Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 6th, 2010, 10:42 PM   #11

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,750
Blog Entries: 5
Re: Intellegent Design


In the simplest of terms,
Evolution is a "scientific" theory that has and must survive the scrutiny and challenges of competing theories.
Intelligent design is an idea that has no basis in fact.
larkin is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 7th, 2010, 12:33 AM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934
Re: Intellegent Design


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
Well, the scientific study of how life might have arisen on Earth "all by itself" has come a long way since the Miller–Urey experiment of 1953. There are many competing theories, each supported by controlled experiments. So many in fact, that one might be tempted to conclude that one of them just HAS to be right.

(Is that how that works? 100 possibilities = 10 probabilities = 1 sure thing?)
The great number of failed experiments is an evidence on how extremely difficult still is the re-creation of the early Earth's conditions, not against the obvious (actually tautological) fact of the appearance of life on Earth.
sylla1 is offline  
Old April 7th, 2010, 12:52 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934
Re: Intellegent Design


Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilio Primo View Post
Some scientist have come to the conclusion that some things in nature can ONLY be explained by an intelligent agent or intelligent cause, and thus the theory of Intelligent Design was born...
Your thoughts?
Intelligent design is not a theory, not even an hypothesis; it is an argument for the existence of any omnipotent God; there have been an immense number of variants, but probably the best known nowadays is Michael Behe's irreducible complexity: i.e. the Universe (especially Life) would be so complex that an "intelligence" must be required for its "design".
Ergo, it is not a "theory" waiting for evidence supporting it; both ID and the so-called "creationism" are direct derivations of some fundamental dogmas from Christianity (and from some other religions too, BTW); exactly the inverse of scientific research.

This kind of pseudo-debate ("pseudo" because the conclusion is known in advance) will always get us to the same point; religious dogma is still dogma.
The choice of any particular religious dogma that does not affect third parties is an entirely personal and private issue under the ongoing freedom of religion in most countries.
At the risk of overstating the obvious again, Science has no dogmas by definition; dogmas inevitably ultimately hinder scientific research, irrespectively of the personal beliefs of any researcher.
sylla1 is offline  
Old April 7th, 2010, 02:33 AM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,085
Re: Intellegent Design


Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Intelligent design is not a theory, not even an hypothesis; it is an argument for the existence of any omnipotent God; there have been an immense number of variants, but probably the best known nowadays is Michael Behe's irreducible complexity: i.e. the Universe (especially Life) would be so complex that an "intelligence" must be required for its "design".
Ergo, it is not a "theory" waiting for evidence supporting it; both ID and the so-called "creationism" are direct derivations of some fundamental dogmas from Christianity (and from some other religions too, BTW); exactly the inverse of scientific research.

This kind of pseudo-debate ("pseudo" because the conclusion is known in advance) will always get us to the same point; religious dogma is still dogma.
The choice of any particular religious dogma that does not affect third parties is an entirely personal and private issue under the ongoing freedom of religion in most countries.
At the risk of overstating the obvious again, Science has no dogmas by definition; dogmas inevitably ultimately hinder scientific research, irrespectively of the personal beliefs of any researcher.

You're wrong, it is a theory, just because you happen to not agree with it does not make it not, see for yourself:

Quote:
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Quote:

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.



http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Emilio Primo is online now  
Old April 7th, 2010, 03:07 AM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934
Re: Intellegent Design


Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilio Primo View Post
You're wrong, it is a theory, just because you happen to not agree with it does not make it not, see for yourself:
What do you want me to see? That some true believers present ID as a valid alternative to scientific research just because their own faith is not strong enough?

If any people have any problem believing in the dogmas of their own chosen faiths for overtly contradicting indisputable objective evidence, that's their own private problem.
The solution may be within their religion, but definitively not in pretending to distort science and the universe studied by the latter.

I don't have to "agree" or not with ID, creationism or any related idea; your faith is your business, not mine.
If ID is definitively not any "theory", that's because the obvious reasons explained above.
Please don't expect me to distort the English language too.
sylla1 is offline  
Old April 7th, 2010, 03:41 AM   #16
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,085
Re: Intellegent Design


Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
What do you want me to see? That some true believers present ID as a valid alternative to scientific research just because their own faith is not strong enough?

NO, I wanted you to see that ID is indeed a theory.

Quote:
If any people have any problem believing in the dogmas of their own chosen faiths for overtly contradicting indisputable objective evidence, that's their own private problem.
It truly is, but could you please explain what is this overtly contradicting indisputable objective evidence is?


Quote:
The solution may be within their religion, but definitively not in pretending to distort science and the universe studied by the latter.
Who said they were religious, surely they are not all. This is nothing more than logical thinking through research, this research is what lead Michael Behe, who was once an atheist to change his thinking, based on observation and the study of nature.


Quote:
I don't have to "agree" or not with ID, creationism or any related idea; your faith is your business, not mine.
If ID is definitively not any "theory", that's because the obvious reasons explained above.
Please don't expect me to distort the English language too.
Whatever, you say it's not a theory but science says otherwise. I'll leave it at that.
Emilio Primo is online now  
Old April 7th, 2010, 04:02 AM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934
Re: Intellegent Design


Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilio Primo View Post
NO, I wanted you to see that ID is indeed a theory.

It truly is, but could you please explain what is this overtly contradicting indisputable objective evidence is?


Who said they were religious, surely they are not all. This is nothing more than logical thinking through research, this research is what lead Michael Behe, who was once an atheist to change his thinking, based on observation and the study of nature.


Whatever, you say it's not a theory but science says otherwise. I'll leave it at that.
Sorry, but you are not asking me anything that I have not already answered in this same thread; please read my posts to avoid unnecessary repetitions.
sylla1 is offline  
Old April 7th, 2010, 04:06 AM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,085
Re: Intellegent Design


Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Sorry, but you are not asking me anything that I have not already answered in this same thread; please read my posts to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

You are assuming these scientist are religious, or religious from the start at least. So your answer to the question was incorrect or it is too broad sweeping and does not apply as a whole.

Last edited by Emilio Primo; April 7th, 2010 at 04:23 AM.
Emilio Primo is online now  
Old April 7th, 2010, 05:40 AM   #19

Recusant's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
From: Sector N
Posts: 1,882
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Intellegent Design


Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilio Primo View Post
...Michael Behe, who was once an atheist...
I'll admit, I'm not interested in participating in this debate, mainly because I decided several months ago that there's no point in trying to engage in dialog with the OP on subjects such as this. However, I am always interested in accuracy, which leads me to question the validity of the above quote. I would like to see the source for this information. As far as I know, Behe is now and has always been a Roman Catholic, as he says himself:

Quote:
I am a lifelong Roman Catholic who was taught Darwinian evolution in parochial school and believed it until, as a professor of biochemistry, I started noticing some biochemical difficulties for natural selection.*
*The God of Science: The Case for Intelligent Design by Michael J. Behe
Recusant is offline  
Old April 7th, 2010, 05:42 AM   #20

Edratman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2009
From: Eastern PA
Posts: 4,768
Re: Intellegent Design


Recusant, don't go and confuse this thread with facts.
Edratman is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
design, intelligent


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evolution vs Intelligent Design tedkaw Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 167 May 15th, 2008 10:59 PM
EVOLUTION IS INTELLIGENT CREATION janus20 New Users 1 February 21st, 2007 05:08 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.