Intelligent Design

[jackfaire]

Can someone explain to me how Intelligent Design is different from Evolution in anyway?

Everything I have read says, "We don't believe that evolution is random we believe it is guided by God" (paraphrasing) Uhm that means you agree with evolution but you want science classes to acknowledge the existence of god.

Why? Some evolutionary scientists do believe in God hell a lot of scientists do. Einstein felt studying physics was another way of understanding God.

Near as I can tell if Intelligent design became a viable subject it would teach that Evolution happened because God willed it so let's discuss how you should believe in God.

As I see it that is merely a stepping stone attempt to try and turn us into a theocracy. First introduce a topic that teaches about God while pretending to be different than evolution when really your not. Then maybe you can explain how God is the reason 2+2 is 4 and why PEMDAS is from the scripture.

If you want to teach about God great do so but don't take a scientific theory attach a "creator" and then try and act like it's somehow different.

[Flyndaran]

No, intelligent design does not allow evolution as it currently understood. Evolution is the culmination of natural selection on RANDOM mutation. There are many things that are impossible, because there is no guiding intelligence.
Creatures are often inefficient, because there is no guiding intelligence.
Photosynthesis, for example, is only 1% efficient. That doesn't sound very intelligent to me.
Humans lack a balancing tail, and suffer genetic defects quite often. That doesn't sound very intelligent to me.
Keep your religion out of my science, and I'll keep my science out of your religion. They don't taste good together.

[Talon]

Intelligent design is a fraud, nothing but theistic creationism masquerading as science. ID has not a single shred of testable evidence. It spoke volumes that during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2006, none of the so-called ID experts were willing to testify to its validity under oath.

I suppose its possible the laws of probability and physics were somehow created by a higher power. But without testable evidence, that belief has no place in a science class.

[jackfaire]

No, intelligent design does not allow evolution as it currently understood. Evolution is the culmination of natural selection on RANDOM mutation.

I know that their argument is that while it seems random to us, like many things, that is because it is the will of a higher power and essentially not for us to understand that was my point they don't teach anything new.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Can someone explain to me how Intelligent Design is different from Evolution in anyway?

.

Don't look at me. I've never understood it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not.

[Fryk]

Einstein felt studying physics was another way of understanding God.

Actually, Einstein was a professed atheist, from what I've read.

[jackfaire]

Actually, Einstein was a professed atheist, from what I've read.

Actually if anything I would describe him as an Agnostic but it was Einstein who said, "God does not play dice with the Universe"

[Slytovhand]

We've actually got an ID thread or 2 out there already...

But I'll still throw in what I said back then...

I studied ID in my PHILOSOPHY degree, so I'm coming from that angle!

ID basically says that the universe is just too damn amazingly specific to have about through ONE (and only ONE) roll of that random die.... a die that has an almost infinite number of sides. And at this stage, I'm referring not to dull boring macro-level stuff like cell mutations, but really basic physics and physical chemistry - such as gravity (how does that work?), sub-atomic physics, quantum mechanics, etc...

Evolution is really a boring bit, which has been promoted as it's protagonist.... and it just doesn't hold water.

And, FTR, ID gives better credibility to pagan beliefs than it ever will for mono-theistic... at least as far as the myths and stories go! At least they don't have to seem like they're changing their story to fit


ETA: Einstein and religion... he's dropped a couple of lines here and there that seem to indicate agnostic going on believing in something. If ID was around as a big hoo-har when Einstein was here, he'd probably say "Dunno, but I wouldn't rule it out".

[Fryk]

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2"

I actually have no problem with intelligent design at all. I just have a problem with it being taught as a hard science, instead of as religion or philosophy, where it belongs.

[Slytovhand]

Firstly - Fryk : "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist".

Well, from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest, I'm a worshipper of satan and will be going to hell when I die... doesn't actually mean that I don't believe in stuff...

No, that quote doesn't say anything about Einstein's beliefs, other than he doesn't see himself as (Jesuite) Christian... believing in I.D. doesn't make one Christian, in any sense!


But I agree, ID is not even remotely 'hard science'.. but as I've indicated elsewhere, I don't have a problem in having ONE class at the end of physics to discuss such religious and philosophical concepts.. it can help to broaden one's mind! Or at least to see things from a different perspective

[Flyndaran]

I don't understand why anyone would care what a theoretical astrophysicist thinks about religion. Why not ask your plumber about math?

The idea that the universe is too perfect for us to exist is silly in my opinion. That takes the assumption that this is the only universe and that it has only existed this one time. Even then, so what? Sometimes you win the lottery. The odds may be obscene, but if the universe wasn't the way it is, then we wouldn't be here bitching about how amazing it is.

[JuniorMintz]

I don't understand why anyone would care what a theoretical astrophysicist thinks about religion. Why not ask your plumber about math?

Why NOT ask your plumber about math? Or your doctor about art, your nanny about politics, or your mail man about literature? You can have interests/ideas/theories about topics not directly related to your profession.

(And frankly, if I were a plumber I'd be a little miffed at your post. )

Einstein was brilliant and honestly, I *am* interested in his thoughts on religion. (I can only speak for myself, but I get the impression that I'm not alone in my interest.)

[Gerrinson]

There was a famous photographer and friend of Einstein that lived here and, in fact, attended the church where I was raised. My father was also friends with said photographer.

According to my dad (yes, hearsay so get your grain of salt), the photographer was furious with Einstein for dying when he did because the photographer almost had him convinced of God's existence.

So, I think that puts Einstein in atheist, but maybe leaning towards agnostic.

As for ID, it's as stupid as the whole Creationism/Evolution BS. Evolution never said creationism was wrong. Period. Evolution simply describes observed phenomena that occured after the beginning of the universe and the genesis of life.

Creationism should really be attacking abiogenesis, which is the appearance of life where there was no life before, and is completely and wholely separate from the theory of evolution.

But, y'know, try telling that to someone who is deeply offended by their own belief that evolution disproves their invisible sky wizard.

[Daskinor]

This is what I said to my family when the whole debate came up last thanksgiving.

"Intelligent design does not belong in a science class. Science is not infallible perfection. Its people taking observed phenomena and coming up with a explanation for. That explanation is a hypothesis, it is tested. If the tests hold true and can be repeated by anyone who tires, then its a theory. Fuck, 30 years ago there where two hypothesis on what made up our genetic code. Amino Acids or Protein. Eventually we could test it and guess what it was Amino Acids. Science is about answering questions, you hit a road block you keep digging until you can find an explanation that holds true.

Intelligent design would have us believe the reason to why something is the way it is, 'A wizard did it.' Every question would in the end have the same answer, 'A wizard did it.' How does that add to our greater understanding of the universe. It doesn't! It takes away the need to ask questions, because they would all have the same answer in the end.

I can see it now in the future if this shit gets picked up

this is the evidence for evolution;

Antibiotic resistant bacteria
gray/black squirrel populations in great Brittan
fossil record
fact we share X% of our genetic code with all matter of life forums including plants.
Flaws in our genetic makeup
people have different skin color

Evidence for ID
Its to complicated so a wizard had to do it!"

My uncle Finlay piped in. "You shouldn't refer to god as a wizard"

My response "did you get your ID handbook, cant call the designer god. Then its creationism"

[Flyndaran]

...
Einstein was brilliant and honestly, I *am* interested in his thoughts on religion. (I can only speak for myself, but I get the impression that I'm not alone in my interest.)

He created a whole branch of science he was incapable of understanding.
He was just a human being, not a freaking god. I care no more what he thought on non relativity subjects as I care what Hannah Montana's favorite book is. Unless I can bang the bad acting out of her, I shouldn't care about her inner most secrets or preferences.