ID/Evolution question

[Agent Fisher]

Now, I have read on this site that many people hate the idea of Intelligent Design. Could someone answer this question for me.

Would the following viewpoint fall under ID or Evolution?

Life is the way it is now as a result of evolution. The only part God had in it was just starting the whole thing with a kick to get the ball rolling. After that, he stepped back and let what happened happen.

[Chris OFarrell]

Now, I have read on this site that many people hate the idea of Intelligent Design. Could someone answer this question for me.

Would the following viewpoint fall under ID or Evolution?

Life is the way it is now as a result of evolution. The only part God had in it was just starting the whole thing with a kick to get the ball rolling. After that, he stepped back and let what happened happen.

ID. By definition as its hypothesizing some unquantifiable force which is irrelevant and unnecessary in the evolutionary theory.

[Surlethe]

Theistic evolution. The difference between ID and theistic evolution is theistic evolution acknowledges science accurately describes the universe, and merely adds an extra term to the description, which can't be deduced from observation; ID, on the other hand, actively denies science and claims evidence for the existence of Go- er, I mean: a designer. That denial is what people find so distasteful about ID.

[Darth Servo]

Neither. What the statement describes is the definition of Deism.

[Agent Fisher]

Neither. What the statement describes is the definition of Deism.

Pretend your explaining it to someone with almost no education in other religous viewpoints aside from Church of Christ. In fact, dont pretend.

[Darth Wong]

Neither. What the statement describes is the definition of Deism.

Pretend your explaining it to someone with almost no education in other religous viewpoints aside from Church of Christ. In fact, dont pretend.

Deists believe that God is an absentee landlord. He made the universe and all of its rules and mechanisms, then he buggered off to parts unknown.

[Agent Fisher]

Oh, ok. I guess then I have a mixed view of God then.

[Ariphaos]

Evolution - the origin of species - is not about the origin of life. It fits just as well with evolution, just not modern hypothesies of abiogenesis.

Theistic evolution would imply that it was a god that had some later consideration did it, while deism is an 'uncaring first mover' philosophy.

[wautd]

Neither. What the statement describes is the definition of Deism.

Pretend your explaining it to someone with almost no education in other religous viewpoints aside from Church of Christ. In fact, dont pretend.

Deists believe that God is an absentee landlord. He made the universe and all of its rules and mechanisms, then he buggered off to parts unknown.

Actually, my theory is that he rather died of old age a couple of millenia ago. I call it the GOD theory aka "Grumpy Old Deity"-theory. If only I had 5 million dollar budget like that of the Discovery Institute so I could push it in religious classrooms

[Superman]

We have a member here who once told me that he believes in the widely discredited "Watchmaker Theory." If I remember correctly, that particular idea falls in line with theistic evolution, irreducible complexity, and any other notion that a deity "HAS" to be involved in the formation of the universe.

Frankly, these appeals to ignorance really annoy me. Not quite as much as religious types who KNOW the truth about evolution, yet still go to fundamentalist churches and keep quiet whenever fellow Christians start trying to "discredit" it, but it still annoys me.

[mr friendly guy]

Theisitc evolution - God created life through processes describe by science including evolution. This view is endorsed by the Catholic Church.

ID - Evolution couldn't have created life thus an Intelligent Designer must have done it, somehow. This view tends to be endorsed by fundies, which are usually of the Protestant denomination.

The reasons evolution couldn't create life are

1) Dempski's argument - It can't be due to chance (because I fail to realise that evolution isn't a pure chance process) and it has a pattern which I will conveniently attribute to an Intelligent Designer (even though I am assuming the very thing that is in dispute hence showing my mastery of circular reasoning - ie this pattern is associated with an intelligent designer, therefore said designer must exist therefore this pattern is due to him and must have been created by him).

2) Behe's argument - all living systems are a) complicated (ie requiring many different parts) and b) irreducible which I define as requiring ALL parts to function. By having these two characteristics it shows evolution can't have happened because such systems would never have worked as a simpler structure since it requires all parts working.

The second part of the statement is false - experimentation where we knock out both plasminogen and fibrinogen systems in mice show that they function if both systems are knocked out. But they are clearly simpler systems by virtue of missing several parts.

Moreover for those systems which are CURRENTLY irreducible, this simply means that they were not irreducible in the past, ie structures serves a different function to what it does now, and only become indispensable when evolution caused it to change its function. For example the wings of insects where not originally wings, but thermoregulators and only became wings when the a) the insect got bigger and b) followed by the "wings" getting bigger by a larger proportion. They then became irreducible in regards to the flying function.

[Superman]

You know, just recently a high ranking Cardinal in the Catholic Church made a public statement that scientific reasoning cannot be ignored, or the Church will "fall into the depths of fundamentalism." A reporter then asked him about the I.D. fiasco in Kansas, and he repeated the Church's stance on theistic evolution.

I just thought that was rather interesting...

[The Guid]

Theisitc evolution - God created life through processes describe by science including evolution. This view is endorsed by the Catholic Church.

ID - Evolution couldn't have created life thus an Intelligent Designer must have done it, somehow. This view tends to be endorsed by fundies, which are usually of the Protestant denomination.

The reasons evolution couldn't create life are

1) Dempski's argument - It can't be due to chance (because I fail to realise that evolution isn't a pure chance process) and it has a pattern which I will conveniently attribute to an Intelligent Designer (even though I am assuming the very thing that is in dispute hence showing my mastery of circular reasoning - ie this pattern is associated with an intelligent designer, therefore said designer must exist therefore this pattern is due to him and must have been created by him).

2) Behe's argument - all living systems are a) complicated (ie requiring many different parts) and b) irreducible which I define as requiring ALL parts to function. By having these two characteristics it shows evolution can't have happened because such systems would never have worked as a simpler structure since it requires all parts working.

The second part of the statement is false - experimentation where we knock out both plasminogen and fibrinogen systems in mice show that they function if both systems are knocked out. But they are clearly simpler systems by virtue of missing several parts.

Moreover for those systems which are CURRENTLY irreducible, this simply means that they were not irreducible in the past, ie structures serves a different function to what it does now, and only become indispensable when evolution caused it to change its function. For example the wings of insects where not originally wings, but thermoregulators and only became wings when the a) the insect got bigger and b) followed by the "wings" getting bigger by a larger proportion. They then became irreducible in regards to the flying function.

I think I have begun to understand why Intelligent Design is so popular. Its about people who are not particularly smart, not particularly dumb either but not with an astounding intelligence.

Let me put it this way, I don't like the Theory of Evolution. I don't see how we can go from single celled organisms to a human being. To me, it doesn't make an equals sign. The thing is though, I am not so stubborn as to admit that I am too dumb to understand it. Of course this has particular implication doesn't it?

I am less intelligent that the evolutionists then? It takes a big swallow of pride to nod and say "yes" to that question however I think there might be one saving grace to me here which I think some IDs have missed.

Just because someone is a clever scientist does not neccessarily mean they are more capable in terms of morality. It does not make them a greater authority on morals than anyone else. To me, they are not linked concepts. That's not to say scientist are immoral, they're just no more likely to be moral and indeed to have a greater authority on moral issues than I am. A kid might be the best at Chemistry in class but as soon as he gets into the Ethics classroom he stumbles blindly about like a mad chicken (heh... I love that mental image...)

Am I barking up the wrong tree? If I admit, as I just have, that anyone who understand evolution is better at Biology than me do I also have to cede to his authority on moral issues? I mean, I have no idea how in the name of blazes a series of zeros and ones make up this website but does this mean a computer technician has every right to tell me my ethics are wrong? Do I have to say, "Yes Sir" and move on? I would say no, and I think this is something that Intelligent Designers and Creationists need to realise. If you cede to people on science and creation logic - if you admit you are wrong. That does make your morale position untenable does it?

[wautd]

Theisitc evolution - God created life through processes describe by science including evolution. This view is endorsed by the Catholic Church.

ID - Evolution couldn't have created life thus an Intelligent Designer must have done it, somehow. This view tends to be endorsed by fundies, which are usually of the Protestant denomination.

The reasons evolution couldn't create life are

1) Dempski's argument - It can't be due to chance (because I fail to realise that evolution isn't a pure chance process) and it has a pattern which I will conveniently attribute to an Intelligent Designer (even though I am assuming the very thing that is in dispute hence showing my mastery of circular reasoning - ie this pattern is associated with an intelligent designer, therefore said designer must exist therefore this pattern is due to him and must have been created by him).

2) Behe's argument - all living systems are a) complicated (ie requiring many different parts) and b) irreducible which I define as requiring ALL parts to function. By having these two characteristics it shows evolution can't have happened because such systems would never have worked as a simpler structure since it requires all parts working.

The second part of the statement is false - experimentation where we knock out both plasminogen and fibrinogen systems in mice show that they function if both systems are knocked out. But they are clearly simpler systems by virtue of missing several parts.

Moreover for those systems which are CURRENTLY irreducible, this simply means that they were not irreducible in the past, ie structures serves a different function to what it does now, and only become indispensable when evolution caused it to change its function. For example the wings of insects where not originally wings, but thermoregulators and only became wings when the a) the insect got bigger and b) followed by the "wings" getting bigger by a larger proportion. They then became irreducible in regards to the flying function.

Just because someone is a clever scientist does not neccessarily mean they are more capable in terms of morality. It does not make them a greater authority on morals than anyone else. To me, they are not linked concepts. That's not to say scientist are immoral, they're just no more likely to be moral and indeed to have a greater authority on moral issues than I am. A kid might be the best at Chemistry in class but as soon as he gets into the Ethics classroom he stumbles blindly about like a mad chicken (heh... I love that mental image...)

and morality has to do with evolution what exactly?

[The Guid]

Theisitc evolution - God created life through processes describe by science including evolution. This view is endorsed by the Catholic Church.

ID - Evolution couldn't have created life thus an Intelligent Designer must have done it, somehow. This view tends to be endorsed by fundies, which are usually of the Protestant denomination.

The reasons evolution couldn't create life are

1) Dempski's argument - It can't be due to chance (because I fail to realise that evolution isn't a pure chance process) and it has a pattern which I will conveniently attribute to an Intelligent Designer (even though I am assuming the very thing that is in dispute hence showing my mastery of circular reasoning - ie this pattern is associated with an intelligent designer, therefore said designer must exist therefore this pattern is due to him and must have been created by him).

2) Behe's argument - all living systems are a) complicated (ie requiring many different parts) and b) irreducible which I define as requiring ALL parts to function. By having these two characteristics it shows evolution can't have happened because such systems would never have worked as a simpler structure since it requires all parts working.

The second part of the statement is false - experimentation where we knock out both plasminogen and fibrinogen systems in mice show that they function if both systems are knocked out. But they are clearly simpler systems by virtue of missing several parts.

Moreover for those systems which are CURRENTLY irreducible, this simply means that they were not irreducible in the past, ie structures serves a different function to what it does now, and only become indispensable when evolution caused it to change its function. For example the wings of insects where not originally wings, but thermoregulators and only became wings when the a) the insect got bigger and b) followed by the "wings" getting bigger by a larger proportion. They then became irreducible in regards to the flying function.

Just because someone is a clever scientist does not neccessarily mean they are more capable in terms of morality. It does not make them a greater authority on morals than anyone else. To me, they are not linked concepts. That's not to say scientist are immoral, they're just no more likely to be moral and indeed to have a greater authority on moral issues than I am. A kid might be the best at Chemistry in class but as soon as he gets into the Ethics classroom he stumbles blindly about like a mad chicken (heh... I love that mental image...)

and morality has to do with evolution what exactly?

In a word: Exactly.

[Superman]

Guid, are you just having an ADD moment or are you trying to hijack this thread?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Actually, I'd probably vouch for the scientist on the moral and ethics front too. Every qualified science graduate has dealt with such courses and it is constantly brought up during the degree, so rather than look at some old book by nomads as a template for these issues, they look at reality today.

[Anguirus]

While I'm the first to say that scientists are not necessarily moral, I would point out that at least they are trained to think critically. Any doctrine involving dogma must suppress, to whatever extent, critical thought in order for total acceptance.

Which is a blanket statement and a generalization, of course, since I know that there are plenty of awesome Christians and scientists who are jerks. But since making moral decisions does require critical thought, it's worth considering.

Valdemar also makes a good point; scientists are trained in ethics. For the most part, science regulates itself when it comes to ethics, and does quite a good job.

[Keevan_Colton]

Science itself is amoral as it is in its purest form a method of describing the universe and the universe is neither moral or immoral, it simply is.

Scientists however are trained in critical thinking and analysis which are key skills in ethical thinking. Scientists are the practical philosophers of our age.

[The Guid]

Guid, are you just having an ADD moment or are you trying to hijack this thread?

It was slightly off topic, but I thought it pointless to post another thread of ID/Evolution when I wanted to point to something in this thread.