Natural selection (evolutionism) => Eugenics => Nazi Germany

[Magic Man]

Disregarded. Better to read through first I think, this only complicates the thread needlessly.

Well, even if it doesn't apply to you, it does apply to Pete, and probably some others, which is why I went with it. I just wanted to make sure not to start a needless argument with you specifically, if that's not what you meant.

Different, yes, not better. He even tried hard to explain we are one species. However, his view of 'savages' and 'civilized' in the same book gave rise to wrong-minded thinking that was mis-used.

I shouldn't be too surprised. As painted wolf pointed out, most people (or at least many white westerners) before the nineteenth century were racist to a certain degree, even those who were enlightened for their time.

 

[rocketman]

It seems to me they were attempting artificial selection on humans... not natural selection.
They had several breeding programs to develop the "perfect stock".

Yes PW, that was also a big part of it, but refer back to my comments about the propoganda movie they made, that was a big part of it too.

And yes, Lincoln was no saint when it came to racial discrimination.

 

[rocketman]

Well, even if it doesn't apply to you, it does apply to Pete, and probably some others, which is why I went with it. I just wanted to make sure not to start a needless argument with you specifically, if that's not what you meant.

Are you sure it applies to Pete? Friend, in any case, it's impolite to assign a different opinion to someone who does not hold it.

I shouldn't be too surprised. As painted wolf pointed out, most people (or at least many white westerners) before the nineteenth century were racist to a certain degree, even those who were enlightened for their time.

That's quite right.

 

[Magic Man]

Hooray! He is finally starting to get it! And putting it off is a question of perspective: it may come to pass that any higher level of designer is forever outside the scope of ID.

Oh, I get it, but then it's a useless question. Why should anyone take the idea of the human race being designed by aliens seriously? Have you seen people's reactions to Scientology?

The point is that the ID movement is only concerned with God and proving it. They use deceptive means like saying "Oh, no, we're not talking about God. It could be any intelligent life". As I've said many times, though, the ultimate goal for them is to bait-and-switch, inserting God in for the aliens.

But it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE! That is why any attempt to investigate it more thoroughly should not be treated as if it were the bloody second coming of the plague.

First, if it's not about God, then what's the point? The whole idea of intelligent design only ever came up in reference to how life started.

Second, whether or not it's about God, it's not scientific, unless you know of a way that one could possibly find evidence that pointed only to ID and not to evolution. The point is there is no such thing. The only way we could no for sure whether God or aliens or whatever intelligently designed us is to meet God or those aliens and have them tell us so. No research is going to give us that answer.

Third, that is why people get so upset about it, because it's not science, but it wants to be taken seriously as such. People can conjecture on it all they want, but until someone can come up with a way of testing it scientifically, it's not going to be taken seriously in the scientific community whether it's about God or whether it's about aliens.

 

[Magic Man]

Are you sure it applies to Pete? Friend, in any case, it's impolite to assign a different opinion to someone who does not hold it.

That's why I said I wasn't necessarily assigning it to you. I am sure it applies to Pete, though.

 

[McBell]

No, that's not what ID says. At its core, ID says two things:

- that evolution as the standard theory presents it (i.e. a long history of incremental change through adaptation to the immediate local environment) is not sufficient to cause either the variety of life on Earth or the history of its development.

- that the variety and/or history of life shows marks of having been designed by some sort of intelligence.

Now... I know plenty of theists that would agree with the second point above, but not with this next point, which is the kicker if you want to call ID "science":

- that both points above are supported by (or, when put forward as a hypothesis, that they could conceivably be supported by) physical, measurable evidence.

Everything I have found agrees with you.
Some flat out admit it whilst others are musch more subtle, but they all boil down to the above.

The point is that the ID movement is only concerned with God and proving it. They use deceptive means like saying "Oh, no, we're not talking about God. It could be any intelligent life". As I've said many times, though, the ultimate goal for them is to bait-and-switch, inserting God in for the aliens.

Let us say that aliens did intelligently design us.
So who/what designed them?
GOd?
So who/what designed God?

I have been to this point and every single time God is presented as the exception to the rule they so laboriously fought to prove.

So why argue a rule (Intelligent Design) when you are ultimately going to ditch that rule once you get where you want to go?

Third, that is why people get so upset about it, because it's not science, but it wants to be taken seriously as such.

Not me.
I could take it seriously if they were to stop claiming it was science.
If they would stop trying to bully the scientific community to say it was science.
If they would stop trying to get it taught in school as science.

People can conjecture on it all they want, but until someone can come up with a way of testing it scientifically, it's not going to be taken seriously in the scientific community whether it's about God or whether it's about aliens.

As is the way it should be.

 

[rocketman]

First, if it's not about God, then what's the point?

It is a well established fact that research itself need not have a specific application as a goal. Where I work we call ourselves 'R&D', with the research quite distinct from the development. The desire to answer the design inference is cause enough for enquiry at the basic level without bringing God into it. Who knows what will come out of it.

...People can conjecture on it all they want,...

Yes, that part right there should be fine with academia.

... but until someone can come up with a way of testing it scientifically....

And that is the ultimate goal of many of the current studies, like the ones I linked to earlier.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The whole idea of the ID movement is to guide us to the belief in God.

But it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE! That is why any attempt to investigate it more thoroughly should not be treated as if it were the bloody second coming of the plague.

That's the real issue. It doesn't have to be. It appears that some are WAY threatened by the possible outcome.

This reminds me of something my mother (an atheist) queried of me when I first converted: "So what happens if aliens come to earth? Won't you lose your faith and feel foolish?" She didn't like the answer, which is that the existence of aliens does not have any bearing on the existence of God.

Yet I wonder, given the obvious animosity given by so many towards ID: if they feel that they would have to give up their atheism if evidence of a designer is found?

 

[Sententia]

That's the real issue. It doesn't have to be. It appears that some are WAY threatened by the possible outcome.

This reminds me of something my mother (an atheist) queried of me when I first converted: "So what happens if aliens come to earth? Won't you lose your faith and feel foolish?" She didn't like the answer, which is that the existence of aliens does not have any bearing on the existence of God.

Yet I wonder, given the obvious animosity given by so many towards ID: if they feel that they would have to give up their atheism if evidence of a designer is found?

It sounds to me like you are making up your own definition for ID and then using that new definition and what you want it to be to argue that there should not be any animosity towards it.

Furthermore it sounds like you are confusing ID and bioengineering and then further misconstrue ID by arguing that a chair, since it was designed by us, is a product of ID.

In regards to your last question. The answer is obvious. Most atheists are purely skeptics and given proof of a creator or an intelligent designer they would accept it.

You are are not arguing that when you say ID or when you reference Expelled. You are arguing creationism repackaged as ID. (To the point where much of the text proposed to teach creationism was merely cut and pasted into the ID text books.)

ID is bunk. If you want to talk BIOENGINEERING then do so. Do not confuse the subject with ID. A chef is a chef, not an intelligent design pancake engineer.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It sounds to me like you are making up your own definition for ID and then using that new definition and what you want it to be to argue that there should not be any animosity towards it.

I am couching this in terms that have been used since the inception of natural selection. Even Charles Darwin discussed the term "Intelligent Design" in letters to his colleagues. This is not new.

 

[McBell]

It sounds to me like you are making up your own definition for ID and then using that new definition and what you want it to be to argue that there should not be any animosity towards it.

Furthermore it sounds like you are confusing ID and bioengineering and then further misconstrue ID by arguing that a chair, since it was designed by us, is a product of ID.

In regards to your last question. The answer is obvious. Most atheists are purely skeptics and given proof of a creator or an intelligent designer they would accept it.

You are are not arguing that when you say ID or when you reference Expelled. You are arguing creationism repackaged as ID. (To the point where much of the text proposed to teach creationism was merely cut and pasted into the ID text books.)

ID is bunk. If you want to talk BIOENGINEERING then do so. Do not confuse the subject with ID. A chef is a chef, not an intelligent design pancake engineer.

I agree 110%

I am couching this in terms that have been used since the inception of natural selection. Even Charles Darwin discussed the term "Intelligent Design" in letters to his colleagues. This is not new.

Then why did you link to a site that does not in any way support "your" definition of ID?

 

[astarath]

this is of interest for me who defines ID as a theory. Evolution as a theory has been drastically changed from the most recent hypothesis and yet stills owes it's existence to it's creator. Who was the original person to put forth the concept of intelligent design and define it?

 

[Sententia]

I am couching this in terms that have been used since the inception of natural selection. Even Charles Darwin discussed the term "Intelligent Design" in letters to his colleagues. This is not new.

I have two problems with this... First you forget yourself and the OP which was made by YOU.

Second. You are proving my point. You are making up your own definition if ID. Darwin did not invent ID.

If you want to start a thread with this title and this post:

If you haven't seen Ben Stein's EXpelled: No Intelligence Allowed!, go watch it BEFORE you participate in this thread. Please. You won't have the same background as the rest of us who have seen it.

In the movie, Ben questions Academia's quest to eliminate theism at all costs and how that seems to generate from Darwinists. It's an amazing look at the social and academic bigotry that has so engulfed America.

Towards the end, it is suggested that while Hitler's bigotry against Jews and Gypsies did not originate from the theory of Natural Selection, his bigotry was given it's most persuasive arguments via Natural Selection and the concept of the Superior Race.

Is the connection valid? Was the Holocaust perpetrated even in part upon the theories of natural selection? If so, what are we doing to prevent these types of abuses in the future?

Yes, there were a ton of other fallacies presented by Mr Stein, and his quotes by Dawkins were AMAZING to listen to, for those who think he has no anti-God agenda. But this thread is JUST about the link between the theory of Natural Selection and the attempted genocide that we refer to as a the Holocaust.

?!??!?!

You are referencing an established theory of ID. One that is based on religion and tried to masquerade as science.

You are minimizing the actual causes that led to the holocaust and insinuating it was evolotion and science that are the real beasts that led to the holocaust. Yes its fact thats what Expelled claims but what do you claim? What does your research show you? What did the established experts think after viewing this movie?

I am glad you were entertained by expelled but a short movie and the opinion of a game show host and actor is not a substitute for doing your own research and forming your own conclusions.

Im annoyed at your post because of the title and the way you have laid this thread out and argued your point of view regarding Intelligent Design. You dont seem to know what Intelligent Design is or was, how it was outed or even what is currently presumed to be the cause of the holocaust. Everything regarding ID and the Holocaust you seem to have learned for the first time from this movie and the experts say what you have learned is just bunk.

So you can be mad at me for pointing that out but that won't change the fact that some guy you seem to respect made a movie based on an agenda to make money rather then on facts and an actual issue. Ben Stein is not a scientist. He is however entitled to his opinion and based on the money he made making that movie it seems like we rewarded him for the tale. That doesn't make it right.

Isn't Capitalism Grand? Actors who run off at the mouth to influence people on issues neither understand make MILLIONS more then the doctors, soldiers and scientists that enable both to enjoy said life.

In short.

• If you want to argue a custom theory of ID then start a thread stating it and don't instruct your audience to refer to the actual ID presented in Expelled.
• Don't argue against people who understand ID and it's history better than you and then not admit that but move the goal posts to redefine ID beyond the original scope to point where you are presenting an argument no one can understand except you since this ID you are talking about was just invented by you.

Personally I think many people in this thread have bent over backwards to appease you and to argue their point of view and I havent seen you give any ground at all.

Where do you admit... ok... yeah the ID in the movie I referenced and the text books and the court cases etc... yeah that wasnt science... But ID could be used to describe something else.... Life that was intelligently designed... not us but what we design could be intelligently designed....

This is a great argument because it leads onto more.... If We were not intelligently designed but what we create or engineer is then arent they just a natural part of things? Its more interesting anyways.

Ad homs against evolution based on the nonsensical claim that it caused the holocaust and laying out references for intelligent design you dont actually intend to argue about or even seem to care about strikes me at best as dishonest.

 

[McBell]

I have two problems with this... First you forget yourself and the OP which was made by YOU.

Second. You are proving my point. You are making up your own definition if ID. Darwin did not invent ID.

If you want to start a thread with this title and this post:

?!??!?!

You are referencing an established theory of ID. One that is based on religion and tried to masquerade as science.

You are minimizing the actual causes that led to the holocaust and insinuating it was evolotion and science that are the real beasts that led to the holocaust. Yes its fact thats what Expelled claims but what do you claim? What does your research show you? What did the established experts think after viewing this movie?

I am glad you were entertained by expelled but a short movie and the opinion of a game show host and actor is not a substitute for doing your own research and forming your own conclusions.

Im annoyed at your post because of the title and the way you have laid this thread out and argued your point of view regarding Intelligent Design. You dont seem to know what Intelligent Design is or was, how it was outed or even what is currently presumed to be the cause of the holocaust. Everything regarding ID and the Holocaust you seem to have learned for the first time from this movie and the experts say what you have learned is just bunk.

So you can be mad at me for pointing that out but that won't change the fact that some guy you seem to respect made a movie based on an agenda to make money rather then on facts and an actual issue. Ben Stein is not a scientist. He is however entitled to his opinion and based on the money he made making that movie it seems like we rewarded him for the tale. That doesn't make it right.

Isn't Capitalism Grand? Actors who run off at the mouth to influence people on issues neither understand make MILLIONS more then the doctors, soldiers and scientists that enable both to enjoy said life.

In short.

• If you want to argue a custom theory of ID then start a thread stating it and don't instruct your audience to refer to the actual ID presented in Expelled.
• Don't argue against people who understand ID and it's history better than you and then not admit that but move the goal posts to redefine ID beyond the original scope to point where you are presenting an argument no one can understand except you since this ID you are talking about was just invented by you.

Personally I think many people in this thread have bent over backwards to appease you and to argue their point of view and I havent seen you give any ground at all.

Where do you admit... ok... yeah the ID in the movie I referenced and the text books and the court cases etc... yeah that wasnt science... But ID could be used to describe something else.... Life that was intelligently designed... not us but what we design could be intelligently designed....

This is a great argument because it leads onto more.... If We were not intelligently designed but what we create or engineer is then arent they just a natural part of things? Its more interesting anyways.

Ad homs against evolution based on the nonsensical claim that it caused the holocaust and laying out references for intelligent design you dont actually intend to argue about or even seem to care about strikes me at best as dishonest.

The really bad thing that royally sucks is that I am out of frubals. :sad4:

 

[painted wolf]

Let's look at all mighty wiki shall we?

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."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturally the first mistake is their definition of natural selection. Natural selection is not random.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

This thread is not based on a coherent, logical argument supported by demonstrable evidence but seems intended merely to antagonize and inflame. How is this thread any different than trolling? Someone please explain that to me.

 

[Alceste]

Yet I wonder, given the obvious animosity given by so many towards ID: if they feel that they would have to give up their atheism if evidence of a designer is found?

No evidence of anything "supernatural" has ever been established in the history of science. In fact, logic and reason dictate that nothing supernatural can be found using the scientific method*.

I will explain why: Only after someone has made a falsifiable prediction, subjected it to repeatable empirical testing and developed a peer reviewed theory to explain the data, the findings of this research become integrated into our understanding of nature. Therefore, if concrete scientific evidence of a "designer" is found, the designer will be incorporated into our understanding as a natural (not supernatural) phenomenon.

In other words, efforts to prove the existence of God, if successful, will eviscerate the "supernatural" quality of God, and signify the death of theistic creationist religions. Consider how the discovery of germs brought the end of infinite superstitious methods of disease prevention and control: when given the direct choice between a theory based on repeatable evidence of a phenomenon and a theory based on dogma, people will always choose the former.

So, by trying to prove God's existence using science, theists are handing God over to scientists. They are not affirming the righteousness of their dogma, as they hope, but clamouring toward the destruction of theistic faith. We don't need faith in things we can observe and understand.

Anyway, if even a single scrap of scientific evidence of god were found, I would have no more trouble with it than I had with the evidence that the whole universe appears to be a holographic projection from the outer reaches of faith. I went "Whoah! Fascinating! Can't wait to see how that turns out!" and suspended judgment (as always) until the accumulated evidence is weighty enough to be compelling. It's religion that offends me, not the idea of a higher power.

* A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.

 

[challupa]

Anyway, if even a single scrap of scientific evidence of god were found, I would have no more trouble with it than I had with the evidence that the whole universe appears to be a holographic projection from the outer reaches of faith. I went "Whoah! Fascinating! Can't wait to see how that turns out!" and suspended judgment (as always) until the accumulated evidence is weighty enough to be compelling. It's religion that offends me, not the idea of a higher power.

I think that is true for most of us. I have no trouble with accepting a higher power if one is proven to be there. I just have no use for religions in their present form.

 

[Magic Man]

Not me.
I could take it seriously if they were to stop claiming it was science.
If they would stop trying to bully the scientific community to say it was science.
If they would stop trying to get it taught in school as science.

That's what I said. People only get upset because IDers want it to be taken seriously as science. If they didn't try to claim it was science, no one would have a problem with it, and could take it seriously.

 

[Magic Man]

It is a well established fact that research itself need not have a specific application as a goal. Where I work we call ourselves 'R&D', with the research quite distinct from the development. The desire to answer the design inference is cause enough for enquiry at the basic level without bringing God into it. Who knows what will come out of it.

No, it need not. However, research needs to have a purpose. There simply is no way to research whether or not anything is intelligently designed.

Yes, that part right there should be fine with academia.

It is fine with academia. What's not fine is trying to say it's science.

And that is the ultimate goal of many of the current studies, like the ones I linked to earlier.

Again, explain to me how you think it's possible to have evidence that points to intelligent design and not natural selection.