[karajorma]

It's not really a debate if the other guy is sticking his fingers in his ears and going nanananananananananananana, is it?

Exactly. Which gives Abiogenesis much more time to advance before anyone starts up on it

[Grey Wolf]

(NB: worth noting; the various churches including the Vatican, I'd think, still object to abiogenesis)

Perhaps because, unlike evolution, the concept of abiogenesis is a hell of a lot harder to prove, and the scientists are still debating it? By that I mean the specifics, producing experiments to prove the concepts (they've synthesized viruses, but no living cells), etc.

[aldo_14]

(NB: worth noting; the various churches including the Vatican, I'd think, still object to abiogenesis)

Perhaps because, unlike evolution, the concept of abiogenesis is a hell of a lot harder to prove, and the scientists are still debating it? By that I mean the specifics, producing experiments to prove the concepts (they've synthesized viruses, but no living cells), etc.

It's not that, it's because abiogenesis would further reduce the 'visible' role of God as creator; evolution you can say, 'ok, but god started it by creating life'.  But abiogenesis would throw out even that most lax reading of Genesis (etc); God would be reduced to the even more intangible role of being the instigator of the Big Bang or something.  Abiogenesis is a lot harder subject, of course, and I can't help but think of an allusion made by Dawkins to Stonehenge; namely that the only explanation of man building it involves some form of scaffolding, etc, that we cannot see or discover due to time - and that abiogenesis may have involved a now vanished precursor chemical or action (noting that this does not bar theorising such a thing, for the same reasons as we theorise Stonehenge was built using scaffolds, etc, to raise the stones and soforth).

[TrashMan]

There's nothing wrong with ID except that it's some are trying to shove it as science...

It makes sense, it's a good theory, but it's NOT science - you can't prove it or disprove it, so only idiots would back it up to the extreeme levels.

[aldo_14]

There's nothing wrong with ID except that it's some are trying to shove it as science...

It makes sense, it's a good theory, but it's NOT science - you can't prove it or disprove it, so only idiots would back it up to the extreeme levels.

It's not a theory, actually.  Not in the context of theory as it is usually applied to it, anyways.  Hypothesis, really - at best.

Anyways, it doesn't actually have anything in it to make sense - there's no definition.  Just 'evolution is wrong and God/insert deity/alien here did it all', usually followed by citing some false and rather dodgy reasons.  I mean, can you actually say what ID is without referencing evolution?

[Grey Wolf]

Here's what Trashman was trying to say:

Intelligent design can be viewed as a legitimate belief of a person or group of people, but trying to pass something that relies on faith as scientific fact is a horribly flawed concept.

[ToecrusherHammerjaw]

Well, yeah.

As for what I said earlier, it was only speculation......... hope.......... maybe both.

[karajorma]

There's nothing wrong with ID except that it's some are trying to shove it as science...

It makes sense, it's a good theory, but it's NOT science - you can't prove it or disprove it, so only idiots would back it up to the extreeme levels.

Wrong. And yet more proof that the people who try to promote ID don't actually know what it is. Your comment makes about as much sense as saying that there's nothing wrong with murder except that it involves the unlawful killing of someone.

ID's sole purpose is to try to appear as if it was a scientific theory. If it's not a scientific theory it's nothing. ID exists just for the purposes of trying to take science on on scientific grounds. To try and disprove evolution on it's own home turf. You might as well dump it and go back to creationism if you're going to say that ID isn't science because you've completely removed its raison d'etre.

Here's what Trashman was trying to say:

Intelligent design can be viewed as a legitimate belief of a person or group of people, but trying to pass something that relies on faith as scientific fact is a horribly flawed concept.

But even that is wrong. ID isn't a belief. So many people get this one wrong on both sides of the argument that it's not even funny. If you go and talk to the people who invented ID they'll beat you down with sticks if you try to claim that their theory is a belief or anything other than science.

ID is not a legitimate belief any more than phlogiston or luminiferous aether  are legitimate beliefs. All three are failed attempts at a scientific theory and nothing more.

If intelligent design is a belief what do the people who believe in it have that differenciates them from creationists? The fact is that proponents of ID break down into two groups.

1) Psuedo-scientists who think that ID is science
2) People who don't understand ID and think that it's another name for creationism.

[Grey Wolf]

Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.

At the same time, its not even remotely science. Its an article of faith, and faith has no place in science.

[SadisticSid]

Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.

Err, why not? Why should what we consider unreasonable beliefs be left unchallenged? Without the rejection and debate of ideas, there would be little advancement in science or society. It's the caveat that by having unmoderated beliefs in a free speech society, you also open them up to the criticism of others.

[BlackDove]

Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.

Of course I can. It has nothing to do with proof or not, like you said, science and faith don't intertwine. When I laugh at people who hold some beliefs, I laugh at them because their beliefs are ****ing retarded, and I also laugh at them for not relying on science and material explanations, but rather, on their imagination, to define the things around them.

It's the concept really that I ridicule, not the end product. Though when the end product is especially stupid, then I feel the need to chime in.

Non related: Scientology isn't about beliefs or non-beliefs though. Anyone who argues that, doesn't have the complete picture. It's about that technology that they use behind it - that is troubling. You're supposed to laugh at the concept, because it's designed as distraction from the contraptions behind it.

Also, I'm not visiting this thread again. Too much stupid innit. (subject and discourse taken, not people's posts)

[karajorma]

Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.

At the same time, its not even remotely science. Its an article of faith, and faith has no place in science.

You're falling into exactly the trap I've described of talking about ID without actually understanding what it is. For years creationist have been falling into its counterpart and coming up with spurious nonsense about the 2nd law of thermodynamics or how the lack of weird chimeras which are part mammal and part fish prove that evolution must be wrong.

I'm not rubbishing anyone's belief. I'm pointing out that the vast majority of people who claim to believe in ID actually believe in creationism because quite simply they do not understand what ID actually is.

If you want to talk about ID you must first understand what it is. ID attempts to be a scientific argument. It states that its three main concepts Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity and Fine-tuned universe prove that evolution must be wrong. It then further posits that there must be some sort of intelligent designer who dealt with these flaws by some mechanism.

And that is where ID stops. It doesn't say who the designer is. It doesn't say how the flaws were repaired it doesn't say anything beyond that. The designer could be aliens. The designer could be spagetti monster. It could be me travelling back in time and playing the ultimate practical joke on myself. ID stops at saying that there is a designer. ID goes out of its way to not say who or what the designer is.

The psuedo-scientific theory is then coupled to the faith based belief that God is the intelligent designer. Then and only then does faith enter into it. ID itself states nothing supernatural. It is only the gestalt entity that involves faith. ID itself is not an article of faith.

People who claim to believe in ID therefore are basically saying "I believe that there is scientific evidence that evolution is wrong. Therefore I believe in God". Can you not see how saying that ID is not scientific therefore automatically negates the entire first part of that argument. All you are left with is "I believe evolution is wrong. Therefore I believe in God".

If that's the case than so be it. You're entitled to that belief but why are you even mentioning ID at all? That phrase basically describes someone who is a creationist. Why bring ID into the matter at all?


If you are a proponent of ID you MUST believe its scientific. If you don't believe it's scientific you're just a creationist who hasn't caught on to the fact that ID is no longer relevant to you.

[aldo_14]

Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.

Well, um, you can when they're perpetuated under the name of 'science'.  anyways, going back a bit.....

Here's what Trashman was trying to say:

Intelligent design can be viewed as a legitimate belief of a person or group of people, but trying to pass something that relies on faith as scientific fact is a horribly flawed concept.

The whole point is, I'd bet he can't say what Intelligent Design is, because there is no defined meaning of it that isn't essentially 'evolution is wrong'.  That's the problem in it as a theory/hypothesis - it's undefined.  There is no definition of the designer, no definition of the methods of design, no explanation of why this is better (more scientifically supported) than evolution, etc.    No why (that would expose the religious basis they try to hide).  No when (that'd cause a conflict between young-earth and old-earth members of the ID camp).  No how (conflict between Genesis literalists and non-literalists).  Nor how long (again, 7 days versus actual age).

You can say 'I believe in the bible creation story' or 'I believe God directs evolution', but 'I believe in ID' has no meaning or value; ID was only really created to be an obtuse trojan horse for biblican creationism for (science classes in) the US school system, which is precisely why it has never been detailed in the way any sort of true theory is.  And this also means, of course, it's moved itself from the point of being a belief in the supernatural (which is a more defensible position as the only basis required is faith, blind or otherwise) to some pseudo-science without form beyond petty and incorrect criticisms of the best supported theory - and you can tear apart it as soon as it becomes that psuedo-science.

[Mefustae]

We really need to get someone in here that both supports ID, and can support it without resorting to the classic style of ID support [quotes out of context, degrading evolution], as nobody already here can really go up against Kara and Aldo for more than a couple of posts before losing all credibility!

[aldo_14]

We really need to get someone in here that both supports ID, and can support it without resorting to the classic style of ID support [quotes out of context, degrading evolution], as nobody already here can really go up against Kara and Aldo for more than a couple of posts before losing all credibility!

I'm not sure such a person exists.

[Mefustae]

I'm not sure such a person exists.

What, support ID in a succinct manner, or hold their own against you in an arguement?

[karajorma]

Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No.

I had wanted to come back to this sentence earlier but it was only when I read Aldo's point that I remembered why.

I'm not saying that people can't believe in God. I'm not saying that they can't believe that he influenced evolution. The simple fact is that you can believe in those things without needing to claim you believe in ID.

Suppose you knew someone who went to Catholic church every Sunday cause he believed in what he heard from the pulpit. If said he was a protestant would you be rubbishing his beliefs to say "Actually I think you'll find that you're a catholic"?

A lot of people have gotten it into their heads that believing in ID means believing that God controlled evolution. It means nothing of the sort. You can believe that God controlled evolution without ever mentioning ID at all. That would be an article of faith and you'd have no scientific proof of that but you're allowed to have that belief.

But if you say you believe in ID and that it's not a scientific theory then you're just deluding yourself.

[aldo_14]

I'm not sure such a person exists.

What, support ID in a succinct manner, or hold their own against you in an arguement?

Former.  I'm not that arrogant.  Usually

[karajorma]

The problem is that anyone who truely understands the science involved in ID soon sees fundemental flaws in the logic. If there was someone who could argue ID succinctly and scientifically they'd be publishing papers in Nature about it instead of discussing it here.

[Grey Wolf]

OK, let's try this again. Summary of the pertinent facts:
1. People, many of them who are more likely to be Creationist, are against evolution.
2. To fight against evolution, they revive the Watchmaker analogy, renaming it to Intelligent Design.
3. They attempt to pass Intelligent Design off as scientific theory.
4. The problem with the Watchmaker analogy is it is not supported in nature (see: the human eye)

What I was trying to mention is that some people may have the belief that even though no higher power is required, it may have intervened anyway in the process orf evolution.

Hopefully, this will clear up any confusion as to what I was attempting to say.