Intelligent design
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#1 Aug 12, 2008
"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_desi...

Do you believe in intelligent design?

If yes, do you believe by faith or reason?

Can intelligent design be considered scientific?

Should it be taught is schools?
Pauls Mom

San Jose, CA

#2 Aug 12, 2008
I don't personally believe in intelligent design. I don't thinkg ID is scientific, it's got to be testable, repeatable, with the same results every time the test is done.

I think it's ok to teach in schools, as long as ALL view points on the subject are taught. If you are going to teach something that's outlandish, like ID or creationism, then you should also include all other ideas/religous/faith driven views and beliefs. Lets truely let the kids study the realities and then form their own opinions, how about that?

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#3 Aug 12, 2008
Pauls Mom wrote:
I don't personally believe in intelligent design. I don't thinkg ID is scientific, it's got to be testable, repeatable, with the same results every time the test is done.
I think it's ok to teach in schools, as long as ALL view points on the subject are taught. If you are going to teach something that's outlandish, like ID or creationism, then you should also include all other ideas/religous/faith driven views and beliefs. Lets truely let the kids study the realities and then form their own opinions, how about that?
Do you mean teach ID in science class for kids to make up their own minds? In that case I disagree.

I agree with you that ID unscientific, so the only place it should be taught (if at all) is alongside other religious ideas. It should also be contextualized and its scientific shortcomings explained.
Pauls Mom

San Jose, CA

#4 Aug 12, 2008
I don't know exactly where or in what class they teach these things. When I went to SDA school, I only learned creationism, so nothing else was even brought up. As far as public schools are concerned, I agree it shouldn't be in science class, since it's not science.

Maybe social studies would be more appropiate?

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#5 Aug 12, 2008
I agree. In Sweden religion in the same class as geography, history and social studies until high school where is taught separately. I think ID is best taught in high school. We can't expect younger kids to understand why the idea isn't scientifically feasible.
Pauls Mom

San Jose, CA

#6 Aug 12, 2008
I agree. Kids need to be able to grasp complex idea's and moral/value systems different than those of their own household.

It might not be a bad idea for adults to review all the different idea's of what's possible vs plausible. It might help with people being more tolerant of others, just a thought.

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#7 Aug 12, 2008
Pauls Mom wrote:
I agree. Kids need to be able to grasp complex idea's and moral/value systems different than those of their own household.
It might not be a bad idea for adults to review all the different idea's of what's possible vs plausible. It might help with people being more tolerant of others, just a thought.
I think one of the keys to tolerance is to make children aware that beliefs such as ID is not altogether rational. This can make them more tolerant toward children with other religious ideas since they'll realize that neither of can stand the test of critical reasoning.
Pauls Mom

San Jose, CA

#8 Aug 12, 2008
Good point. So then do you see christianity, or any other religion, as having a positive impact on society as a whole? Or do you feel that harm is done to people when they use a faith based belief system?

And how as a society should we tolerate those with drastically different morals than the majority of people?

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#9 Aug 12, 2008
Pauls Mom wrote:
Good point. So then do you see christianity, or any other religion, as having a positive impact on society as a whole? Or do you feel that harm is done to people when they use a faith based belief system?
There are some very positive things about Christianity. There is an undisputed power in having faith in something supreme. People can do the most fantastic things driven by faith. Lots of community and aid work is faith driven. The majority of Christian values are also quite sensible.

However, Christianity has proven again and again to be very dangerous. It's an incredible tool of power for the elite. The crusades is an old example, manifest destiny another, but religion is still used today alongside nationalism to make soldiers fight and die in unjust wars.

Check out this site about why atheists are angry at what Christianity caused: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_chris...

Christianity is also inherently irrational and hence discourages critical thinking. Critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of democracy. In the western world the US is one of the most Christian countries, but it is also the one where the population gets deceived by the political elite the most. I suspect that correlation is not a coincidence.

There are reasons to believe that atheist societies would do better. In America atheists have lower divorce rates and are under-represented in jails. Countries with a larger percentage of atheists (such as Sweden or Norway) have less crime and social problems.
Pauls Mom wrote:
And how as a society should we tolerate those with drastically different morals than the majority of people?
Generally I don't think atheists and theists have drastically different morals. Most atheists I know believe in peace, respect, humility, kindness, hospitality and generating happiness for themselves and others. And so do most Christians I know.

I think many Christians feel anger toward atheists because it's hard for them to maintain a faith as it is, without non-believers around. It takes continuous effort to believe in an omnipotent invisible man, that's why they gather together and repeat the same verses over and over, and that's why they have sentimental music.

Many atheists also have anger toward Christians because they feel mistrusted and oppressed and because they get frustrated with ignorance among Christians. These differences are easily overcome by simply being humble, something which most Christians and atheists consider a virtue.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#10 Aug 12, 2008
Debater wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some very positive things about Christianity. There is an undisputed power in having faith in something supreme. People can do the most fantastic things driven by faith. Lots of community and aid work is faith driven. The majority of Christian values are also quite sensible.
However, Christianity has proven again and again to be very dangerous. It's an incredible tool of power for the elite. The crusades is an old example, manifest destiny another, but religion is still used today alongside nationalism to make soldiers fight and die in unjust wars.
Check out this site about why atheists are angry at what Christianity caused: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_chris...
Christianity is also inherently irrational and hence discourages critical thinking. Critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of democracy. In the western world the US is one of the most Christian countries, but it is also the one where the population gets deceived by the political elite the most. I suspect that correlation is not a coincidence.
There are reasons to believe that atheist societies would do better. In America atheists have lower divorce rates and are under-represented in jails. Countries with a larger percentage of atheists (such as Sweden or Norway) have less crime and social problems.
<quoted text>
Generally I don't think atheists and theists have drastically different morals. Most atheists I know believe in peace, respect, humility, kindness, hospitality and generating happiness for themselves and others. And so do most Christians I know.
I think many Christians feel anger toward atheists because it's hard for them to maintain a faith as it is, without non-believers around. It takes continuous effort to believe in an omnipotent invisible man, that's why they gather together and repeat the same verses over and over, and that's why they have sentimental music.
Many atheists also have anger toward Christians because they feel mistrusted and oppressed and because they get frustrated with ignorance among Christians. These differences are easily overcome by simply being humble, something which most Christians and atheists consider a virtue.
There is good and bad in everything, not just religion.

So then what is the solution to the problem?

Maybe there is no solution just this that we all are people and need to learn to be tolerant of one another and our differences and maybe who knows what can happen....but really I cannot see this happening in the near future or ever....so it is an never ending cycle. But one should never give up hope or faith that it is possible....hmmm now I am back to the hope and faith bit...see it does not need to be Bible based.

Keep smiling and turning the wheel of life.

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#11 Aug 12, 2008
Yes, and speak up! I think Bill Mahler's doing a good job, he's a funny too. Don't think he's new movie screens here, but you guys should see it. Here's the trailer. http://www.alltrailers.net/religulous.html
Elizabeth

Seacliff, Australia

#12 Aug 12, 2008
I'm studying evolution methodically for the first time at uni. It's an area that is updated regularily but teachers in school can't keep up with everything.
Two books that might help inform in the area

on intelligent design:
Darwins' Black Box: Irreducible complexity
Michael Behe 2006

on evolution:
An introduction to biological evolution
Kenneth v. Kardong 2008

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#13 Aug 13, 2008
Elizabeth wrote:
I'm studying evolution methodically for the first time at uni. It's an area that is updated regularily but teachers in school can't keep up with everything.
Two books that might help inform in the area
on intelligent design:
Darwins' Black Box: Irreducible complexity
Michael Behe 2006
on evolution:
An introduction to biological evolution
Kenneth v. Kardong 2008
That's absolutely true. It's very hard for any one individual to get insight into all research being made on evolution. Note that we're not really discussing evolution here though. It's not the discovery of evolution that makes ID unscientific.

Regarding Darwin's Black Box (which is older than 2006 by the way, I think it came out in the mid 90's) Behe's findings have been refuted by through peer-review. You can read more about why right here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.h...

The important thing here though is that Darwin's Black Box is not about ID. It's an attempt to argue that evolution doesn't work. So, even if Behe was 100% right, we cannot draw the conclusion that the world is therefore intelligently designed. It's not enough to disprove evolution to prove ID.
Elizabeth

Seacliff, Australia

#14 Aug 13, 2008
Iv'e only also read 1996 ed. 2006 is an undate,
1996 desevered the peer review it got in my humble opinion.
Don't forget all the politics involved in scientific research now though.
Monkeys, meth,E and two American researchers come to mind. My mind isn't made up on the topic though as I am no where near informed on it.
If oone of the points the scientists and the IDers differ on is 'chance' of molecular structure and function all coming together at the same time, why not run some of this data through a supercomputer see what the differences are?
The ID people say the chances are two low how low is to low of something coming together by chance? Need to send all data to the same 'node'of the supercomputer those dam things are so unreliable.
I'm happy if they want to mix faith and science I just want to see the results. Theories are good but they are for testing or observation.

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#15 Aug 13, 2008
Elizabeth wrote:
Iv'e only also read 1996 ed. 2006 is an undate,
1996 desevered the peer review it got in my humble opinion.
Don't forget all the politics involved in scientific research now though.
Monkeys, meth,E and two American researchers come to mind. My mind isn't made up on the topic though as I am no where near informed on it.
If oone of the points the scientists and the IDers differ on is 'chance' of molecular structure and function all coming together at the same time, why not run some of this data through a supercomputer see what the differences are?
The ID people say the chances are two low how low is to low of something coming together by chance? Need to send all data to the same 'node'of the supercomputer those dam things are so unreliable.
I'm happy if they want to mix faith and science I just want to see the results. Theories are good but they are for testing or observation.
There has been many studies where data has been run through 'supercomputers', but it's not an easy thing to do.

Evolution is actually a fact. It has been directly and indirectly observed and the evidence is undisputed in the scientific community. Scientists have theories about the mechanisms of evolution. The most prominent being the theory of natural selection as put forth by Darwin in The Origin of Species. Even if the theory of natural selection should somehow be falsified, the fact of evolution would remain.

Why do you accept mixing faith and science? Faith lacks epistemological validity; it's believing without evidence. How can it be enough to believe in something just because we don't have evidence that it doesn't exist. That's absurd. Then we can believe that people fall in love because invisible fairies blow magical dust on them. I cute thought perhaps, but nothing more.

You can't trust the results from mixing faith and science, because part of it will then be little more than a fantasy. That fantasy can be factual, but you have no way of knowing that.
Anon

Seacliff, Australia

#16 Aug 13, 2008
Debater wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been many studies where data has been run through 'supercomputers', but it's not an easy thing to do.
Evolution is actually a fact. It has been directly and indirectly observed and the evidence is undisputed in the scientific community. Scientists have theories about the mechanisms of evolution. The most prominent being the theory of natural selection as put forth by Darwin in The Origin of Species. Even if the theory of natural selection should somehow be falsified, the fact of evolution would remain.
Why do you accept mixing faith and science? Faith lacks epistemological validity; it's believing without evidence. How can it be enough to believe in something just because we don't have evidence that it doesn't exist. That's absurd. Then we can believe that people fall in love because invisible fairies blow magical dust on them. I cute thought perhaps, but nothing more.
You can't trust the results from mixing faith and science, because part of it will then be little more than a fantasy. That fantasy can be factual, but you have no way of knowing that.
As Cinders was saying people need to be a little more tolerant of each other and as I have only read the weki article, the blackbox and attended 3weeks of lectures I'm not an expert in the area.
:-) But a common starting point the two groups might have is where they both have a common weak point. ID talk of supernatural influences, Evolutionist are awere of the 'Pitfalls of parsimony' with regars to convergent evolution maybe they could get some dialogue going in that area?
Just an idea :-)

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#17 Aug 14, 2008
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
As Cinders was saying people need to be a little more tolerant of each other and as I have only read the weki article, the blackbox and attended 3weeks of lectures I'm not an expert in the area.
:-) But a common starting point the two groups might have is where they both have a common weak point. ID talk of supernatural influences, Evolutionist are awere of the 'Pitfalls of parsimony' with regars to convergent evolution maybe they could get some dialogue going in that area?
Just an idea :-)
There are no supernatural influences in ID. The claim of ID is just that natural entities must be intelligently designed. They stop there. Creationists however go further. ID's weaknesses lie in the false analogy between animate and inanimate objects and in the complete absence of evidence.

Whether theories about the mechanisms of evolution have unsolved riddles or not is not relevant. As I wrote earlier, ID is scientifically flawed regardless of whether evolution is true or not.

In terms of reaching a feasible explanation for how life came to be what it is today, it's fruitless for science to have a dialogue with pseudoscience. ID has nothing to offer. If we allow faith as an epistemological method in science there's nothing stopping scientists from proclaiming the existence of unicorns or leprechauns.
Pauls Mom

San Jose, CA

#18 Aug 14, 2008
Debater wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no supernatural influences in ID. The claim of ID is just that natural entities must be intelligently designed. They stop there. Creationists however go further. ID's weaknesses lie in the false analogy between animate and inanimate objects and in the complete absence of evidence.
Whether theories about the mechanisms of evolution have unsolved riddles or not is not relevant. As I wrote earlier, ID is scientifically flawed regardless of whether evolution is true or not.
In terms of reaching a feasible explanation for how life came to be what it is today, it's fruitless for science to have a dialogue with pseudoscience. ID has nothing to offer. If we allow faith as an epistemological method in science there's nothing stopping scientists from proclaiming the existence of unicorns or leprechauns.
Very, very well put. I've nothing more to add, other than I'm glad there are people on this site that use critical thinking skills and can show they line of reasoning they use in making a point.

Well done indeed!

“Annihilate hypocrisy”

Since: Jul 08

Stockholm

#19 Aug 14, 2008
Pauls Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
Very, very well put. I've nothing more to add, other than I'm glad there are people on this site that use critical thinking skills and can show they line of reasoning they use in making a point.
Well done indeed!
Thanks! I appreciate it.

Since: May 08

Geneve, Switzerland

#20 Aug 16, 2008
Evolution is science, natural selection is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. Light exists as matter and energy. The physical universe is the only universe there is.

Intelligent design was formerly known as "scientific creationism" which was formerly known as "creationism". The name changes were made by its protagonists each time they lost major court cases.

Educational standards and student results in the USA are falling behind the rest of the developed world. The conflict between mythical thinking and scientific thinking in education is a problem in the USA, Afghanistan, Iran, and other places where religious fundamentalism is entrenched.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 7th Day: Fact and Fiction 1 hr ichiwawa 883
The Laughable Impotence of Seventh-day Adventis... 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 5
Jesus stated Ten C's was their JEWISH LAW (Aug '13) 5 hr Billary Killed Se... 914
Who is the Babylon of Revelation? (Oct '08) 6 hr Sambee Read Posts... 17
Planet of the Apes is about the rise of Hebrews... 8 hr Vermont Israelite 3
7th Day Adventist perspective on hermaphrodites 9 hr Cortiz 13
Witnessing to JW's? 18 hr Lay Worker 168
Pull your children out of the Adventist Schools (Jun '09) Jul 20 RazeSDA 460
More from around the web