The theory of "intelligent design"

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 23 Nov 2005 10:35

Why don't you take this opportunity to explain why that statement requires a Bible literature class ?

It certainly seems to be a fair statement for those of us in the reality based community, and I for one would be curious to see how the faith based world has re-interpreted Genesis to suit their needs today.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 23 Nov 2005 10:43

Yeah...really!
Is this another one of those wonderful examples of the Christianity expecting everyone to take some parts of the Bible as the "gospel truth" and to use other parts as metaphors?

mahhkohh · Post by **mahhkohh** » 23 Nov 2005 11:11

guys iu think u take the discussion the wrong way,this was not meant to be a christ vs not-christ discussion!
remember,we talk about creatism and intellingent design theory´s!

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 23 Nov 2005 11:43

Oh, my bad. I keep forgetting Intelligent Design is not a dumb idea advanced by the religious right to keep God in schools.

I could have sworn Pat said Dover voted God out of their town. But, Dover voted to remove each and every school board member up for election who voted for the ID program to be taught as science. Pat seems to get it. ID is God in the classroom. ID is not science, it's a faith based excuse given to prevent the exploration of the unknowns in the universe, and to attack those who do make advances in knowledge.

There is no scientific theory of intelligent design.
Evolution had a "Eurkea!" moment, and from that moment on, facts have been accumulated and the theory has been flushed out to it's current form.

Intelligent design lacks a critical study that led to a "eureka !" moment. The whole theory has risen out of the need to discredit evolution. As such, ID is not advancing it's own theory. No experiements are being performed that would try to use information from the 'intelligently created' to make theories about the creator, and why certain decisions were made. ID prefers to leave it's theory as vaque as possible. This gives the religious a way to attack science, without having to present a viable alternative.

ID is an alternative to evolution in the same way that Teleportation is an alternative to walking.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 23 Nov 2005 11:57

Religion should NEVER be teached as science. I can't believe this is happening in a modern country like the United States of America.

On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me at all that it is happening in the United States of America.

mahhkohh · Post by **mahhkohh** » 23 Nov 2005 12:24

haha...lauri,thats exactly what i thought when i first read about this stuff...that is in my eyes,a very dangerous process and i think this is exact that what bush wanted to fight.terrorism motivated by religous fundamentalsm.and what is that id stuff motivated by?religion???i think so.

and i totaly agree to everything tsaigukun wrote in this thread,exept to the post he made full of sarcasm...

man,do i have a horrible spellingor what?sorry for that!

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 23 Nov 2005 14:20

Most of the wrong in this world is enacted by a fundamentalist of SOME sort.
(Thats not to say that fundamentalists don't do good as well mind you)

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 23 Nov 2005 22:55

SandWraith wrote:And in regards to the supposed Archaeopteryx, there's a wide body of evidence supporting the claim that it's a fake,
although the issue is still contested. A simple google search will turn up similar findings (such as a search query:Archaeopteryx fake).

Whoa, cool!

Thanks for the tip! That's really incredible! The coolest part is that you can use this rigorous method of research to learn all sorts of things! I've only been using it for 10 minutes, but already I've found wide bodies of evidence which put to rest "contested issues." Here's a small list of "contested issues" which I think I have resolved, based on wide bodies of evidence I found using a simple google search.

Contested issue #1- Did the Holocaust happen?
Answer: No, apparently it didn't. The Jew run media just made it all up!

Contested issue #2- Who is the best footbagger in the world?
Answer: Steve Blough

Who knew?

Contested issue #3- When exactly did man land on the moon?
Answer: Apparently, never!

All the Apollo missions were filmed on a movie set in the American Southwest as a ploy to get the Russians to waste their military budget on useless space programs.

Contested issue #4- Was the girl in The Crying Game really a guy?
Answer: Nope. It was a girl wearing a prosthetic penis in that one scene, but really she was a girl acting as a guy acting as a girl in the movie. Further searches revealed that for $89.00 a bottle, you can get sex-changing antibiotic pills from Russia that really work!

Contested issue #5- Is global warming a proven phenomena that will destroy the environment?
Answer: No, you're just hot this summer because of El Nino. Open a window.

I will report back later with more truths I uncover using this rigorous method of research.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 24 Nov 2005 00:21

C-Fan wrote:Further searches revealed that for $89.00 a bottle, you can get sex-changing antibiotic pills from Russia that really work!

Score!

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 24 Nov 2005 07:51

I didn't read any of the debate other than this last page, but I think the ID theory has its place. It's one of the greatest concepts that fuels science to solidify other theories. ID's lack of research and faithful followers is a great motivation for others to disprove it. Maybe without the faithful believers the evolution theory research would be moving more sluggish. Now this is coming from someone who has very limited knowledge in this field of science, but it's just a simpletons observations.

The thing about the Intelligent Design theory is that no proof just fuels its theory "god is to magnificent to be understood by mere men" It's like a pseudoscience, it's the absence of knowledge that solidifies its claims.

With that said, i wouldnt be suprised if some conciousness was playing pool one day on the universe table and fucked up and knocked a few extra balls around and one happened to explode for some fucked up reason. And probably the concept of time is so distorted for this conciousness that he hasn't got around to cleaning up the mess yet. Hopefully the ID folks will ID (hehe) this pool player before he gets the swiffer.

full nelson · Post by **full nelson** » 06 Dec 2005 09:18

In regards to the Archaeopteryx:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12 ... index.html

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 06 Dec 2005 21:09

I really don't think ridiculous religious activists focus on the Hebrew Scriptures or study them enough to even begin teaching them in schools. Their study is in the English Scriptures, not the torah. Activists are the crazies that think dinosaurs never existed and that it's a giant conspiracy.

These guys are screaming, "Hellworthy trespass!" every time evolution is mention, however they haven't a clue as to the first sentence in Genesis. let alone how to truly study torah, which is ironically what their religion is based from.

If you were to follow the Bible based upon literal translation, you would go crazy. It requires study, interpretation, and immense discussion. Not simply listening to what your religious teacher tells you to believe and promoting it.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 06 Dec 2005 21:43

I really don't think ridiculous religious activists focus on the Hebrew Scriptures or study them enough to even begin teaching them in schools. Their study is in the English Scriptures, not the torah. Activists are the crazies that think dinosaurs never existed and that it's a giant conspiracy.

These guys are screaming, "Hellworthy trespass!" every time evolution is mention, however they haven't a clue as to the first sentence in Genesis. let alone how to truly study torah, which is ironically what their religion is based from.

If you were to follow the Bible based upon literal translation, you would go crazy. It requires study, interpretation, and immense discussion. Not simply listening to what your religious teacher tells you to believe and promoting it.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Not trying to be insulting, it just sounds like you have something interesting to say, it just seems really muddled. I also don't get how it corresponds to the topic.

Texta · Post by **Texta** » 13 Dec 2005 04:20

Seath wrote:I didn't read any of the debate other than this last page, but I think the ID theory has its place. It's one of the greatest concepts that fuels science to solidify other theories. ID's lack of research and faithful followers is a great motivation for others to disprove it. Maybe without the faithful believers the evolution theory research would be moving more sluggish. Now this is coming from someone who has very limited knowledge in this field of science, but it's just a simpletons observations.

The thing about the Intelligent Design theory is that no proof just fuels its theory "god is to magnificent to be understood by mere men" It's like a pseudoscience, it's the absence of knowledge that solidifies its claims.

With that said, i wouldnt be suprised if some conciousness was playing pool one day on the universe table and fucked up and knocked a few extra balls around and one happened to explode for some fucked up reason. And probably the concept of time is so distorted for this conciousness that he hasn't got around to cleaning up the mess yet. Hopefully the ID folks will ID (hehe) this pool player before he gets the swiffer.

Oh yeah, people can believe whatever crap they like (some people even think you should call hacky sack "footbag", like what is the deal with that?). I think the point is that you can't really teach taht ID is a valid theory in a science class when there's nothing to back it up.

Actually I think if I become a science teacher I will mention it in science but in the context that it's an example of people not understanding what a scientific theory is and so applying that wording to ideas that have no scientific basis at all. If you teach kids to question what they're told and the basic principles of scientific study and then you bring up Intelligent design I think you could quite easily teach them all to be athiests which probably isn't what the ID supporters are aiming for (the technical word for this would have to be "pwnt")

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Dec 2005 07:51

Oh yeah, people can believe whatever crap they like (some people even think you should call hacky sack "footbag", like what is the deal with that?). I think the point is that you can't really teach taht ID is a valid theory in a science class when there's nothing to back it up.

Actually I think if I become a science teacher I will mention it in science but in the context that it's an example of people not understanding what a scientific theory is and so applying that wording to ideas that have no scientific basis at all. If you teach kids to question what they're told and the basic principles of scientific study and then you bring up Intelligent design I think you could quite easily teach them all to be athiests which probably isn't what the ID supporters are aiming for (the

Way to bring absolutely nothing new to the discussion. You basically co-signed about 5 other posts in this thread.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 13 Dec 2005 11:28

BainbridgeShred wrote:
Oh yeah, people can believe whatever crap they like (some people even think you should call hacky sack "footbag", like what is the deal with that?). I think the point is that you can't really teach that ID is a valid theory in a science class when there's nothing to back it up.

Actually I think if I become a science teacher I will mention it in science but in the context that it's an example of people not understanding what a scientific theory is and so applying that wording to ideas that have no scientific basis at all. If you teach kids to question what they're told and the basic principles of scientific study and then you bring up Intelligent design I think you could quite easily teach them all to be atheists which probably isn't what the ID supporters are aiming for (the
Way to bring absolutely nothing new to the discussion. You basically co-signed about 5 other posts in this thread.

What did you bring to this discussion? Nothing but criticisms of truths you know you cannot logically refute.

Intelligent design is simply Christianities last ditch effort to make religion fit this modern, scientific world...with no regard to the ignorance they are spreading. It seems the church just doesn't give a fuck about who they are screwing over these days, whether it be spreading lies to school children or refusing to support or distribute condoms in Aids stricken African nations. Do they get off on holding back Humanity? Do they really even believe their own lies? Or is it just a sick and twisted way of maintaining the status quo and protecting their own powers?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 13 Dec 2005 12:38

Texta wrote:you could quite easily teach them all to be athiests

over 99% of us are athiest towards more than 99% of the gods man has invented throughout time. Some of us just go one god further.

mahhkohh · Post by **mahhkohh** » 13 Dec 2005 15:42

Tsiangkun wrote:
over 99% of us are athiest towards more than 99% of the gods man has invented throughout time. Some of us just go one god further.

serious...i dont get what u want to tell us...am i stupid right now???am i not inteligent designed????damn...life sucks from now on...but i seriously dont get it!

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 13 Dec 2005 17:33

BainbridgeShred wrote:I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Not trying to be insulting, it just sounds like you have something interesting to say, it just seems really muddled. I also don't get how it corresponds to the topic.

I'll try again

.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askr ... lution.htm

It's a very complicated and difficult concept to understand, but Genesis doesn't disapprove of evolution. A lot of the Christians who say evolution shouldn't be taught, just haven't studied it correctly and are probably just going by what they've heard in church.

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 13 Dec 2005 17:37

Texta wrote:Oh yeah, people can believe whatever crap they like (some people even think you should call hacky sack "footbag", like what is the deal with that?). I think the point is that you can't really teach taht ID is a valid theory in a science class when there's nothing to back it up.

Actually I think if I become a science teacher I will mention it in science but in the context that it's an example of people not understanding what a scientific theory is and so applying that wording to ideas that have no scientific basis at all. If you teach kids to question what they're told and the basic principles of scientific study and then you bring up Intelligent design I think you could quite easily teach them all to be athiests which probably isn't what the ID supporters are aiming for (the technical word for this would have to be "pwnt")

Lmao. Guys-this is Kester<---Jeremy's evil twin

He's just fuckin with you