Does "Intelligent Design" Equal "Creationism"?

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by Bill Archer, Feb 7, 2005.

  1. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  2. CrewSchmack

    CrewSchmack Member

    Columbus Crew SC
    United States
    Mar 3, 1999
    Delaware, OH
  3. CrewSchmack

    CrewSchmack Member

    Columbus Crew SC
    United States
    Mar 3, 1999
    Delaware, OH

    I forgot to put in my disclaimer.

    I believe in Intelligent Design, and would prefer it to be taught in schools instead of Creationism, as many towns and school districts are attempting to do.

    I do not believe they are the same thing, as one simply suggests that something laid out a plan for the development of life and evolution (which I believe is part of the design). While the other implies a specific designer. Intelligent Design are not concerned with that, and nor should they, as they are devising a scientific theroy. Faith can and should remain separate to that.

    Those who beleive in strict literal interpretations of the Old Testament will likely disagree with me.
     
  4. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Here's an opposing view from the folks at CSICOP, one of my favorite groups.
    http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html

    They sometimes take a break from ridiculing the spoonbenders to address things like ID.

    The basic problem I have with ID is that it's trying to prove "God" exists, and alot of clever people have wasted alot of time trying to do this. Yeah, they don't say "God" but if it's just some intelligent aliens who designed us, then you haven't really gotten anywhere. ID will go nowhere, too, it really doesn't have any useful purpose to it.
     
  5. CrewSchmack

    CrewSchmack Member

    Columbus Crew SC
    United States
    Mar 3, 1999
    Delaware, OH
    Interesting. I disagree with their premise, because I believe that Intelligent Design included a means for evolution as the primary basis of the design.

    One could have easily just designed things NOT to change. However, that would be boring.
     
  6. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    I don't have a problem with "intelligent design" as an area of study; what I DO have a problem with is placing "intelligent design" in the science curriculum.

    Intelligent design is really a philosophical concept (or perhaps more specifically a philosophy of science concept). That's why, when you study science, you will never see on the syllabus, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This book should be read, and its subjects discussed, but not in a biology class; rather, in a philosophy class.

    Those who want to see intelligent design in a science classroom would be the equivalent of those who would want to see aesthetics taught in a math class. Math may be "beautiful" but a math class is not the place to study it's aesthetic characteristics. It's where you study math.

    By the way, any class in intelligent design should address at some point the famous Albert Einstein remark, which he uttered when presented with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics: "God does not play dice with the universe."

    Well, since quantum mechanics has been proven correct, then, if there IS a God, he's at the unviverse's crap table every nanosecond.

    Our "intelligent designer" likes games of chance -- and games of chance, as those who have played Texas Hold 'em know, can be very intelligently designed.

    Wonder how that would go down with the bible-thumping literalists?
     
  7. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Only a slight tangent here, because I'm very interested in this topic and know very little. I'm trying to read up.

    Anyway, I just got done with a book called Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson, and I've ordered some of his other books. The guy is unbelieveable.

    The reason I mention it is because he contends, through one of the lead characters, that "religion" as it's practiced in churche, is about 95% crap which has nothing to do with God. Smarter people - maybe 30 or 40% - understand this and veer away from religion, which is why atheists see themselves as smarter than other people.

    What they are missing is the other 5% of what is there, which takes real genius to comprehend because it transcends "intellect" into realms of the mind which the merely "bright" can't fathom. The contention is that the truly spiritually in tune people are, not coincidentally, the highest intelligence.

    I know I'm not expressing it well. It takes hundreds of pages to develop the theme and is hard to distill. Fascinating stuff.
     
  8. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Bill, I am seriously lapsed Lutheran (at one point considered studying for the ministry). Right now I consider myself an agnostic.

    In my view, there are three kinds of religious people. The first kind are those who don't have very many neurons firing, and are looking for simple explanations of complex things, and a way to see beyond daily problems and troubles. They are the "thunder is God moving furniture" people: primitivists.

    The second kinds of religious people are the fanatical zealots, who see religion as a way to perfection. Of couse, the problem there is that if YOUR ideas are perfect, then the ideas of others AREN'T perfect. Uh, Houston, we a problem.

    The third kind of religious people are what I would call the theolgians -- those who work hard to apply all the faculties of the human mind and spirit to understand that which is beyond human. This category gathers up a whole bunch of folks -- say, artists like Graham Greene, or intellects like Buber and St. Augustine. Their goal? A attempt to achieve a certain state of grace about their place in the universe.

    The third kind is generally SOOOO smart that they can be almost hyper-rational, and as such can bring a lot of brainpower to their endeavors. IN the end, though, they face the point where reason ends; where it ends, is where something else begins. It's the ability to know that this border exists, and attempt to demarcate it, that sets this group apart.
     
  9. kaiserwilhelm

    kaiserwilhelm New Member

    Jun 18, 2001
    Oklahoma
    OK, here is the response from someone smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. The problem is that evolution has become fact. It is not. It is a THEORY! A frickin theory at that. VERY intelligent people have poked gigantic holes from one end to the other. You are going to teach me child that 2+2 is 4 and then tell them some "theory" (lie) that man came from primordial soup. Have the balls to state that you don't frickin know, but you do at least have the balls to admit that you have no idea where this all came from. Now, on that we might agree.
    My problem with science (ie, the crap they teach at school) is that they start with the premise that we evolved from animals. Again, this is a theory. God making man, (in some views) is a theory. Why can't intelligent people put two "theories" in front of people? Are you that afraid of your theory? Mine, (Creationism = 7 literal day) is built completely on faith. I have the balls to admit that. Yours (man came from some monkey millions of years ago) is built on more faith than mine. Go and read, "Tornado in a Junkyard". Bout as much chance of yours happening as a 747 being built by a tornado in a Texas tornado.

    OK, think about this. What are the REAL problems facing America today? Abortion, Euthenasia, etc. Boil down the arguments and you have one real problem. If MAN is equal (or less than) an animal then Abortion, Euthenasia, etc. is no real ethical decision. Get it? We are no better than some monkey, so screw it, go ahead and pull the plug on Bonzo, er, I mean Grandma.
    How about we for once just contemplate that someone (greater than we are) had a plan. What is so stinking hard about that?
    I mean, to the people that think the God just made all this crap up, give me a break. He either is perfect and wrote it all down or else he is one great big stinking liar! There is not middle ground.
    I used to think like many of you. I thought that God "used" evolution to :create" man in over millions of years.
    However, then I rethought my position. Either God is capable of making me, you, and even Hitler is seven days or he is one small putrid kind of God. Not the kind that I tend to like to talk to...
     
  10. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact, and has been proven.

    That species evolve over time into other forms, that speciation itself occurs is a fact, and has been proven.

    The live has been on this planet for a few billion years, and has changed over time, and that many species have come and gone, is a fact, and has been proven.

    The universe is many billions of years old, and the earth is a few billion years old. This is not a theory; this is a fact, and it has been proven.

    The cosmos that is visible to us -- the stars, and galaxies -- is an enormous expanse of sspace. This is not a theory; it is a fact, and has been proven.
     
  11. kaiserwilhelm

    kaiserwilhelm New Member

    Jun 18, 2001
    Oklahoma
    You know, honestly. It is not a fact. This is Bill's forum and I am going to leave it here as I know that Bill did not mean to open a can of worms.
    Suffice it to say, your "proof" is theory based upon theory based upon bs.

    I again ask you one simple question. What is so bad about having an all powerful being that designed life this way? Are you afraid of that?
    Do some reading. Your proof is not proof. Debate me with hard facts and I will show you a good time. I admit from the get go that I have NO HARD evidence to prove "God". However, have the balls to admit that evolution is a simple minded crack job foisted upon us by some nut of the 19th century. Even Darwin admitted in his later years that their must be something more than just this.
    I will have a debate with anyone concerning whether the earth is six hundred, six thousand, or six trillion years old. I can handle that kind of discourse. But, to blatantly state that evolution is NOT a theory is not a starting point. Even most respected scientists will admit that it is. Why can't you? Afraid that one "theory" versus another "theory" will show the inadequacies of your argument?
     
  12. Riceman

    Riceman New Member

    Jul 26, 2003
    Wylie
    Evolution is still considered a theory by it's own admission. You read any literature on Evolution and they come out and admit that they really don't know how life originated.
     
  13. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    This is will come as a huge surprise to Karl, but I think he's right: evolution is a fact. It is also a theory, but what scientists mean by "theory" and what the general public means by it are two totally different things.

    Evolution can be observed at the cellular level. For instance, Staphylococcis aureus (i.e., "Staph") infections used to be curable with an antibiotic called methicillin. Most of them still are. However, there are now strains that can't be eliminated with this antibiotic. We even basically know what changes have occurred at the cellular level to have caused this to happen. We even know how essentially to force these changes to happen.

    A concept that anti-evolutionists can't get around their heads is that scientists partake of the extremely noble project of trying to poke holes in their own theories. They're their own devil's advocates. This does NOT mean there are "holes" in the theories.

    And, as Karl wrote, ID is not science. My understanding of it is limited, but its basis--that the forms of the university are so highly complex that they cannot be the result of chance--is specious to the highest degree. We'll probably never, ever witness a lottery result of 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5, and 6. This does not mean that such a result could only be the design of a higher power. Any discussion of ID belongs someplace other than a science classroom.

    On a related note, my soon-to-be wife has a PhD in Biblical Studies (specifically, ancient Hebrew texts). We were looking at some of the stories in the Judges portion of the Old Testament. There are many interesting and exciting tales about cities being destroyed, battles, etc. Problem is, not ONE of these stories matches the archeological evidence. Every last one of them (in this portion of the Tanakh, at least) conflicts with actual, unambiguous evidence. (I wish I could go into greater detail, but this is her area of expertise, not mine.)
     
  14. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    The theory of evolution and theories regarding the origin of life/the universe are not the same thing. Evolution also can't tell you why bad things sometimes happen to good people.
     
  15. CrewSchmack

    CrewSchmack Member

    Columbus Crew SC
    United States
    Mar 3, 1999
    Delaware, OH
    This may sound like a flame...but I'm trying to raise a point.

    There are many theroys in science.

    Here's one huge one, that most of us consider to be a fact. Newton's Theroy of Gravity.

    Now, even as you read that wiki page on gravity, you'll see that the theroy of gravity has been replaced by Einstein's Theroy of General Relativity. However, Newton's theroy is generally accurate enough for use with simple physics. It's not until you get hardcore that his rules breakdown.

    And that's the thing about theroys. Right now there is a theroy of evolution. As it stands, that theroy can explain many many things. And from our current mental capacities as the human race, it's pretty darned accurate.

    However, it may be disproven by scientists as time goes on, or gasp replaced by something else. And in many cases, those who are into Intelligent Design are in fact looking for ways to prove the existence of God (which as a scientific mind myself is the ultimate piece of explaining the universe). I do not think that those efforts should EVER by stymied by religion. Faith is God one thing. It is faith which drives some in the scientific community to look for things...be it faith in God or faith in their own theroys.

    This is why I maintain that Creationism should NOT be taught in schools, unless you have a Religion class which discusses world religions. It's a class I wish I had taken in high school or college.

    And actually after reading more about Intelligent Design , I am going to change my mind on it. I would argue that until they come up with a Theroy, that they need to restrain from teaching it in schools.
     
  16. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Even though I consider ID to be pretty empty, I'm not worried that they try to teach it in high school - they are lucky to get people out of high school who can do arithmetic. Even the chemistry and physics they teach in high school is very simplified, you need to start again from scratch in college anyway. ID is much too esoteric to go very far.

    And in college, until they sack all of the idiot communists still lingering on faculties like skunk odor, I won't worry too much about trivial pseudoscience horning in.

    More people get sucked into stupid religious cults than will ever be ruined by ID being taught in schools.
     
  17. CrewSchmack

    CrewSchmack Member

    Columbus Crew SC
    United States
    Mar 3, 1999
    Delaware, OH

    The thing about ID is this...I tend to gravitate towards it as a part of my personal faith.

    I did that on my own. I know plenty of people with similar studying habits as myself who kept to their core the idea of a Young Earth, etc. As part of my personal faith, I believe that as humans we were given the gift of knowledge, and that we should be using that to try to find out things about the universe, etc.

    Looking at Creationism, I can not accept that we would be given vast brain power, but not be allowed to question anything or to try to understand how things work. I believe that gifts are meant to be used. Some will argue about using the gift for "good" or "evil" or whatnot. But I can not accept that we should turn off our exploration of our existence and how we came to be because we should simply have faith. I beleive that if the bible were to be written today that the language would be much different. Many would consider that to be blasphemous, but I do not. I consider it to be realistic, in that the language used was used to explain things at levels that current scientific development could actually understand. The close minded ness of churches on these matters bothers me deeply, however I can see how politically from a world view there would be a problem with any major religious movement actually accepting that.

    Faith and science are two separate things...and one can actually have both, and I believe compliment each other.
     
  18. Mr Hanki's Throne

    Mr Hanki's Throne New Member

    Mar 13, 2001
    Wellington, Colo
    Take the term "evolution" to describe how the multitude of life as observed exists on the planet through a process based explanation of "species adaption". In the same way the term "intelligent design" is used to describe how rare a hospitable place Earth is and its universe through appeal to various aspects of the process based study called "physics". These definitions are gross oversimplifications, which I'll acknowledge for now, since there is some overlap in the two studies and both studies need to take in more of their intellectual surrounds (for example a knowledge of ecology and microbiology for both branches) than in my simpification.

    Both of the process based ideas are on solid ground since they are provable in our experience. To deny F=ma or basic animal husbandry is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na na na". However, an honest intellectual debate can occur on the "wrapper" ideas, evolution and intelligent design. Both are areas where all the details are not settled. For example, it has been shown that simple DNA genetics are not sufficient to permit the multitude of species we see, but there are indications that non-DNA machinery in the cell may also play a role in adaptation, and that some primitive organism can change the DNA genetics without spawning a new generation for the purpose of adapting to circumstances. Intelligent design requires some advanced study to understand the various constants in physics equations that are "just right" for what we know as a universe that could harbor life.

    Understanding of the "wrapper" ideas neccessarily requires a professional's knowledge, but nonetheless important ideas can be extracted from these ideas that are motivating to a student to the study of the process-based concepts. There is some institutional arrogance by both Evolutionists and Creationists, but in the end, Creationism does not serve as a motivation toward the study of the processes of biology.

    There is a value to a student to knowing about evolution that goes beyond explaining species diversity. Competitive adaptation is a useful metaphor in economics, anthropology, computer science, and politics. Intelligent design has not acquired that kind of currency yet, but some aspects may become useful in the future. For example, a welfare program may not dictate particular actions from a recipient (such as requiring job searches through this or that program) but be intelligently designed to the effect that recipients seek to resolve their situations without specific direction (such as seeking family support or finding jobs on their own or through a govt program as the case may be).
     
  19. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    Wow, for the third time in about a month I agree with Karl. I somehow feel dirty.
    Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory, its a way to try and claim God had something to do with our creation. Yes, I know ID doesn't say God, but its intellectually dishonest to claim that the "designer" is anyone other than God. Unless you think Martians did it. Its a fighting retreat from the literalism of "God made us in his image" to the less advanced position of "God created the process by which we evolved". By working within the theory of evolution, it allows one to co-opt science. Unfortunately, it still requires the element of belief, in the designer, which can never be proven. That's the core of religion, of course. The moment we "prove" God, he will become nothing more than a scientific entity to study, not something to believe, and religion as we know it will cease to exist.

    And evolution IS a fact. You may argue that we haven't proven from which ape humans descend, but that's not a core aspect of the theory. Its just a missing variable. If we know x+y=12, and know we can't solve for x and y without more evidence, we wouldn't conclude algebra doesn't work, would we?
     
  20. Benedict XVI

    Benedict XVI Member

    Nov 22, 1999
    Ciudad del Encanto
    Club:
    Lisburn Distillery FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    i just did a search for 'lutheran' and got this thread.

    interesting.

    i am a bible-thumping literalist. i think ID is intellectually dishonest, personally.

    carry on.
     
  21. Anthony

    Anthony Member+

    Chelsea
    United States
    Aug 20, 1999
    Chicago
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As a Catholic, I guess Intelligent Design is what we are supposed to believe. We are supposed to (and I do) believe that evolution is not theory but scientific fact, but that God had a hand in it.
     
  22. Sachin

    Sachin New Member

    Jan 14, 2000
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United

    Glad you like Snow Crash. When I was in tech journalism and PR, virtually every industry luminary had a dog-eared copy on their shelf. Interestingly, virtually ever cultural critic I ever talked to had a copy of Neuromancer. Wait until you read the Diamond Age. That will get your head spinning. I'm a huge Stepheson fan and am working my way through his latest trilogy. If you want to discuss Snow Crash or Diamond Age, PM me.

    That said, NS's point about religion is that it is viral. It requires a host and a means of propogration. What this has to do with ID, I don't know.

    Personally, I don't buy ID. I relies too much on St. Ansalem's (I thinik) ontological proof of God. "Things are in motion, hence there was a first mover", etc.

    There are significant gaps in evolutionary theory however, especially if one asks my only simians evolved what we think of as intelligence. Why didn't canine or ursine creatures?

    Sachin
     
  23. CrewSchmack

    CrewSchmack Member

    Columbus Crew SC
    United States
    Mar 3, 1999
    Delaware, OH
    When did we change that? I guess over the past dozen or so years that I have not gone to church every week.
     
  24. CrewSchmack

    CrewSchmack Member

    Columbus Crew SC
    United States
    Mar 3, 1999
    Delaware, OH
    Opposable thumbs :)
     
  25. Mr Hanki's Throne

    Mr Hanki's Throne New Member

    Mar 13, 2001
    Wellington, Colo

    I think official Catholic thought is that evolution is not inconsistent with church teaching, but that church teaching does not neccessarily endorse evolution. I think the Church is out of the science game after that whole Galelio dust-up.
     

Share This Page