Intelligent design is the concept 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,

The argument is, some things exist as though they were created not as a result of evolution,

Have you guys come across this, what are your thoughts

This thread belongs in the Religion/Philosophy Forum.

This thread belongs in the Religion/Philosophy Forum.

Originally posted by sedan
This thread belongs in the Religion/Philosophy Forum.

Einstein would have disagreed with you.

Originally posted by Frogger
Einstein would have disagreed with you. Have you been playing with your Ouija board again?

Originally posted by balugaa
Intelligent design is the concept 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,

The argument is, some things exist as though they were created not as a result of evolution,

Have you guys come across this, what are your thoughts
========================================

Could be that intelligent design had a hand in certain features/events of the universe. I believe the source of the intelligence is where the debate would intensify.

No ouija board. I have read enough about and by Einstein to know that he believed in God and that the universe wasn't just due to random chance. Hence his statement to the effect that God does not play dice with the universe.

Originally posted by Frogger
No ouija board. I have read enough about and by Einstein to know that he believed in God and that the universe wasn't just due to random chance. Hence his statement to the effect that God does not play dice with the universe. Oh yeah? Well, I've read a few articles about this Einstein guy too! So I KNOW what he woud say. He would say: "You are WRONG, Frogger!!"

Seriously, I'll concede the point if you can find Einstein saying anything close to 'some species exist as they were created'. But since we both know that isn't going to happen, why don't we stop pretending that either one of us knows where in an internet forum Einstein thinks a discussion of ID belongs.

Sedan

Albert Einstein definetly believed in Intelligent Design. Here is a direct quote.

"I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe Intelligent Design should be taught in science classrooms around the world. Anyone who disagrees with me is a putz." Albert Einstein

Frogger

Everyone knows he was talking about Swedish furniture when he said that. Stop being coy.

No, if that were the case he would have said,
"I believe in Ikea. I believe Ikea should be taught in science classrooms around the world. Anyone who disagrees with me is a putz." Albert Einstein

Frogger

Einstein made the comment right after meeting Ingvar Kamprad in Stockholm in 1952. Only a dedicated revisionist such as yourself could possibly misconstrue his meaning.

If you remember, the meeting with Kamprad was held during a blessing of the animals. Einstein was especially moved when he beheld God's handiwork in the myriad forms of all the animals being blessed.

Your anecdote turns out to be apocryphal, an 'urban myth' if you will. The neo-Franciscan Dr. Albert Schweitzer was also in Stockholm in 1952 to receive his Nobel Peace Prize. It was he, not Dr. Albert Einstein who attended the blessing. The confusion between the two is, of course, understandable.



http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/418/ca63y5nj5ra.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3738/ca5liqmp0xn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2126/cag1arsd3fn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/9052/caubctbt4ul.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"God put fossils in the earth to fuck with us because mere faith is not good enough for His God sized ego. Faith over facts is much better"
-- Einstein

Originally posted by sedan
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/418/ca63y5nj5ra.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3738/ca5liqmp0xn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2126/cag1arsd3fn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/9052/caubctbt4ul.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Warner Bros. presents: Colonel Sanders, A Story Untold.

Originally posted by Evakian
Warner Bros. presents: Colonel Sanders, A Story Untold. I heard they were going to call it Sanders: the Evolution of a Colonel, but fundamentalist Christians threatened to boycott KFC if they did.

I heard KFC uses genic enehanced chicken. Do you think there any truth to that?

Some people, like Einestein, have adopted a combination view so that some god created stuff that can evolve. The flexibility in this school of thought is not so bad. It doesn't stop scientists from making contributions (such as medicine) by doing evolutionary research. And it makes the religious types happy.

I think evolutionary theory is meaningful only in so far as it is useful. So it doesn't bother me that much that you can't really disprove ID under this "combination theory".

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
I think evolutionary theory is meaningful only in so far as it is useful.I think Intelligent Design is meaningful only in so far as it is useful. Unlike evolution, it has no scientific utility. It does, however, retain religious and philosophical utility. That is why this thread belongs in the religion/philosophy forum. Or the I'll-make-things-up-as-I-go-along forum, if we had one.

I agree. ID is no science.

Someone needs to make a point for ID so I can argue against it. Its boring if everyone agrees

what about Armstrong?

Bear with me, but who are you talking about? Neil Armstrong? Dave Armstrong? Some guy on here named Armstrong?

Someone needs to make a point for ID so I can argue against it. Its boring if everyone agreesI can do so for fun though I will be role-playing.

<IDer>Newton was the first Intelligent Designer. He wished to understand the mind of God and so imagined the universe to be like a giant machine that obeys divine laws. He used mathematics to unravel the secrets of the universal machine that God designed. We all know the incredible power of Newtonian mechanics - it is arguably the greatest scientific theory ever when seen in its historical context.

Modern Intelligent Design theorists are following in this tradition by trying to unravel the secrets of God's biological machines. Rigorous analysis by Behe suggests that the divine biological design mechanism did not involve evolutionary graduation but rather spontaneous creation of fully developed organisms.<IDer>

Thanks for playing the devils- err, God's advocate.

Neuton was very brilliant, but all of his theories and discoveries can exist without a greater being. His belief in this matter is not reflected through his work.

What is this divine biological design mechanism? Does that refer to DNA, the laws of physics or something else completely?

Thanks for playing the devils- err, God's advocate.
lol. No prob. I don't know how long I can keep it up without presenting a straw man of IDer's arguments, or slipping in some satirical self-refutations. But I'll try not to.

Neuton was very brilliant, but all of his theories and discoveries can exist without a greater being. His belief in this matter is not reflected through his work.
<IDer>That's not the point. The point is Newton did imagine - or believe or presuppose if you prefer - a designed universe. This enabled him to construct arguably the most powerful scientific theory of all time (at least within its historical context).

Please note two things:

1. ID propoerly relates only to the biological realm. I was using Newton only as an analogy and do not wish to be drawn into cosmological debate here.

2. At what point do we stop saying "we can understand the natural world as if it was designed" (you do agree this was Newton's approach, yes?) and start saying "well actually just maybe the natural world was designed?" Remember that Galileo's ideas were first accepted by saying "ok, his theory works if we pretend the earth is not the centre of the universe" but gradually it was realised that the earth really isn't the centre of the universe.

What is the harm in saying let's imagine the universe was designed and running with the idea? It certainly did classical physics no harm at all!</IDer>

What is this divine biological design mechanism? Does that refer to DNA, the laws of physics or something else completely?
<IDer>ID refers only to the biological realm and not physics- even if many of the half-baked creationists you meet online get confused and try to apply it to cosmology. All I am saying is let's pretend, for now, organisms were designed and run with the idea. What's so wrong with that? Maybe evolution was the designer's choice of mechanism although based on Behe's work this is questionable.

Please remember ID is science, however fledgling it may be at the moment. I am not suggesting that any non-naturalist events were necessarily involved.

Yes I am a monotheist, but that is just my personal belief and has no bearing on this discussion.<IDer>

(Really of course, as my screen title states, I am an atheist with little respect for ID.)

No response?

Hint: My above post contains
1) A fatal contradiction
2) A naive philosophical stance
3) A lie

<IDer>That's not the point. The point is Newton did imagine - or believe or presuppose if you prefer - a designed universe. This enabled him to construct arguably the most powerful scientific theory of all time (at least within its historical context).

Very well, but his belief could be wrong even if it helped him to construct a powerful scientific theory. I still fail to see the relevance of his belief in ID to the validity of ID.

Please note two things:

1. ID propoerly relates only to the biological realm. I was using Newton only as an analogy and do not wish to be drawn into cosmological debate here.

2. At what point do we stop saying "we can understand the natural world as if it was designed" (you do agree this was Newton's approach, yes?) and start saying "well actually just maybe the natural world was designed?" Remember that Galileo's ideas were first accepted by saying "ok, his theory works if we pretend the earth is not the centre of the universe" but gradually it was realised that the earth really isn't the centre of the universe.

What is the harm in saying let's imagine the universe was designed and running with the idea? It certainly did classical physics no harm at all!</IDer>

We could pretend that the universe was designed, but that still doesn't prove that it's true.

<IDer>ID refers only to the biological realm and not physics- even if many of the half-baked creationists you meet online get confused and try to apply it to cosmology. All I am saying is let's pretend, for now, organisms were designed and run with the idea. What's so wrong with that? Maybe evolution was the designer's choice of mechanism although based on Behe's work this is questionable.
Nothing's wrong with that. We can pretend that ID exists.

Please remember ID is science, however fledgling it may be at the moment. I am not suggesting that any non-naturalist events were necessarily involved.
Still, regardless of whether ID is a science or not (I disagree, but that's off topic), there still needs to be a backing for it. At this point ID is an unsubstantiated claim.

By non-naturalist events what do you mean?

Intelligent design is just a way of getting the Creation story into mainstream biology/science in through the back door.

I have more faith in the idea that if there is a supreme being that made the universe, then it's going to be found out through research on the way the universe works.

Also, keep in mind that if you do believe in God, then you don't need to go and twist the fossil record to fit the creationism story. If God is there, he doesn't depend on ANY earth bound religion or book to prove he exists, dammit.

Also, keep in mind that if you do believe in God, then you don't need to go and twist the fossil record to fit the creationism story. If God is there, he doesn't depend on ANY earth bound religion or book to prove he exists, dammit.

Well said, but still you need to have a reason to believe that God exists. If there was no religion and books to order you to believe in God, then you would either be an atheist or have to invent a God for yourself.