some animals need that scientists still can't recreate. But Noah could? Every animal on earth in a boat the size of three football fields? And how, pray tell, did Noah manage to gather kangaroos, polar bears, Asian elephants, and kimodo dragons all on the same ship?

Some people will say it's all about faith. That's fine, but you might as well have faith that the earth rests on Atlas's shoulders or that the Sun-god Ra is the most powerful god of all. If you believe one mythology, why not believe them all?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<But, just as is the case with Evolution, scientists who promote ID are not all in fundamental agreement.>

True enough. And I've got no problem with people who believe that a higher intelligence ultimately created us (as in fact, that's what I believe). It's the ones who throw out scientific observation (such as the age of the earth, a la the folks behind that museum) and still want to call it science that I have trouble with.

<So can we all try and view each other's beliefs in this area with a little more respect and less sneering?>

Beliefs, sure. But the fundamental question is: can something that can not be stand up to the scientific method be taught in science class?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Um, you can omit that last "be" in that sentence.

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

WOW, We have had so many incredible postings in this thread. I'm impressed we have such a diverse group responding here. All excellent points!

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>can something that can not stand up to the scientific method be taught in science class?<<

Of course. It shouldn't be the case, but it does happen. As scientific advances are made, some things are discarded, and others are promoted.

If the proponents of ID want to remain relevant, they must be willing to let their theories be tested. But many opponents of ID will not give it even a moment's consideration. Their minds are closed on the matter.

 

Originally Posted By RC Collins

>>Today, there are some habitats and environments some animals need that scientists still can't recreate. But Noah could? Every animal on earth in a boat the size of three football fields? And how, pray tell, did Noah manage to gather kangaroos, polar bears, Asian elephants, and kimodo dragons all on the same ship?<<

There are very detailed explanations answering this kind of scoffing (I'm not saying I'm in agreement, just noting that there are).

You are making a lot of assumptions, including that the world we live in today is pretty much the same as it was in the supposed days of Noah. Those who take the "Genesis Flood" seriously tend to believe that there was something supernatural going on, and that young (and therefor smaller) specimens of animals were involved, and that there was a kind of hibernation process involved. An omnipotent God could have spared the animals without the ark, but speculations include the ark being another symbol, or "type," of Christ, demonstration that those who are "in Christ" are saved.

Anyway, part of the speculation includes there being a lot more going on then just raining and flooding, including changes in the atmosphere and changes in the landscape.

These are not people that believe that God is literally some beared old guy sitting on a cloud.

Still, the "Genesis Flood" is something independent of Intelligent Design. You don't have to believe in the Flood to believe in Intelligent Design.

 

Originally Posted By ElKay

Dabob2: "Beliefs, sure. But the fundamental question is: can something that can not be stand up to the scientific method be taught in science class?"

Excellent summation of this whole discussion.

The core of this debate really is whether ID can be forced into science classes just because the concept of evolution is a precieved threat to their religious beliefs.

Several posters on this topic take a resonable stance that their religious beliefs and evolution are separate areas of learning that can co-exist and one need not be seen as a perilous danger to the other.
I myself see no problem with the concept that God may indeed have inspired the formation of our universe. The problem that I see in absolutists who demand that ID be forced into schools is that it is just the first of many changes that they will demand if they are successful on ID in the classroom.

I take the perspective that while evolution may not be the complete description of the development of life, ID is far worse since it is a philosophy, instead of a scientific based theory.

Most proponents of ID are not biologists but come from tangential diciplines, if any. If ID is going to be an alternative to evolution, then it will have to develop their own evidence that demonstrates their ideas, instead of a series of critiques of what they disagree with evolution.

Years ago, there was a similar dispute of linguists in Oakland with an agenda of requiring the teaching of Black dialect in the local schools because there was a majority of Blacks in those schools. Almost every serious minded people, including other Black scholars thought this was a bad idea. Not because it was a dialect used by African-Americans, but because it wasn't standard ENGLISH. The same holds, IMO, for ID.

 

Originally Posted By ecdc

"If the proponents of ID want to remain relevant, they must be willing to let their theories be tested. But many opponents of ID will not give it even a moment's consideration. Their minds are closed on the matter."

That's a fair statement. But as I've read my impression is the reverse is also true - most proponents of ID want it because they are opposed to evolution, not because they actually believe ID is a testable hypothesis. They realize it's more politically viable than pure creationism, so they put it on the table.

 

Originally Posted By ecdc

"You are making a lot of assumptions, including that the world we live in today is pretty much the same as it was in the supposed days of Noah. Those who take the "Genesis Flood" seriously tend to believe that there was something supernatural going on, and that young (and therefor smaller) specimens of animals were involved, and that there was a kind of hibernation process involved."

I assume what I do because what you've described is not remotely supported by any kind of evidence. And that's fine. My only argument is if people want to accept a literal flood (instead of a symbolic one, which I can buy a lot easier), then they're making such a huge leap in faith, in my estimation it makes any kind of science pointless.

They've chosen to alter reality and change the possibilities so radically it makes any argument one might use worthless, because the "Well, God changed things" is always there." Again, why accept this kind of myth and not a Greek or Egyptian myth? They each have about as much basis in fact.

 

Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder

"These are not people that believe that God is literally some beared old guy sitting on a cloud."

He's not?

For anyone knows, God could be Goddess, who's to say?

 

Originally Posted By Jafar30

I don't think God is a Goddess, he's appeared as George Burns and Morgan Freeman, the times I've seen him represented

 

Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder

"I don't think God is a Goddess, he's appeared as George Burns and Morgan Freeman, the times I've seen him represented "

You're right about that. Hmmm. But, did both of them say they appeared with the intent to either blend in or as people expected they would, not as they really were? George could have been Gracie maybe.

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

But in 'Oh God!' He also made himself appear as a large black woman.

I'm so confused...

 

Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder

Maybe he was thinking of Hattie McDaniel?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<>>can something that can not stand up to the scientific method be taught in science class?<<

<Of course. It shouldn't be the case, but it does happen.>

I'd take the opposite tack, though. If you can show that something that doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny is being taught in science class, perhaps it shouldn't be taught, rather than allowing other things that do not stand up to scrutiny being taught also.

In terms of evolution, there is much that has been proven and can be shown empirically, and then there are gaps; which is how it was presented when I was in school, anyway.

<As scientific advances are made, some things are discarded, and others are promoted.>

I said something very similar before. But in the case of ID, they haven't presented a very good case scientifically.

<If the proponents of ID want to remain relevant, they must be willing to let their theories be tested.>

Exactly.

<But many opponents of ID will not give it even a moment's consideration. Their minds are closed on the matter.>

Well, some perhaps. But not me, nor others I've seen here. As I've said, ultimately I believe in an intelligent creation, if not the literal 6-day Genesis version. I'd kind of like to see something that showed that, since I do believe it. But at this point it's still in the realm of faith, not something that can be proven and taught in science. If they can prove their points scientifically - which as someone else said is quite different from pointing out gaps in evolution theory - then great. What I've read from them so far doesn't impress me much from a scientific standpoint.

 

Originally Posted By cmpaley

>>1 Timothy 2:1
"For there is one God and hone Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,"

If Jesus is the only mediator, why are we allowed to pray to saints?<<

First, do you pray for your friends and loved ones?

Second, the saints are in Christ, to their prayers are a participation in Christ's mediation, not separate from it.

Third, I said show me something in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that contradicts scripture, not the protestant parody of Catholic teaching that appears to.

 

Originally Posted By cmpaley

>>I know this was just addressed by the previous poster but I was just astounded to read that. Atheism is NOT a religion at all. We don't acknowledge any kind of supernatural being. I know I don't worship anything. <<

In a sense, this is correct, but in another, not as such...

Atheism is not a formal religion with practices and doctrines, but it is a religious belief that takes just as much faith as Christianity or Judaism or Mohommedism or any other religion.

 

Originally Posted By cmpaley

>>the Sun-god Ra is the most powerful god of all<<

He was until Col. Jack O'Neil and Dr. Daniel Jackson defeated him by blowing up a nuke in his face on Abydos.