Who designed the ID?

[Dinosaur]

None of the believers in ID have addressed the problem of who designed the Intelligent Designer.

Is your argument for the existence of the ID not applicable to the ID? If not, why not?

 

[Dark520]

Mock science class teaching different methods of life coming to be.

Teacher: One possible explanation is creation. If you'll open up your bibles and turn to page (whatever the hell page this is on), you'll see that right here it says 'and God made the universe' and voila, life!

Now, close your bibles, another explanation is ID. This theory states that something made us that is better than us.

The third explanation is evolution, take out your 1000 page biology books and flip to the 3 chapters describing evolution. Your homework tonight will be to read and understand all three chapters, we will discuss this tomorrow.



That^ is why they shouldn't teach anything other than evolution in school. To teach creation or ID, you say one sentence. That's it, that's how you were made, there's nothing else. [Something else stirkes me as being odd, for those who don't like evolution because they don't like the fact that we came from those vile, dumb, utterly simple monkeys, it seems like this is a pretty simple concept that describes how we came here.]

Also, would someone like to explain to me how you would get out of the ID paradox of every creator being created by another creator and so on, without eventually ending up at, 'And then it just kinda happened, everything came together in just the right conditions to make the first creator.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

In truth, Science cannot explain either the existence of the universe or the existence of life. And not a single Faith on this earth can prove what it teaches by faith about these two subjects either.

This should mean, to a truly open minded person, to a person who is seeking truth, that all ideas regarding these subjects should still be, at least, considered and discussed with respect.

Why is it not appropriate to teach our children this simple point of view?

 

[Dark520]

It's fine to teach to children, just keep it in Sunday school. Science class is science class, and within science class we teach, guess what? science! That's why only evolution should be taught, because it at least has proof behind it, even if it's not pertaining to the origins of life. We all know why every time the cold comes around, we always get it; because it changes and evolves in the time that we don't have it.

 

[Provita]

Leopold, you said this:

who's they?

my point is that it would take the supernatural, something outside of nature, to get life to form on this planet. the evidence i have seen would seem to suggest that.

The way I read this, maybe I am wrong with interpretation, is that you said it would take something supernatural to explain ID.

If you are saying that, then, as I've previously stated, it has nothing to do with Science and should not be taught in Science classes.

i believe the truth should be taught in our high schools.
and before you ask "what truth should that be?" let me ask "how is this process of evolution and the origins of life dealt with in our schools?

I don't really understand the question to be honest... could you rephrase it? Sorry, sometimes I don't understand wording

I'll answer the question, if I can, but I will also address that you want the truth to be taught in high schools. Well, I agree, but,and this has been stated and restated, by me and others, since ID "Theory" is not scientific in nature, it should not be taught in Science Class. ID can be taught in any Theology class everywhere for all I care, but it is not scientific in any way.

SetiAlpha6 said this:

In truth, Science cannot explain either the existence of the universe or the existence of life. And not a single Faith on this earth can prove what it teaches by faith about these two subjects either.

This should mean, to a truly open minded person, to a person who is seeking truth, that all ideas regarding these subjects should still be, at least, considered and discussed with respect.

Why is it not appropriate to teach our children this simple point of view?

This is true. Science does not explain the existence of the universe, and is not designed to. This isn't in the debate at all. What the Id vs Evolution debate is all about is whether ID should be taught in Science class. By your own wording, since ID tries to explain the origin of life, something science cannot explain, then ID is not a part of science.

Now, what exactly is there to explain about the existence of the Universe? Why is it here? That's not provable at all by anyone and frankly, its unimportant. If it can never be proven and there can never be a shred of evidence explaining the reason of Big Bang, people should take the agnostic view on it and see that there are an infinite amount of ideas that could explain it, and thus, since all have the same amount of merit behind them and since an infinite amount of ideas is impossible to teach, we should just trash the idea of teaching it altogether. Schools want to teach facts, not ideas, with the exception of Theology, Philosophy, and of course, Theories. Scientific Theories, mind you, which are as close to a fact as we can get.

Faiths try to explain the questions, yes, and they are allowed to. But not in Science classes. Churches, Mosques, Sunday School, Theology Class, yes. Science class? No.

Now to anyone who supports ID, since the question I have asked 4 times STILL hasn't been answered, I'll ask again: Does ID take a supernatural creator or not? If so, it is automatically outside the realm of science and thus the argument does not go any further--it should not be taught in science classes. If not, then it is within the realm of science and to be taught in science classes it must have supporting, scientific evidence. Show me the scientific evidence. If you cannot answer that, then ID is baseless and should not be taught in science classes.

Any takers?

 

[Provita]

how was you taught evolution and the origins of life in high school?

... It was an extremely brief course which explained absolutely nothing whatsoever.

I learned most of my stuff through the series of tubes.

 

[lightgigantic]

I do not understand why those who advocate ID do not carry their logic further.

There argument is very simple: A complex creature like a human being cannot just happen. Such a creature must have been designed by an iintelligent entity.

Assuming their argument has some merit, who designed the ID? Surely a designer is more complex than the object/entity he/she designed. Hence there must be a meta ID who designed the ID. If so, then who designed the Meta ID?

The argument for the existence of an ID leads to an infinite series of Intelligent Designers. Is this what advocates of the ID believe? If not, why not?

the main reason that ID ends with god is that we (or any other subsequent created intelligence) cannot claim to be fully independent - when you start talking about a personality that is eternal on whom all other energies and forces are contingent, then you have reached the end of the trail of ID'ers

 

[Balerion]

That^ is why they shouldn't teach anything other than evolution in school. To teach creation or ID, you say one sentence. That's it, that's how you were made, there's nothing else. [Something else stirkes me as being odd, for those who don't like evolution because they don't like the fact that we came from those vile, dumb, utterly simple monkeys, it seems like this is a pretty simple concept that describes how we came here.]

If you're talking grade school (young kids) and up through high school, then yes, only the theories that have solid supporting evidence, the ones that can be discussed at length and debated about and studied further, are the ones that should be taught. I'm starting to believe that because our brains are capable of so much (abstract thought is such an amazing concept, for example) that learning is going to be what makes our species evolve further.

The idea of creation (Intelligent Design is just a pretty way of dressing up the notion that "God Did It") curbs that learning process. Instead of searching, and trying to learn things about our universe, people who promote Creationism and ID (if there's a difference) are shutting the whole process down. Dumbing-down our nation, and discouraging learning.

You can't ask questions in religion. Yes, obviously, you can ask about Jesus and God and things of that nature, but there is no learning involved. Instead, those people take this word as Gospel (pun totally intended), and don't seek alternatives. They are closed in to this belief system, and there are no other answers.

And let's be fair here...if there really is a God, and we already have all the answers in this book...what's the point of living? What is the point of trying to continue the species? If all that were true, then we'd already know everything we need to know! What...is...the...point? To serve that god? To live for him? Are you kidding me? That is a slap in the face of life itself.

If we just accept that God made everything, there would be no reason to search out more answers, to look up and try to figure out how everything works.

So no, we shouldn't teach ID in schools. There is no benefit to teaching it, even if it were the truth.

 

[Balerion]

the main reason that ID ends with god is that we (or any other subsequent created intelligence) cannot claim to be fully independent - when you start talking about a personality that is eternal on whom all other energies and forces are contingent, then you have reached the end of the trail of ID'ers

Right, but IDers would have no reason to think that there was an intelligent designer had their vision been clouded by their religious text of choice. If there had been one bit of scientific evidence that support the idea of Intelligent Design, then everyone would listen. But there isn't, and the agendas of those who push this idea are clear.

I think it's laughable that people who push Intelligent Design are accusing people who don't support it of having a "belief system" when it comes to their scientific approach, as if the practice of scientific research was done with one eye closed to every possibility than the ones they already believe...it's laughable because the people who support ID are the one's who aren't open to anything other than what they claim to be true. If you were to show a scientist legitimate proof (show a legitimate scientist, I should should say) of Intelligent Design, then that scientist will listen. But show a supporter of ID the evidence against ID, and they balk.

 

[lightgigantic]

The idea of creation (Intelligent Design is just a pretty way of dressing up the notion that "God Did It") curbs that learning process. Instead of searching, and trying to learn things about our universe, people who promote Creationism and ID (if there's a difference) are shutting the whole process down. Dumbing-down our nation, and discouraging learning.

its not clear how working with the notion that god created the world curbs curiosity since you have hundreds of years of scientific history that worked out of such a paradigm

You can't ask questions in religion.

why not?

Yes, obviously, you can ask about Jesus and God and things of that nature, but there is no learning involved.

no learning?
why?

Instead, those people take this word as Gospel (pun totally intended), and don't seek alternatives. They are closed in to this belief system, and there are no other answers.

at the very least, if there is no body of evidence to suggest that the answer is wrong, why is the position of your argument more valid?

And let's be fair here...if there really is a God, and we already have all the answers in this book...what's the point of living?

perhaps you need to learn a bit more about the nature of spirituality to find the answer to this pertinent question of yours

What is the point of trying to continue the species?

I am not sure how many people why are about to engage in sexual acts fix their resolve at continuing the species

If all that were true, then we'd already know everything we need to know! What...is...the...point? To serve that god?

certainly

To live for him?

why not?

Are you kidding me?

no

That is a slap in the face of life itself.

living a life separate from god is one series of slaps in the face followed by another series of slaps in the face

If we just accept that God made everything, there would be no reason to search out more answers, to look up and try to figure out how everything works.

at the very least, as previously indicated, scientific history disagrees with you - interestingly enough, the field of science that deals with reason is philosophy, and well over 50% of all philosophers can be determined to possess some theistic inclination

So no, we shouldn't teach ID in schools. There is no benefit to teaching it, even if it were the truth.

only if you take chemical evolution as gospel

Right, but IDers would have no reason to think that there was an intelligent designer had their vision been clouded by their religious text of choice. If there had been one bit of scientific evidence that support the idea of Intelligent Design, then everyone would listen. But there isn't, and the agendas of those who push this idea are clear.

there are no historic lineages of personalities and disciplines that claim direct perception of god's nature?

I think it's laughable that people who push Intelligent Design are accusing people who don't support it of having a "belief system" when it comes to their scientific approach, as if the practice of scientific research was done with one eye closed to every possibility than the ones they already believe...

experts (even in the field of science by persons not directly affiliated with religion)disagree

"Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects."
Albert einstein ("Out of My Late Years" 1936)


"Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything."
Benjamin Wooley ( "Virtual Worlds" 1992)

etc etc

it's laughable because the people who support ID are the one's who aren't open to anything other than what they claim to be true. If you were to show a scientist legitimate proof (show a legitimate scientist, I should should say) of Intelligent Design, then that scientist will listen. But show a supporter of ID the evidence against ID, and they balk.

I think you are erroneous as indicated by Wooley.
Perhaps not you personally, since the lack of philosophical foundations in contemporary science is quite established

"This leads us to the second point: today's scientists are not shy about tackling philosophical questions yet they are not trained in philosophy and, as Wolpert admits, they follow a rule that all scientific ideas are contrary to common sense.* Here's an example. Wolpert puts forward the oft-heard argument that a scientific theory ultimately counts for nothing if it does not measure up to what can be observed in nature.* Yet he approvingly quotes Albert Einstein as saying that a theory is significant not to the degree it is confirmed by facts observed in nature, but to the degree it is simple and logical; and he quotes Arthur Eddington as saying that observations are not to be given much confidence unless they are confirmed by theory.* Common sense tells us there's a contradiction here. Wolpert admits it: Scientists have to face at least two problems that drive them in opposite directions.* The first problem is that science postulates causal mechanisms to explain why the world appears as it does to us. The second is that since a fundamental cause is always before its visible effect in the form of the bodily objects of this world, the cause cannot be perceived as a bodily object can be. In other words, the objectivity of a scientist is restricted by his material body. Thus from his embodied standpoint, he has a difficult task proving that his postulated fundamental cause is real. But prove it he will try, starting with what Einstein termed free fantasy."

in otherwords your very demand to materially verify something beyond your current scope for material verification is completely absurd

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Oli hit the nail on the head, As did the other users. I don't believe I have to waste my typing rebuking your madness.
If you'll excuse my acerbic attitude towards you, but you deserve no less for your refusal to accept how things are with Atheists such as myself.

 

[Provita]

and you don't find that dishonest of science?

I really don't see how it is dishonest of "science". It was my class, and my class was a very rushed one after Katrina because we had to condense a year's worth of biology into a semester, so every course was extremely brief, except for when we did lab experiments.

Also, not a single one of you has answered my question yet, and I've asked it five times already:
Now to anyone who supports ID: Does ID take a supernatural creator or not? If so, it is automatically outside the realm of science and thus the argument does not go any further--it should not be taught in science classes. If not, then it is within the realm of science and to be taught in science classes it must have supporting, scientific evidence. Show me the scientific evidence. If you cannot answer that, then ID is baseless and should not be taught in science classes.

 

[SnakeLord]

ruling out a possibility because you don't want to deal with it is the height of unscientific ethics

What needs to be said has been said: ID is not science - just like how to treat irritable bowel syndrome is not religion and thus tends not to be discussed in church.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "not wanting to deal with it", it just simply is not science. That's why ID, the fsm and his noodly appendage and santa claus do not find their way into science class or textbooks, (or at least have no actual right to).

 

[Provita]

Leopold, are you just ignoring my question? And I have only been in one high school, I don't know about the rest, and American schools in general suck extremely, I cannot comment on them for I don't know anything about them.

Now PLEASE answer the god damned question already.

And there are differences between scientists and science teachers. Major differences. One is a scientist, one is a teacher who cant teach worth a crap. Or at least here, but in New Orleans the public school system is, for what I understand, the worst in the nation.

Again, since you will probably quote a small section of this... ANSWER THE QUESTION. Its not like its really complicated either.

 

[Dark520]

they didn't even have the time to make known a few simple statements?
it isn't just your high school class, i am talking about high schools all across america.

sounds to me like you are making excuses.

when it comes to the "unexplainable" science is hard pressed to explain common notions about science.
i am not about to bash science but i do believe the people that are responsible for high school biology classes should be objective about the matter.

ruling out a possibility because you don't want to deal with it is the height of unscientific ethics

No one is ruling out any options, they're just not saying them. Biology doesn't try to explain how life first came about, it discusses what life is like now and how it functions, hence ID not being taught in biology class. Evolution on the other hand, even if it wasn't how life originally came about, we can prove beyond a doubt that evolution is happening right here, right now. We've done it to viruses, we've done it to bacteria, we've observed it in larger species; we KNOW that evolution happens and that it is absolutely irrefutable.

That is why it is being taught in Bio class and not ID. I had Bio last semester, I know what they teach and why they teach it.

 

[Dark520]

Does ID take a supernatural creator or not?

That's the question he wants answered. So far you haven't answered it. I don't think it's that hard to type 'Yes' or 'No'.

Not in Bio class, no. Bio class is about what people know happens; they know that evolution happens, they don't know that ID ever happened. If I wanted to learn about something that no one has any idea whether it happened or not, then I'd go to church.

 

[SkinWalker]

the dishonesty by scientists in our high schools is more that enough reason to consider alternatives, regardless of what you think.

I don't know of any scientists working in high schools. Could you name a few and what their specific "dishonesty" is?

The problem with ID and the undereducated masses that accept it as a genuine "alternative" is that it isn't. It doesn't provide a single, viable line of discovery nor any explanation that has any testable veracity. Evolution, however, has an abundance of evidence, is testable and repeatable, and provides an explanation that offers lines of discovery that predict results.

ID has been shown time and again to be a dishonest and cowardly attempt to interject the religious superstitions of the deluded into public school. If there's "dishonesty" at work in our public schools, it has to do with the nutbars that hold creationism to be a valid explanation for life on this planet.

Invariably, these nutbars start whining about "life from non-life" BS -that same old argument from ignorance that demonstrates their under-education and willingness to completely make up an explanation from thin air rather than accept those explanations that refuse to rely on supernatural BS. This is intellectual cowardice and complete dishonesty in and of itself, since said creationist nutbars don't pay any attention at all to the mountain of evidence that suggests the universe exists precisely as one might expect if it were caused by a series of gradual changes over billions of years. Rather than obtain educations on this (freely available in public libraries), they stick to their argument from ignorance: "science can't prove it, therefore magic is the answer." What utter and complete BS.

But the issue at hand isn't abiogenesis, which is a favorite straw man argument (logical fallacy after logical fallacy among the IDiots) but so-called "intelligent" design. Proponents of this pseudoscience claim that it is an answer to the explanation of evolution, in spite of the fact that not a single shred of evidence has ever been provided by creationists that propose this pseudoscientific "alternative." And not a single line of discovery has been established because of it.

Intelligent design is pseudoscience. The favored "alternative" of creationist nutbars that can't stand the fact that science doesn't support their wacky, ridiculous, and BS superstitious beliefs.

Does ID take a supernatural creator or not?

That's the question he wants answered. So far you haven't answered it. I don't think it's that hard to type 'Yes' or 'No'.

I'll answer for him: Yes. "Intelligent" design proponents believe the universe was designed by their god. Not anyone else's god. Their god. Period. They like to pretend they are open to whom this 'designer' is, but in the end it's about codifying their religious superstitions on the rest of the world in the form of Christianity: a superstition that originated in Bronze and Iron Age mythologies and should be tossed in the rubbish heap for its failure to adapt appropriately to scientific discovery.

 

[SkinWalker]

In the interest of keeping the thread on-topic, I've deleted repeated requests by Dark520 which ask, "Does ID take a supernatural creator or not?" to leopold99. The answer should be a simple "yes" or "no." Discussion could, of course follow from there. I've actually answered the question. Since I'm not an ID proponent, however, it's fair for Dark520 to insist the question be answered by one.

No further requests for the question to be answered are necessary. No further questions as to "what was the question" are necessary. They will be deleted. Should no answer be forthcoming, mine should stand for the ID proponents.

science doesn't support a natural explanation for life on this planet either but guess what . . .

Please cite an example in the peer-reviewed literature of intelligent design that demonstrates this. If you like, I can provide several hundred citations to the contrary in the peer-reviewed literature of real science.

 

[Dark520]

Yes No, altogether took me less than 5 seconds to type that.

Well, at least I finally got a direct answer to the question, but not a definitive one. Oh well, I should just be happy with that for today.

 

[SnakeLord]

the dishonesty by scientists in our high schools is more that enough reason to consider alternatives, regardless of what you think

A) As stated by Skinwalker, you wont generally find scientists in high schools.

B) You seem to have an issue with dishonest scientists but then don't seemingly realise that if they were to teach ID in a science class that would be dishonest, (because it's not science).

C) The alternatives can be considered... in the appropriate place. One does not ponder on whether football is a better alternative to rugby in English class, nor does one ponder on whether ice creams taste better than doughnuts in maths class. There is a specific reason for that, and before arguing further you need to figure out why...

Regardless to what you think.