Intelligent Design

[jackfaire]

Can someone explain to me how Intelligent Design is different from Evolution in anyway?

Everything I have read says, "We don't believe that evolution is random we believe it is guided by God" (paraphrasing) Uhm that means you agree with evolution but you want science classes to acknowledge the existence of god.

Why? Some evolutionary scientists do believe in God hell a lot of scientists do. Einstein felt studying physics was another way of understanding God.

Near as I can tell if Intelligent design became a viable subject it would teach that Evolution happened because God willed it so let's discuss how you should believe in God.

As I see it that is merely a stepping stone attempt to try and turn us into a theocracy. First introduce a topic that teaches about God while pretending to be different than evolution when really your not. Then maybe you can explain how God is the reason 2+2 is 4 and why PEMDAS is from the scripture.

If you want to teach about God great do so but don't take a scientific theory attach a "creator" and then try and act like it's somehow different.

[Flyndaran]

No, intelligent design does not allow evolution as it currently understood. Evolution is the culmination of natural selection on RANDOM mutation. There are many things that are impossible, because there is no guiding intelligence.
Creatures are often inefficient, because there is no guiding intelligence.
Photosynthesis, for example, is only 1% efficient. That doesn't sound very intelligent to me.
Humans lack a balancing tail, and suffer genetic defects quite often. That doesn't sound very intelligent to me.
Keep your religion out of my science, and I'll keep my science out of your religion. They don't taste good together.

[Talon]

Intelligent design is a fraud, nothing but theistic creationism masquerading as science. ID has not a single shred of testable evidence. It spoke volumes that during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2006, none of the so-called ID experts were willing to testify to its validity under oath.

I suppose its possible the laws of probability and physics were somehow created by a higher power. But without testable evidence, that belief has no place in a science class.

[jackfaire]

No, intelligent design does not allow evolution as it currently understood. Evolution is the culmination of natural selection on RANDOM mutation.

I know that their argument is that while it seems random to us, like many things, that is because it is the will of a higher power and essentially not for us to understand that was my point they don't teach anything new.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Can someone explain to me how Intelligent Design is different from Evolution in anyway?

.

Don't look at me. I've never understood it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not.

[Fryk]

Einstein felt studying physics was another way of understanding God.

Actually, Einstein was a professed atheist, from what I've read.

[jackfaire]

Actually, Einstein was a professed atheist, from what I've read.

Actually if anything I would describe him as an Agnostic but it was Einstein who said, "God does not play dice with the Universe"

[Slytovhand]

We've actually got an ID thread or 2 out there already...

But I'll still throw in what I said back then...

I studied ID in my PHILOSOPHY degree, so I'm coming from that angle!

ID basically says that the universe is just too damn amazingly specific to have about through ONE (and only ONE) roll of that random die.... a die that has an almost infinite number of sides. And at this stage, I'm referring not to dull boring macro-level stuff like cell mutations, but really basic physics and physical chemistry - such as gravity (how does that work?), sub-atomic physics, quantum mechanics, etc...

Evolution is really a boring bit, which has been promoted as it's protagonist.... and it just doesn't hold water.

And, FTR, ID gives better credibility to pagan beliefs than it ever will for mono-theistic... at least as far as the myths and stories go! At least they don't have to seem like they're changing their story to fit :)


ETA: Einstein and religion... he's dropped a couple of lines here and there that seem to indicate agnostic going on believing in something. If ID was around as a big hoo-har when Einstein was here, he'd probably say "Dunno, but I wouldn't rule it out".

[Fryk]

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2"

I actually have no problem with intelligent design at all. I just have a problem with it being taught as a hard science, instead of as religion or philosophy, where it belongs.

[Slytovhand]

Firstly - Fryk : "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist".

Well, from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest, I'm a worshipper of satan and will be going to hell when I die... doesn't actually mean that I don't believe in stuff...

No, that quote doesn't say anything about Einstein's beliefs, other than he doesn't see himself as (Jesuite) Christian... believing in I.D. doesn't make one Christian, in any sense!


But I agree, ID is not even remotely 'hard science'.. but as I've indicated elsewhere, I don't have a problem in having ONE class at the end of physics to discuss such religious and philosophical concepts.. it can help to broaden one's mind! Or at least to see things from a different perspective

[Flyndaran]

I don't understand why anyone would care what a theoretical astrophysicist thinks about religion. Why not ask your plumber about math?

The idea that the universe is too perfect for us to exist is silly in my opinion. That takes the assumption that this is the only universe and that it has only existed this one time. Even then, so what? Sometimes you win the lottery. The odds may be obscene, but if the universe wasn't the way it is, then we wouldn't be here bitching about how amazing it is.

[JuniorMintz]

I don't understand why anyone would care what a theoretical astrophysicist thinks about religion. Why not ask your plumber about math?

Why NOT ask your plumber about math? Or your doctor about art, your nanny about politics, or your mail man about literature? You can have interests/ideas/theories about topics not directly related to your profession.

(And frankly, if I were a plumber I'd be a little miffed at your post. :D )

Einstein was brilliant and honestly, I *am* interested in his thoughts on religion. (I can only speak for myself, but I get the impression that I'm not alone in my interest.)

[Gerrinson]

There was a famous photographer and friend of Einstein that lived here and, in fact, attended the church where I was raised. My father was also friends with said photographer.

According to my dad (yes, hearsay so get your grain of salt), the photographer was furious with Einstein for dying when he did because the photographer almost had him convinced of God's existence.

So, I think that puts Einstein in atheist, but maybe leaning towards agnostic.

As for ID, it's as stupid as the whole Creationism/Evolution BS. Evolution never said creationism was wrong. Period. Evolution simply describes observed phenomena that occured after the beginning of the universe and the genesis of life.

Creationism should really be attacking abiogenesis, which is the appearance of life where there was no life before, and is completely and wholely separate from the theory of evolution.

But, y'know, try telling that to someone who is deeply offended by their own belief that evolution disproves their invisible sky wizard. :rolleyes:

[Daskinor]

This is what I said to my family when the whole debate came up last thanksgiving.

"Intelligent design does not belong in a science class. Science is not infallible perfection. Its people taking observed phenomena and coming up with a explanation for. That explanation is a hypothesis, it is tested. If the tests hold true and can be repeated by anyone who tires, then its a theory. Fuck, 30 years ago there where two hypothesis on what made up our genetic code. Amino Acids or Protein. Eventually we could test it and guess what it was Amino Acids. Science is about answering questions, you hit a road block you keep digging until you can find an explanation that holds true.

Intelligent design would have us believe the reason to why something is the way it is, 'A wizard did it.' Every question would in the end have the same answer, 'A wizard did it.' How does that add to our greater understanding of the universe. It doesn't! It takes away the need to ask questions, because they would all have the same answer in the end.

I can see it now in the future if this shit gets picked up

this is the evidence for evolution;

Antibiotic resistant bacteria
gray/black squirrel populations in great Brittan
fossil record
fact we share X% of our genetic code with all matter of life forums including plants.
Flaws in our genetic makeup
people have different skin color

Evidence for ID
Its to complicated so a wizard had to do it!"

My uncle Finlay piped in. "You shouldn't refer to god as a wizard"

My response "did you get your ID handbook, cant call the designer god. Then its creationism"

[Flyndaran]

...
Einstein was brilliant and honestly, I *am* interested in his thoughts on religion. (I can only speak for myself, but I get the impression that I'm not alone in my interest.)

He created a whole branch of science he was incapable of understanding.
He was just a human being, not a freaking god. I care no more what he thought on non relativity subjects as I care what Hannah Montana's favorite book is. Unless I can bang the bad acting out of her, I shouldn't care about her inner most secrets or preferences.

[JuniorMintz]

He created a whole branch of science he was incapable of understanding.
He was just a human being, not a freaking god. I care no more what he thought on non relativity subjects as I care what Hannah Montana's favorite book is. Unless I can bang the bad acting out of her, I shouldn't care about her inner most secrets or preferences.

And just where did I say he was a god, or even imply that I thought he was? Don't put words into my mouth. :rolleyes:

In other news, the whole "bang the bad acting out of her" bit is seriously creepy.

[Rapscallion]

In other news, the whole "bang the bad acting out of her" bit is seriously creepy.

I noticed that. I assume you meant 'slap' or something similar? Not sure that being a mediocre actress while an early teen is enough to warrant a slap or a punch.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

And just where did I say he was a god, or even imply that I thought he was? Don't put words into my mouth. :rolleyes:

In other news, the whole "bang the bad acting out of her" bit is seriously creepy.

I went a bit silly, sorry.

I just don't understand the hero worship of Einstein. He came up with a bunch of stuff first. Why would his opinions about anything else be interesting?

[Pedersen]

I just don't understand the hero worship of Einstein. He came up with a bunch of stuff first. Why would his opinions about anything else be interesting?

Well, let's see... One of the most common arguments in favor of some sort of god existing is that everything we see is so complex, and fits together so perfectly, that the only way it could have happened was if god created it all.

Einstein was someone who managed to come closer to understanding the makeup of the universe than most people. He understood the actual level of complexity better than you or I or (probably) anybody else on this forum.

If, with all that knowledge and understanding, he explicitly refuted the idea of a god having made the universe, then that is a pretty strong refutation of one of the central arguments in favor of any god.

That is why his opinion carries weight with people trying to figure out if there's a god.

[BroomJockey]

He came up with a bunch of stuff first. Why would his opinions about anything else be interesting?

It wasn't just "coming up with a bunch of stuff." The man was intelligent. Very intelligent. Logical and reasoning. A genius near our times. His experience was not so drastically different from our own. We don't particularly need to extrapolate on how he'd feel given how things are now compared to how things were then.

The recency coupled with the logical abilities and intelligence means that he might be capable of great insight to areas others find murky. There's a fallacy called "appeal to expertise" where you quote a doctor for an opinion about vehicle safety, for instance. The fallacy is that any of his medical training gives him insight to vehicle safety. That doesn't apply to Einstein, because he had a very general, broad intelligence, and people usually wonder his thoughts in context of philosophical musings, which don't require special training.

[Greenday]

Ah, evolution vs. intelligent design. Yes, there is quite a difference. ID is all about blind faith. Evolution involves proof. Evolution is science. ID is nothing close. Heck, evolution and natural selection provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together. If it didn't fit in, it'd fail, thus is why it wouldn't have survived.

[Boozy]

I just don't understand the hero worship of Einstein. He came up with a bunch of stuff first. Why would his opinions about anything else be interesting?

The thing to remember about Einstein is that he saw the world differently from you and I, and even from other geniuses. Unlike other theoretical physicists of his time, who relied on mathematics to draw conclusions about the nature of space and time, Einstein was able to intuitively grasp complex concepts -- and worked out all the math later on, almost as an afterhought.

I hope you can appreciate the significance of that. Anyone who knows anything about quantum physics knows that it is inherently unintuitive. The only reason we know about the existence of certain properties is because we can mathematically prove it. A mind that can come up with this stuff independent of those proofs is a marvel.

[Flyndaran]

...

I hope you can appreciate the significance of that. Anyone who knows anything about quantum physics knows that it is inherently unintuitive. The only reason we know about the existence of certain properties is because we can mathematically prove it. A mind that can come up with this stuff independent of those proofs is a marvel.

His big claim to fame, the theory of general and special relativity is not that amazing. Starting from the premise that time itself is mutable and lacking any preferential frame of reference is not that amazing without the math to back it up.
It's the math that separates a genius from a dope smoker waxing philosophic.

Quantum mechanics follows observed data, so ignoring it was a major mental block for him.

If he never lived someone else would have come up with it by now.

[jackfaire]

I agree actually. I love Einstein guy was awesome but coming up with stuff Independent of proofs is what most people do on a friday night after a few drinks. We all come up with stuff independent of proofs.

[Slytovhand]

A) ID isn't against Evolution (regardless of how it might be painted). It's counter is the randomness of existence - that this universe and everything in it were mere chance. ID, in it's best form, goes hand in hand with evolution.. and quite neatly too! (sure, some of the more stupid religious fundies might argue with me on this point, but if they do the research... oh, sorry...)

B) I'd be interested on Einstein's thoughts on bedroom furnishings! (but only for a little while :p) To just deny a mind it's various ways of thinking is a little narrow-minded

C) Take the great astro-physicists... they are looking at the beginnings of the universe.. surely they rate a nice mention in the whole idea of things.. and their thoughts on how they think things came together?? If you throw up their thoughts on time, expanding universes, pre-Big Bang, why not throw in a discussion on hypothetical designers? Is there any real way to look at pre-universe stuff? Certainly not now - that's all philosophy.. so ID is just as up there as anything else we're going to get... within the next few hundred years.


Heck, evolution and natural selection provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together.

No, not they don't. They provide a picture of how things went. Neither say a thing about how Neutrons work to maintain a (relatively) stable environment in an atom.


Let me ask this then - is it still 'science' (and thus, should be asked in the classroom) if we know we won't be able to get an answer (or even close to an answer) within the next 1000 years? What then, is the difference between 'science' and 'philosophy'?

[Flyndaran]

...
Let me ask this then - is it still 'science' (and thus, should be asked in the classroom) if we know we won't be able to get an answer (or even close to an answer) within the next 1000 years? What then, is the difference between 'science' and 'philosophy'?

Science requires testable theories. Just because we may not have the technology to test them does not make them non-science. Philosophy is thinking about things without real world proof. It's mostly a big wank-a-thon. But from that activity some ideas may sprout that eventually grow to suggest a testable idea and become scientific.

[Ghel]

No, not they don't. They provide a picture of how things went. Neither say a thing about how Neutrons work to maintain a (relatively) stable environment in an atom.

Of course not. Evolution says nothing about nuclear physics. It describes a process by which speciation occurs.

Also, regarding whether Einstein was an atheist, I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter. This is a logical fallacy called the Argument from Authority. Whether Einstein believed in a god does not say anything about whether claims for the existence of a god are true.

[Slytovhand]

Of course not. Evolution says nothing about nuclear physics. It describes a process by which speciation occurs.

That was in regards to Greenday's post on "Heck, evolution and natural selection provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together." So, no, they don't, and no, evolution says nothing about physics - and it's physics that provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together, not evolution (or biology)



Also, regarding whether Einstein was an atheist, I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter. This is a logical fallacy called the Argument from Authority. Whether Einstein believed in a god does not say anything about whether claims for the existence of a god are true.

Technically, quite correct. For this subject, there's basically no-one who's claims about such existences are really relevant. Unless there are those who have had a direct experience of such a deity (any experience that can't be accounted for otherwise - including my own..). But, historically speaking, I'd place Einstein's thoughts as higher than those of many theologists and philosophers on the topic! At least he had an actual look at this universe that had been apparently 'designed'. The others just talk about it with no real-world experience.

[Ghel]

That was in regards to Greenday's post on "Heck, evolution and natural selection provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together." So, no, they don't, and no, evolution says nothing about physics - and it's physics that provide a reason for why everything seems to fit in perfectly together, not evolution (or biology).

Oh, I see what you're saying. I took Greenday's statement to mean that evolution explains why living things seem to fit their environments so well, which is true.