Intelligent design

[Verthaine]

I guess the first big hole in the theory of evolution is the missing link, it's still missing. I am not trying to prove existence of God here, you guys are acting just like Thom did, trying to make this into a God issue. I am really asking if you think some form of intelligence could have created us and the reality we know. Please try not to be so myopic and reactionary,this isn't believers vs atheism it's merely about if you think it's possible some being we can't fathom created what we all perceive as reality. Not long ago people looked into space and thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth which was carried on a turtles back or something. It is entirely possible that in 200 years people will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so stupid.

Can you please provide a link to the the Hartman episode where this happened so that others may review for themselves ,

 

[W00ster]

So basicly you are saying that to evolve into a living being you could start out as what?
Rocks
You speak of scientist but scientificly you can not have ling beings without starting with living organisms
You as well as I know that even plants are livung and growing organisms. they evolve they change
Rocks do not evolve they eventualy diseolve.eace

*sigh*

Is it really too much to ask that people who engage in these discussion at least have a basic understanding of what it is they are trying to debate?

Nobody, just nobody has ever stated that life can come from rocks. This is absurd on so many levels and reveals a scientific understanding on par with a 10 year old. Have you had no education in any form of science? Are you American? Because that may very well be the answer as evolution is not normally taught in US schools in fear of the fundies but those of us coming from more sane countries do have such a background.

Life most likely was the result of several amino acids and various other organic chemical compounds. But abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Abiogenesis - How life started
Evolution - How life evolved over time once it had started.

And no, there are no holes in evolution that would imply the whole theory is wrong. It is one of the best supported, evidential support that is, scientific theories and remember, a scientific theory is quite different from when you and I sit around a couple of beers and one of us says "I have a theory about this..."

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Can you please provide a link to the the Hartman episode where this happened so that others may review for themselves ,

I guess just go to his website and do a search, it was on yesterdays show. I was hoping I wasn't the only one to listen to this, oh well.

 

[Verthaine]

I guess just go to his website and do a search, it was on yesterdays show. I was hoping I wasn't the only one to listen to this, oh well.

You just very well might be.

I just went on Thom Hartmann's website and I can't find this alleged interview anywhere.
Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show

I guess it wasn't important enough to put it on yesterdays video either.

Kudos and Ramen to Austria for allowing that member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti to list it as his religion and allowing him to be photographed with his religious headgear on his drivers license.

 

[obvious Child]

Thom Hartman interviewed a guy yesterday who blew some big holes in evolution theory.

None of which you can name. How utterly not surprising.

He pointed out the theory has flaws and just because you think it's wrong doesn't necessarily mean you believe in a God. Are you atheist OK with intelligent design theory as long as its a scientist or group of scientist that created us and not a "god"?

That would be a very different form of intelligent design then the mainstream model. Furthermore, there is no evidence at all of such tampering at all by an external alien force.

Intelligent Design of the current mainstream model is nothing more then Aninism.

 

[obvious Child]

I guess the first big hole in the theory of evolution is the missing link, it's still missing.

This is a failure to understand evolution. First, all species are transitional. Second, we don't need to find every missing link to prove species decendend from primitive ancestors. Third, evolution makes predictions as to where species should be based on their time line, geography and features. Missing one link when you can predict where everything else should have been accurately invalidates the creationist argument that missing links disprove evolution. Creationism does not make predictions that the fossil record supports. Evolution does.

Not long ago people looked into space and thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth which was carried on a turtles back or something. It is entirely possible that in 200 years people will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so stupid.

Except that the Geocentric model of the solar system didn't lead to thousands of commerical products.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Main thrust of my query was wondering how wedded atheist are to Darwinism and theory of evolution. Most of the answers so far seem like atheist are not open to intelligent design theory in any way shape or form even if a "God" is not factored in. That's pretty much what I wanted to know, thanks. It does make me wonder though where the line blurs between atheism and religion. When does atheism become a religious dogma in and of itself? Most established religions think they are right and everyone else is wrong, no other theory is worth listening too.If atheist become entrenched in Darwinism and theory of evolution, the tree of life, they may have become a religion without intending too. Just a thought.

 

[digsbe]

Intelligent design and evolution are both speculations as to how life diversified on earth. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (although if you are a secular evolutionist abiogenesis does play a role in evolution). Evolution is not proven, intelligent design is not proven. Both are theories that have come about by interpreting observed data.

 

[ecofarm]

Main thrust of my query was wondering how wedded atheist are to Darwinism and theory of evolution.

We're just Guinea pigs, guys! He got us.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I just had a thought on how to get more info on this "alleged" interview. Go to Thom's forum, I am sure it was discussed in there. I can't check on it though because his wife Louise blocked me from entering. LOL

 

[sawyerloggingon]

OK for anyone who's truly interested I found more info. It's on Thoms message board site under Daily topics July 14 hour one. It's a link to his guest site, Casey Luskin at discovery institute. Now I am off for a kayak camping fishing trip. Ill check back Monday morning to see what you guys think of this Casey guy or if you care. Have a good weekend.

 

[SlackMaster]

Main thrust of my query was wondering how wedded atheist are to Darwinism and theory of evolution. Most of the answers so far seem like atheist are not open to intelligent design theory in any way shape or form even if a "God" is not factored in. That's pretty much what I wanted to know, thanks. It does make me wonder though where the line blurs between atheism and religion. When does atheism become a religious dogma in and of itself? Most established religions think they are right and everyone else is wrong, no other theory is worth listening too.If atheist become entrenched in Darwinism and theory of evolution, the tree of life, they may have become a religion without intending too. Just a thought.

First, one should point out that not all scientists are atheists. Many Christian scientists denounce intelligent design. We're not "closed off" to an alternative theory. That would imply that we haven't considered the arguments put forth by ID theorists... We have, and we've found that they have failed to meet their burden of proof.

ID revolves mostly around Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument which basically says, "I can't think of how this evolved, therefore it must be designed." Even if we didn't know anything else about the theory we could dismiss it just from that alone. That is an argument from incredulity. Arguing from one's own ignorance is not a good start.

Moving on from there he gives examples like the bacterial flagellum. Dr. Ken Miller (who is a Christian by the way) has done a terrific job of showing how the bacterial flagellum came about through evolutionary means.

Taking this information and adding to it what we learned in the Dover case, that "intelligent design" and "creationism" are completely interchangeable in text books (Google a book called "Of Pandas and People") and you have three huge strikes against ID theory.

Scientists aren't closed off to other theories, but evolution is a fact that has been experimentally proven time and time again. From fossil records, to geographical distribution, to DNA. It plays a daily role in our lives with the production of immunization shots and numerous other medical breakthroughs. To uproot that proven reality would take an extraordinary amount of evidence from the ID theorists. They have failed to meet that burden of proof.

Also, to respond to others on this board that are attempting to disprove evolution, if you can... you should not be speaking to us. You should be writing a scientific paper that can be peer reviewed and proven true. After you do that go pick up your Nobel prize and come back here and rub it in our face.

Until then....

 

[Ikari]

Main thrust of my query was wondering how wedded atheist are to Darwinism and theory of evolution. Most of the answers so far seem like atheist are not open to intelligent design theory in any way shape or form even if a "God" is not factored in. That's pretty much what I wanted to know, thanks. It does make me wonder though where the line blurs between atheism and religion. When does atheism become a religious dogma in and of itself? Most established religions think they are right and everyone else is wrong, no other theory is worth listening too.If atheist become entrenched in Darwinism and theory of evolution, the tree of life, they may have become a religion without intending too. Just a thought.

The difference is that there is observational evidence for evolution. It's not that "atheists are not open to intelligent design theory in any way shape or form", in fact we all said that if there were measurable evidence for the "scientist" it could be accepted as an actual scientific theory.

 

[W00ster]

Main thrust of my query was wondering how wedded atheist are to Darwinism and theory of evolution.

Not at all but it is currently the only scientific theory which explains the evidence.

Most of the answers so far seem like atheist are not open to intelligent design theory in any way shape or form even if a "God" is not factored in.

This is so incorrect I can not even begin to tell you how much.

As anyone within the scientific world, I am more then open to intelligent design if and only if, the evidence point to this being the case. Alas, the evidence do not.

 

[marduc]

Main thrust of my query was wondering how wedded atheist are to Darwinism and theory of evolution. Most of the answers so far seem like atheist are not open to intelligent design theory in any way shape or form even if a "God" is not factored in. That's pretty much what I wanted to know, thanks.

Yeah never mind what everyone really said. Conclusions first and then find the evidence, and when the evidence does not support the conclusions, just plow on through anyhow, ignore the inconvenient evidence, and make up the rest to muddy the waters up a tad (or just feed your confirmation bias, whichever it may be, if not both).

No one will notice how amazingly ironic this behavior is in an intelligent design thread at all :roll:

 

[Verthaine]

OK for anyone who's truly interested I found more info. It's on Thoms message board site under Daily topics July 14 hour one. It's a link to his guest site, Casey Luskin at discovery institute. Now I am off for a kayak camping fishing trip. Ill check back Monday morning to see what you guys think of this Casey guy or if you care. Have a good weekend.

I'd say "you gotta be kidding"?
But I don't think you are.

You must think everyone on this forum but you are absolute idiots.

The Discovery Institute is a Conservative Christian think tank.
Not a credible scientific institute.
It is a creationist propaganda mill,pure and simple
Discovery Institute

Casey Luskin is an attorney by trade,not an actual scientist.
And yes he does hold an MS in Earth Sciences
Big freakin whoop.
That's a catch all degree for people who couldn't cut it specializing in any particular scientific field.
That means he knows a little about a number of scientific fields,but not a hell of a lot in any particular one.

Google Casey Lushkin's name and you will discover that quite a lot of people think he's a crackpot.

I hold Master's degrees in both Culinary Arts and Culinary Management (Le Cordon Blue College of Culinary Arts in Miami),and while I can cook up a mean Kung Po chicken,that doesn't make me qualified to discuss the intricacies of Szechuan Cuisine on the radio either.

I can see why you didn't provide any links.
Sawyerloggingon,do you do any research before you post something?

Casey Lushkin is only one step up from Jenny Kolber,(the Woman in the Vulcan outfit) who wrote the article that PTIF 219 used to start his thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...es-descended-humans-not-other-way-around.html .

 

[Deuce]

Intelligent design and evolution are both speculations as to how life diversified on earth. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (although if you are a secular evolutionist abiogenesis does play a role in evolution). Evolution is not proven, intelligent design is not proven. Both are theories that have come about by interpreting observed data.

To put both on the same scientific footing is insane. Intelligent Design didn't come from interpreting observed data, it came from trying to prove a pre-existing point of view that God created us. ID is, by its own definition, not scientific theory. It is not falsifiable, there is no test you can run to gather evidence in its favor. Intelligent Design is literally Creationism repackaged. It's a religious belief, not a scientific one.

I'd also point out to our OP:
You are, at this very moment, made entirely of material that is Not Living. You are made of materials like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, calcium, etc. None of these materials are alive. Yet, here you are, posting on the internet. Abiogenesis is a different topic than evolution entirely, but it never ceases to amaze me that people have such trouble with the mere concept.

 

[Deuce]

Main thrust of my query was wondering how wedded atheist are to Darwinism and theory of evolution. Most of the answers so far seem like atheist are not open to intelligent design theory in any way shape or form even if a "God" is not factored in. That's pretty much what I wanted to know, thanks. It does make me wonder though where the line blurs between atheism and religion. When does atheism become a religious dogma in and of itself? Most established religions think they are right and everyone else is wrong, no other theory is worth listening too.If atheist become entrenched in Darwinism and theory of evolution, the tree of life, they may have become a religion without intending too. Just a thought.

It's not even about God. It's about science. If a particular theory has actual scientific evidence to support it, it can be taught in a science classroom Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and therefore does not belong in a science classroom. You wouldn't demand that Intelligent Design be taught in Gym class, would you? You wouldn't demand that Medieval-Era French Art History be taught in a cooking class, right?

You're trying to put "atheism" and "religion" into the same category of acting on faith, but that's a red herring. This isn't about what people believe, it's about what science can gather evidence about. It's not an act of faith to believe something that can be proven.

 

[dadman]

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and therefore does not belong in a science classroom . . . . blah blah blah



It would be good for the evolution "scientists" to catch up with the ID scientists ..
their fear of the conclusion keeps them from being honest with the evidence ..
when man is dishonest with natural revelation ..
he will never be trusted with special revelation

​

 

[atrasicarius]

Main thrust of my query was wondering how wedded atheist are to Darwinism and theory of evolution. Most of the answers so far seem like atheist are not open to intelligent design theory in any way shape or form even if a "God" is not factored in. That's pretty much what I wanted to know, thanks. It does make me wonder though where the line blurs between atheism and religion. When does atheism become a religious dogma in and of itself? Most established religions think they are right and everyone else is wrong, no other theory is worth listening too.If atheist become entrenched in Darwinism and theory of evolution, the tree of life, they may have become a religion without intending too. Just a thought.

We don't believe in intelligent design for the same reason we don't believe in homeopathy, psychics, the power of prayer, the 2012 doomsday, or Scientology, among various other pieces of pseudoscientific bull****.

 

[Brady]

Transitional fossils don't lie.

 

[Dezaad]

Thom Hartman interviewed a guy yesterday who blew some big holes in evolution theory.He pointed out the theory has flaws and just because you think it's wrong doesn't necessarily mean you believe in a God. Are you atheist OK with intelligent design theory as long as its a scientist or group of scientist that created us and not a "god"?

It would still be an argument from incredulity. I will consider Intelligent Design in whatever flavor when evidence is presented to support it. Right now there is zero. Disproving Evolution Theory does not aid Intelligent Design Speculation, by the way. If there is evidence for Intelligent Design, it should be presented. It can be evaluated on its own merits, and once strong enough, then mount a challenge to or be integrated within Evolution.

If pointing out the flaws of one idea supports a different one, what can we say of the relative strength of Evolution as opposed to Intelligent Design? Evolution has some as yet unexplained or unproven aspects. Intelligent Design has vastly more unexplained and unproven aspects. So Evolution must be true, right? (I am asking rhetorically)

So, how would you verify Intelligent Design, using science? What would you look for in the data to directly indicate Intelligent Design? And no, you don't get to say "When something is too complex to be explained by natural processes, Intelligent Design is indicated". When something is too complex to be explained by known natural processes, you only get to say just that. Or put another way, you get to say "Current explanations cannot explain all of the evidence and data". Any assertion of an explanation, such as Evolution or Intelligent Design, must have its own evidence from within the explanation. And yes, Intelligent Design could explain things that natural explanations currently cannot. If it had any positive evidence for it, whatsoever.

 

[obvious Child]

Transitional fossils don't lie.

But creationists do.

 

[obvious Child]

Intelligent design and evolution are both speculations as to how life diversified on earth.

How are the same when one has evidence, lends itself to commercialization and the other is just repackaged aninism? Furthermore, how are they on the same level when ID relies upon the idiotic logic that things cannot change from more primitive states?

Evolution is not proven, intelligent design is not proven. Both are theories that have come about by interpreting observed data.

Depends how you define prove.

 

[presluc]

Your words,not mine.
Please don't try to attribute statements to me which I have never made.
See my second point.


The big Bang is not the exception to the rule.
Scientist do not know what was before the Big Bang or why it happened.
Only that apparently according to their ability to interpret all the evidence they have been able to review that's what how it appears to have happened .
Like I've asked you a number of times before,if you have anything better then the Big bang theory please by all means present it here for review.

Your kidding me right?
Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the methodby which life on Earth arose.

It is not "the exception to the rule".
No one knows how life arose from inorganic matter.
I've already stated that.
We already know that life comes from life.
We just don't know the how and why it happened in the first place.


Just calling it like I see it.


Unless proven otherwise,as many as we are capable to discover.



Whatever that is supposed to mean?
You don't make yourself very clear at times.

Well, I'm going to do something I very raely do to qoute two line in a post.

"Scientist do not know what was before the Big bang or why it happened"
These are your words copied from your post correct?


"We already know that life comes from life,
We just don't know why or how it happened in the first place"
These are your words copied from your post correct?

In both cases scientist state as well as you THEY DON'T KNOW what was before the big bang or why it happened
Scientist also state they know life comes from life , but THEY DON'T KNOW the how and why it happened.

I don't mind this there is a lot of things that I as well as the human race don't know.

If it is as you say , and I think it is, when it comes to scientist as well as athiest/scientist THEY DON'T KNOW.

My question is how can these same people THAT DON'T KNOW a lot about creation or evolution of iving organisms.

How can they make a statement knowing for sure possitivily there is no God or Intelligent Design???eace