Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
I'll step forward and claim not to be ZZZZZZZ, and attempt to prove he has at least one supporter besides his other aliases.
ID, to me is an extension of Metaphysics. My interpretation of ID, and there should be limitless interpretations like religion itself, simply leaves open the possibility of a much higher intelligence than our own. Hell, my interpretation leaves open the possibility that our world/universe is an aquarium-like structure of some unfathomable, omniscient beings.
Evolution is fairly self-evident at this point. In 1000 years it will not be surprising if dogs walk on two-feet and speak English, considering women raise them as children now-a-days. This would be a form of evolution, no doubt.
Here's something I ponder: Consider putting all the amino-acid proteins necessary for life in a jar and shaking it up. While waiting for the DNA doube-helix to sudden form out of this solution, try to manually, intelligently if you will, construct it.
Not long ago the leading scientists of the day measured the weight of a person's soul by weighing a man right before death, and then a few days later. How are you "scientific method" only zealots measuring a person's soul nowadays?
This is my final word on this, I've grown to detest the anti-religious bigotry displayed and the people displaying it. If ever someone approached my devout, catholic grandmother and attempted to convince her that she is living in the Dark Ages and her faith was a plague, I'd feed him his own scrotum.
ID, to me is an extension of Metaphysics. My interpretation of ID, and there should be limitless interpretations like religion itself, simply leaves open the possibility of a much higher intelligence than our own. Hell, my interpretation leaves open the possibility that our world/universe is an aquarium-like structure of some unfathomable, omniscient beings.
Evolution is fairly self-evident at this point. In 1000 years it will not be surprising if dogs walk on two-feet and speak English, considering women raise them as children now-a-days. This would be a form of evolution, no doubt.
Here's something I ponder: Consider putting all the amino-acid proteins necessary for life in a jar and shaking it up. While waiting for the DNA doube-helix to sudden form out of this solution, try to manually, intelligently if you will, construct it.
Not long ago the leading scientists of the day measured the weight of a person's soul by weighing a man right before death, and then a few days later. How are you "scientific method" only zealots measuring a person's soul nowadays?
This is my final word on this, I've grown to detest the anti-religious bigotry displayed and the people displaying it. If ever someone approached my devout, catholic grandmother and attempted to convince her that she is living in the Dark Ages and her faith was a plague, I'd feed him his own scrotum.
But again, this itself is an argument of absolutes, non arguments even. Where religious hierarchy remarkably remained unaware of the double helix since time immemorial, your now suggesting its reasonable for joe average to grab a petri dish and reach some amazing conclusion, in no time flat, on pure observation?
It needs to be pointed out, vigorously, that "leading scientists" have always been beholden to follow the religious dogma of the day.
BTW, is it true people lose 21 grams at the moment of death, or is that just another fallacy?
thats rather reasonable, except for the double-helix thing procedure... might take a while if u do it that way...
fwiw, one of my grandmas was a v.gentle catechist and i wld do the same if some idiot punk had been trying to abuse her...
seems there is tons of provocation going on both ways in the US that we just don't have in Europe... not saying Europe's better or what but, fairly different... evolution's not seen as an issue by religious institutions, doesn't conflict with the practice of one's faith, has no other aim but try & understand whats going on... a-theists and theists may sure disagree but nothing devious like this wedge document, cause basically science is and remains open to scientific critic, reevaluation, since thats how science progresses...
see man, there's got to be a reason why so many people find that ID is nothing but a religiously-motivated political movement... i don't think its anti-religious to say that... i don't think ID, aggressive christian reconstructionism a la falwell etc, is serving religion, faith nor science well...
and as regards religious education itself, i don't see on what grounds US religious schools wouldn't give islam, baha'i, buddhism & the other major faiths a fair share of time, with visiting scholars etc... if only in the spirit of mutual understanding and world peace... what do u think?
Typically nearsighted remarks from you, bigot-b. No one is saying anything about your grandmother's beliefs nor her right to hold them. She doesn't necessarily live in the Dark Ages; I'm sure there are plenty of grandmothers who are devoutly religious and pretty good internet poker players as well. Religious faith does not preclude strength of character. Granted, it has been, and still is (and I leave it up to someone like you to contradict this, given the global political situation today) a source of huge amounts of intolerance, suffering and pain (quite arguably more than 'secularism', if we are speaking about epochal time frames). Nevertheless, you are free to believe. I am sure that it has also been a source of comfort to a lot of people too. It is, after all, a panacea for fear of the unknown, and there are huge (and I mean VAST) numbers of people who are petrified at the thought of dying. You seem like one of them to me.
Just don't try to shove your faith-based beliefs down MY throat. You have no mandate to try to remake society in a manner 'more consonant with theistic values'. Don't try to suggest that Creation is somehow a scientific belief system. It is not. Don't try to rebrand it as 'ID' and suggest that it should be taught in school alongside the hard sciences. There is as much proof for Creation as there is for my theory, GC. I find GC self evident and know in my heart of hearts that it is correct. That doesn't mean that it should be taught in our schools, or form the basis of public policy.
Religion is a private matter. Get together with your co-religionists and worship your God. Your right to do so is enshrined in your Constitution, isn't it?
'Soul' is a religious belief. How do we measure 'soul'? We agnostics measure 'strength of character'. We measured you, but we didn't have sufficiently sensitive instruments.
You won't get an answer out of him on this one, 2c. Sorry for my flame in the previous post, I have a history with this guy and he is one of the worst on ET.
Ah yes, self-righteous indignation, how bloody "scientific." How very, very rational...
LMAO...
LMAO...
Yes, you're never been self-righteous or indignant on these threads. Never.
More intellectual dishonesty from the Uber-Troll.
Well, Z, at least you've shown us the courtesy of staying out of this thread under this alias, now that you've had your head handed to you on a silver platter... once again.
PS - You're showing remarkable restraint these days, seeing as you don't have me on ignore!!
By this time you'd usually be threatening anal penetration and posting bizarre images from your personal library of filth (err... I mean Christian filth). _________________________________________
Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade
iustus ignarus troll
no probs nik... thats your story with him
now what i find amusing is that after so much crowing from jampy & zizzz as john didn't have practical examples handy, now that john has been proven right in calling jampy's umpteenth BS, all they're left with to protect their non-existent dignity is the "you can't prove the multiple aliases / handle sharing claim" fig leaf... ie a pretty low form of the "teach the controversy" BS...
and while that is true, not sure we wld want the naked truth anyway here...
now what i find amusing is that after so much crowing from jampy & zizzz as john didn't have practical examples handy, now that john has been proven right in calling jampy's umpteenth BS, all they're left with to protect their non-existent dignity is the "you can't prove the multiple aliases / handle sharing claim" fig leaf... ie a pretty low form of the "teach the controversy" BS...
and while that is true, not sure we wld want the naked truth anyway here...
John Dough wrote:
Right at the beginning of the opening post of this thread I quoted a pominent member of the ID community, William Dembski. Here is the quote:
That a natural alien designer, physically seeded the Earth with life and thereby initiated evolution is clearly a possibility that ID theorists are focused on. I'm not aware of any ID theorist that posits God in their hypotheses.
Right at the beginning of the opening post of this thread I quoted a pominent member of the ID community, William Dembski. Here is the quote:
That a natural alien designer, physically seeded the Earth with life and thereby initiated evolution is clearly a possibility that ID theorists are focused on. I'm not aware of any ID theorist that posits God in their hypotheses.