Intelligent Design.

nesf

This is nothing original but..

You'll notice how the scientific community doesn't speak of intelligent design as science. Yes there are a few dissenters, but it just isn't scientific theory. Personally, I wouldn't take the postition that evolution is right. It isn't, it's just a theory.

The debate isn't between evolution and intelligent design. That could only happen if they were competing scientific theories. The debate is over whether ID is a scientific theory or not. Bluntly put. By the requirements of hard science (ie Biology in this case), it could not even be considered to be one.

As a social issue. Meh, I don't care what you believe. Many in physics see God behind the equations. But they don't change the theories to suit it. If you want to say that God is behind life, then go ahead and say it. Just don't try and dress it up as science. It isn't. Science is neutral in this regard.

Science is not concerned with the meaning behind reality. It just cares about reality. Whether you want to draw religious conclusions from science or not is a matter of personal taste. Science is not anti-religion. No scientific theory proves or disproves God. It can't. All science can measure and explain is the reality around us. God isn't exactly part of that in any way we can measure or quantify at the moment.

There is plenty that science can't measure or quantify. And thus can't disprove or prove. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong about what it can measure. It just means it can't explain everything at this moment in time.

Hobbes

The only real difference between the two is that if Darwins theory was found to be bunk it would be dropped for a more favourable one. That is not the case with ID.

There are so many holes in ID as a science though. Take teething and diabetes for examples.

supersheep

Hobbes wrote:

The only real difference between the two is that if Darwins theory was found to be bunk it would be dropped for a more favourable one. That is not the case with ID.

There are so many holes in ID as a science though. Take teething and diabetes for examples.

Ok, I don't understand how they show ID is stupid. My brain is a little mushy at the mo, wanna explain please?

Hobbes

supersheep wrote:

Ok, I don't understand how they show ID is stupid. My brain is a little mushy at the mo, wanna explain please?

ID is based on that everything is so complex and working great that it must be a higher beings will. So explain teething? Why does a child have to go through a few months of pain as teeth slowly push through the gums. (probably an example as I have to wake up every night to deal with it at the moment ).

It doesn't seem very intelligent a design at all.

As for diabetes. Darwins law stated that inferior makeups would eventually die off leaving the fittest to survive (or something like that). Now with diabetes these people would die off manys years back and the amount of procreation would of been low. Modern day we have treatment to live with diabetes and because of this a large number of the earths population is expected to have diabetes in the coming generations.

Again it doesn't come across as a very intelligent design.

mycroft

Hobbes wrote:

ID is based on that everything is so complex and working great that it must be a higher beings will. So explain teething? Why does a child have to go through a few months of pain as teeth slowly push through the gums. (probably an example as I have to wake up every night to deal with it at the moment ).

It doesn't seem very intelligent a design at all.

Yeah i'm thinking Mrs Hobbes might strongly disagree about the "design flaw" of children not coming into this world with a full set of nashers, during, y'know, the whole breast feeding period........

Hobbes

mycroft wrote:

Yeah i'm thinking Mrs Hobbes might strongly disagree about the "design flaw" of children not coming into this world with a full set of nashers, during, y'know, the whole breast feeding period........

But then if the design was much more intelligent it wouldn't be an issue as they would start off on food straight away or it wouldn't hurt the mother, instead the child has to suffer a large amount of pain for some months and the parents get no sleep. I mean who designed these things? A committee?

bus77

Hobbes wrote:

But then if the design was much more intelligent it wouldn't be an issue as they would start off on food straight away or it wouldn't hurt the mother, instead the child has to suffer a large amount of pain for some months and the parents get no sleep.

Well, I suppose I must have a sort of Pantheist view of things.

So I shall gleefully start to disseminate my apparent religion.

Pain itself. What is pain?
A kick up the hole that your life might be in danger. It's a warning when somthings wrong. Now if you see that from a design perspective, it's a fair thing to say "the designer" views, or viewed 'life' as being important.

Hobbes wrote:

I mean who designed these things? A committee?

hmm... Polytheism?

Interesting....

mycroft

Hobbes wrote:

But then if the design was much more intelligent it wouldn't be an issue as they would start off on food straight away or it wouldn't hurt the mother, instead the child has to suffer a large amount of pain for some months and the parents get no sleep. I mean who designed these things? A committee?

Hey wait a minute you're right, if ID was true children would come out of the womb toilet trained, able to speak, and the first thing they'd do is fix "Ma'ma" some breakfast in bed, because she's had a hard day.