Should ID be taught in public schools?

[Magic Man]

You have just made the same mistake that the ID crowd make, you just assigned the quality of intelligent-design (or in your case non-intelligent design) to a pattern; unwittingly of-course.

A more correct analysis would tell us that the pattern is neither intelligently nor unintelligently designed, for it is not designed at all, at least as far as science is concerned.

Apparant design/misdesign is something we all see. But let's not confuse this with genuine design/misdesign. It's not an easy habit to break, but its only fair that if IDers cannot say 'design' then others cannot say 'bad design'. You can't have it both ways.

What? Do you even understand her post?

 

[Magic Man]

Explain to me how the idea of intelligent design could possibly not include an intelligent designer.

I don't understand your question.

You originally wrote:

"Just because those behind ID choose not to explicity identify the designer doesn't make the theory agnostic."

The opposite opinion of which would be:

"Just because those behind ID choose not to explicity identify the designer doesn't make the theory non-agnostic"

Which is what I meant when I replied to you:

"It doesn't make it otherwise either."

Makes sense now?

No, because I didn't respond to you before. This is my first response to you. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but my point is that it is not agnostic. There is an inherent implication in ID that there is some intelligent designer, in other words "God". Therefore, if you believe in ID, then you believe in some sort of "God", and therefore you are not agnostic.

Make sense now?

I think you did. Post #176. You quoted me and then asked a question. Wouldn't that constitute a response? If the question wasn't related to the quote why include the quote? Forgive me if I have you confused with someone else.

The first quote above is my post #176. That was my first response to you. In your response to that, you make references to my supposed previous response to you, with quotes supposedly said by me. I responded to that by saying that those questions you quoted were not posed by me, and that post #176 was my first response to you. And besides, post #176 was not a question. You do seem to have me confused with someone else, but this is all beside the point.

Except of course for the prominent agnostic members of the movement. Your argument is silly beyond belief.

There is no such thing as an agnostic member of the movement. If you believe in ID, you are not agnostic. It is as simple as that. That's why I said this: "Explain to me how the idea of intelligent design could possibly not include an intelligent designer". Intelligent design inherently implies an intelligent designer, in other words a "God". If you believe in ID, you necessarily believe in that intelligent designer, "God".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparant design/misdesign is something we all see. But let's not confuse this with genuine design/misdesign. It's not an easy habit to break, but its only fair that if IDers cannot say 'design' then others cannot say 'bad design'. You can't have it both ways.

No, you can't have it both ways... but IDers seem to want just that: if you invoke some intelligent designer overseeing the development of life and "tweaking" it as he/she/it/they pleases, then this leads us to ask why other traits we see either were "tweaked" or left alone to be the way they are. They don't get to suggest that an intelligent designer exists, but then ignore that intelligent designer when it suits them.

Personally, I think that any intelligent designer who would be capable of implementing the complex chemical processes involved in blood clotting (to use one example suggested by the ID community) would quite possibly be capable of arranging our anatomy in such a way that we couldn't die of suffocation by eating carelessly. If the world as we see it is the intentional product of some intelligent entity, I think it's worth asking why that intelligent entity intended for us to be able to choke on food.

 

[Magic Man]

Ok, so you can't show me where ID-proper requires a supernatural creator. Instead you want me to accept that the word intelligent in big red letters means supernatural.

I can tell you that genetic engineering is possible, but it is not carried out by anyone supernatural. I can tell you that under ID the designer is not by necessity responsible for the origination of all of the building blocks (what you call 'everything'). And they have never made an appeal to the supernatural in their claims about ID.

No, I can show and have shown you where ID requires a supernatural creator. You simply can't see it. ID says that some intelligent designer (supernatural creator, if you'd rather) designed the universe. That's the whole idea of the belief.

Some believe that that designer has kept an active role in things since the beginning, some believe that designer just left everything to its own device. I don't understand why you're trying to use this distinction. Either way, an intelligent designer, or supernatural creator, originally created everything. I don't know how to make this any clearer. You seem to have some misinformation about ID. I guess the best way to proceed is to break it down very simply:

ID holds that some force designed the universe in the beginning, and this force was intelligent. This intelligent designer therefore created the universe according to his design. This means that it was the creator of the universe, and it was supernatural, as it existed before the universe.

The opposite of ID is that forces like gravity and nuclear fusion among others formed the universe not according to any design and not with any intelligence behind it. It was all basically random chance, aside from the work of intelligent beings such as us.

Do you see where the first one necessarily includes God, and the second one doesn't? I really don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

 

[Autodidact]

Stop saying 'they'. You are still confusing the idea with the people for goodness sakes.

Ideas exist in the minds of people. If a specific, individual, ID proponent, really believed that it is not possible to learn who The Designer is, that individual would be an agnostic. But they aren't; therefore they must not believe that.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's where it does: Intelligent design. The name itself tells you there is some sort of creator behind everything. That's the whole point of it. Maybe you could show me where it doesn't automatically imply a supernatural creator.

Well, according to the lying liars that are the ID movement, it could be some kind of unknown, unlikely race of superintelligent aliens. However, if so, they are not interested in learning how that could go about happening (since they don't really believe that it did, and would be terribly disappointed to learn that.) Therefore not only is ID unscientific, it's fundamentally anti-scientific; it discourages further inquiry.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, if I ever see him I'll tell him that those truth-searching papers he writes for credible scientific journals count for nothing. He won't get away with this.

What does he write? I'm serious. I don't get how on earth the guy can do astronomy. How do you do astronomy while denying that stars are billions of years old?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What does he write? I'm serious. I don't get how on earth the guy can do astronomy. How do you do astronomy while denying that stars are billions of years old?

If the peers reviewing the journal are your cousins, and the journal is your blog...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

(Emphasis mine) There is a glimmer of hope present with that there sentence, that you are at least attempting to make the distinction. Keep up the good work.

Maybe you misunderstood. Try going back and reading it because it doesn't change what I've been saying all along. Additionally......go and checkout some of the key players in the Dover trial. They were YECers, (Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell) presenting a case to the School board. NOTE: These two were on the School board Committee.......and later they argued (lied) their case in front of a federal judge...trying to get "ID" in the schools. So....YECers....(ARE) proponents of ID.......:sarcastic

 

[Autodidact]

If the peers reviewing the journal are your cousins, and the journal is your blog...

Now angellous, let's not prejudge. We don't know where he publishes.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now angellous, let's not prejudge. We don't know where he publishes.

I'm simply imagining how one can do "astromony" while denying the most basic concepts that would be required knowledge of the most remedial level to attain any sort of credentials (like a high school diploma) in the field.

Calling your blog a scientific journal would certainly be a way to do so. We see a similar thing with AiG.

 

[blackout]

As a Panenthiest I am inclined to the notion that The UniVerse is "imbued" with intelligence... intelligence is a part of what the UniVerse is (as we can observe in man... which is also a part of the UniVerse). I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the UniVerse develops and changes--evolves-- "with intelligence"... or in a Sentient manner.

Jaiket respectfully asked...

Do you think there is good reason to suppose it is the case, Violet?

Well as I observe intelligence and sentience as an integral part of the fabric (or weave) of the UniVerse yes.

I observe my reality shifting and moving *with intelligence quite frequently.
Probably as I focus my attention there,
much as a scientist focuses attention to the results of his/her own experiments.

Still, to try and tell you any more of what I see,
besides the basic fact that intelligence and sentience exist
as observable aspects of the ever moving/growing/changing universe,
would make me rather like Jack Skellington...
trying to put christmas in a test tube.

So I will leave it at this,

The Universe ITSELF displays intelligence.
Intelligence is self evident in the Universe.

If you require evidence of this...
Just observe a science lab.

 

[blackout]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraViolet
As a Panenthiest I am inclined to the notion that The UniVerse is "imbued" with intelligence... intelligence is a part of what the UniVerse is (as we can observe in man... which is also a part of the UniVerse). I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the UniVerse develops and changes--evolves-- "with intelligence"... or in a Sentient manner.

Edit:
Just to add... I do not think this idea in anyway runs counter to the scientific findings of evolutionary theory.
If someone more knowledgable sees that it does, I would be interested to know why/how that is so.

I don’t think this idea runs contrary to any scientific findings. However I think it is also important to understand that this idea has no scientific support either. It is an untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific idea.

Now I don’t think this makes it a lesser idea. And I suspect that the unscientific nature of this idea will not bother you, nor should it. The problem lies with the I.D. movement that tries to present this idea as if it were science.

There is nothing here I would disagree with,
and you're right that the unscientific nature of my own life observation/theory
does not bother me at all.

While I appreciate science (in my own lay person's way)
it is it's own KIND of observation.

Why try shoving round pegs in square holes? Ya know?

Thank you all for allowing me some elbow room in your thread.
As I said earlier, my understanding of science is not a deeper one.
(so perhaps it encompases more than I realize. Or maybe not.)

The nature of reality though intreigues me greatly.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm simply imagining how one can do "astromony" while denying the most basic concepts that would be required knowledge of the most remedial level to attain any sort of credentials (like a high school diploma) in the field.

Calling your blog a scientific journal would certainly be a way to do so. We see a similar thing with AiG.

Yes Ken Ham........

Check this cook out....brainwashing innocent children. This kind of teaching should (NEVER) be allowed in schools.....

YouTube - Ken Ham Creationism Crazytalk Clip Show

Please watch all of it......:sarcastic

WOW....!!!!

 

[blackout]

Yes Ken Ham........

Check this cook out....brainwashing innocent children. This kind of teaching should (NEVER) be allowed in schools.....

YouTube - Ken Ham Creationism Crazytalk Clip Show

Please watch all of it......:sarcastic

WOW....!!!!

That was pure religious indoctrination.

Nothing more.

As I've said before, the goal of education should be to teach young people
the FINE ART OF THINKING. Thinking, observing, reasoning for one's self.
Indoctrination is NOT education.
I don't care who is doing the indoctrinating.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That was pure religious indoctrination.

Nothing more.

As I've said before, the goal of education should be to teach young people
the FINE ART OF THINKING. Thinking, observing, reasoning for one's self.
Indoctrination is NOT education.
I don't care who is doing the indoctrinating.

I agree....

 

[rocketman]

There is no such thing as an agnostic member of the movement. If you believe in ID, you are not agnostic. It is as simple as that.

I have carefully considered your explanation across multiple posts and, respectfully, I still find myself still disagreeing with you. I maintain that it is possible to be a true agnostic and still support the idea-proper of ID. If the fact that devout agnostics who support ID is not enough, then perhaps this essay will help you, I do hope you get a chance to read it through:

Metaphysical Naturalism and Intelligent Design

As for ID and supernaturalism:

"...the "supernatural" cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural."

CSC - Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer

 

[Alceste]

There are YEC's in Australia?????

What???

I could have sworn it was an American thing.

Or is that south african?

 

[Yerda]

Hi again, UltraViolet.

Well as I observe intelligence and sentience as an integral part of the fabric (or weave) of the UniVerse yes.

I observe my reality shifting and moving *with intelligence quite frequently.
Probably as I focus my attention there,
much as a scientist focuses attention to the results of his/her own experiments.

Still, to try and tell you any more of what I see,
besides the basic fact that intelligence and sentience exist
as observable aspects of the ever moving/growing/changing universe,
would make me rather like Jack Skellington...
trying to put christmas in a test tube.

So I will leave it at this,

The Universe ITSELF displays intelligence.
Intelligence is self evident in the Universe.

If you require evidence of this...
Just observe a science lab.

What does it mean to say that the universe displays intelligence?

Where do you see this?

 

[camanintx]

I have carefully considered your explanation across multiple posts and, respectfully, I still find myself still disagreeing with you. I maintain that it is possible to be a true agnostic and still support the idea-proper of ID. If the fact that devout agnostics who support ID is not enough, then perhaps this essay will help you, I do hope you get a chance to read it through:

Metaphysical Naturalism and Intelligent Design

I agree that an agnostic can support the idea of ID but that doesn't make ID agnostic (Greek for unknowable). There are many people who call themselves agnostic and yet believe in God which is clearly a theistic idea.

As for ID and supernaturalism:

"...the "supernatural" cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural."

CSC - Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer

ID claims that something irreducibly complex cannot arise through natural processes so doesn't that imply that the designer is acting supernaturally.