Does anyone actually still think that Intelligent Design is a winning theory?

I mean, it's one thing to believe God worked through evolution (which I do) but how do you say that God created us 6000 years ago with a straight face?

_EW_

Nope.

I beg to differ:

Clicky (http://www.discovery.org/)

Actually Ender, what you believe in is Intelligent Design. God working through nature.

And yes some people still believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Not taking into account the possibility that the six days could mean 6 non-Earth days to God. To something that exists outside our perception of time, 6 days could mean a great many things.

Interesting to note that the Hebrew word used for day could also be used to represent era.

I beg to differ:

Clicky (http://www.discovery.org/)

I should have clarified. I was only speaking for myself. :)

I figured :)

Interesting to note that the Hebrew word used for day could also be used to represent era.
QFT/E.

That often tends to be the problem with ancient literature/languages and how they are interpreted in modern times.

QFT/E.

That often tends to be the problem with ancient literature/languages and how they are interpreted in modern times.

Interestingly enough, the Hebrew word poth literally means "hinged opening." Yet in a verse found in Isaiah we can read, "[t]herefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their foreheads."

"Foreheads" is inserted in the translation I was reading where, in Hebrew it says, poth! Now go back and re-insert the literal translation, "hinged-openings" in place of foreheads. The translators were so put off by this, they purposely and intentionally redacted the original context to the point that many sermons are spoke that talk about the act of shaving heads when what's really said in the bible is the Christian god exposed their vaginas.

It isn't hard to imagine that people have been inserting whatever they want in biblical mythology over the years.

It isn't hard to imagine that people have been inserting whatever they want in biblical mythology over the years.This reminds me of a book I read once (http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170)...

Or probably any texts for that matter.

Does anyone actually still think that Intelligent Design is a winning theory?

I mean, it's one thing to believe God worked through evolution (which I do) but how do you say that God created us 6000 years ago with a straight face?
I just thought I should chip in that my mom, among many other people I know here find it surprising that a country as developed as the United States should have problems between hardline atheists on one side and people claiming that the world is 6000 years old on the other. >.<

I find it surprising too, but I guess I don't see the problem with there being any "hardline" atheists here. It implies that there is something wrong with that position :p

I find it surprising too, but I guess I don't see the problem with there being any "hardline" atheists here. It implies that there is something wrong with that position :p

says the hardline atheist.

Actually Skin, remember when you're talking about the original Hebrew, you are talking about the Jewish god as well as the Christian god. The New Testament was written in Greek. You would be more correct if you said Judeo-Christian though as the god is shared between the two faiths.

Wouldn't it be like saying to my daughter "my brother" or "your uncle" when referring to my sibling? They're still the same person......

Not completely Skin, As mentioned elsewhere God appeared to have changed between the Torah and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, that god was a vengeful angry god. However in the New Testament he changed into a squishy lovable god. So when referencing god per the old testament you should be more specific. Or, you could just write out YHWH and not have to worry about stating explicitly Judeo-Christian as the name would imply it. Technically the REASON behind Christ being born was so we didn't have to do all the crap from the OT. Most Christians don't even understand that much though. They follow the Church though Jesus was opposed to the Church....

It really makes a difference when you are talking about translations as well. If you are talking about translating from Hebrew, you are talking about the old testament, well more specifically the Torah. When you say Christian God, you are talking about both the Torah and the books written in Greek by the Apostles. I would think someone in the field you are in would have a better grasp of knowing which translation to use.

Actually Ender, what you believe in is Intelligent Design. God working through nature. Does he? Does that stand for all that describe themselves as Christians?

I’m a Christian that does not believe in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is merely a fake attempt at a theory in order circumvent a losing battle and get Creationism taught in schools.

Its still the same god. Yahweh didn't step out for "God" in a tag-team style match. They're the same guy. The fact that Judeo-Christian literature and mythology reads like a different god is because the perception of this god evolved with the zeitgeist of the moment. This is easy to do when the god isn't really there to begin with and Jews/Christians/Muslims weren't the first to experience evolutions in their deity. Other cultures have as well.

Its still the same god. Yahweh didn't step out for "God" in a tag-team style match. They're the same guy. The fact that Judeo-Christian literature and mythology reads like a different god is because the perception of this god evolved with the zeitgeist of the moment. This is easy to do when the god isn't really there to begin with and Jews/Christians/Muslims weren't the first to experience evolutions in their deity. Other cultures have as well.

Because BOTH religions still exist. One sacred text is used in both, since you are talking about a text that does not recognize Jesus the Christ(the original Hebrew Torah) it is incorrect to call the god the Christian god. The Torah is included in the Bible, but it is still the primary text of a religion that does not recognize the Christian faith as part of it's own and therefore using the term Christian in translations of the Torah is incorrect.

Actually Ender, what you believe in is Intelligent Design. God working through nature.


Intelligent design is the assertion 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."[1][2]

Maybe in a roundabout sense I believe that God designed the universe, but in the modern sense, I do not believe in Intelligent Design (ie that God said, oh, let's take this rib and put it into Eve, let's make a serpent, let's make the animals and the fishes).

Intelligent Design opposes evolution, which I obviously agree with. So thank you for trying to explain to me my beliefs, but for the most part, I can handle it.

I believe that God wrote the rules to the game, but how the universe is played is not his doing. TBH, I'm actually more of a deist (ie the "watchmaker" theory) than anything.

_EW_

Eh. I guess there is a realistic way to see the two as compatible. I've always thought that the two are compatible on some level without contradiction.

Perhaps even covering each others' holes and flaws, maybe? We may never know.


Just my :twocents:.

I read an interesting paper (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Barnes.txt) on this today, actually. The paper asserts that while it was acceptable at one time to posit theistic interventionism (i.e., intelligent design, etc), such explanations are no longer sufficiently comparable to the explanatory power of naturalism to be held seriously, even by theists.

They're compatibility depends largely on perspective.

From a strictly scientific perspective, adding the religious component is untestable and unnecessary. Sure, it could have been god, but there's no reason to accept that hypothesis and the model works just fine without him/her/it/them.

From a moderate/liberal/deist perspective, the science is undeniable, however personal belief favors accepting that god did have a role, regardless of whether the "extra step" is necessary or not.

From a fundamentalist perspective, the bible says god did it. Any one that says differently is wrong. End of discussion.

If the fundamentalists didn't exist, I'd probably be able to take it a little bit easier on the moderates/liberals/deists. Unfortunately, they do, and the Culture War wages on. :(

The thing is you can argue that God can use natural events to cause other things to happen. Like say have a volcano go off in location X to cause a rain of fire to occur in location Y.

The thing is you can argue that God can use natural events to cause other things to happen. Like say have a volcano go off in location X to cause a rain of fire to occur in location Y.You sure can, but if you know that natural events happen...err, naturally, then why? We know the mechanics behind volcanoes. We don't need god in order to explain them. So why add unnecessary steps which cannot be confirmed or ruled out?

Maybe in a roundabout sense I believe that God designed the universe, but in the modern sense, I do not believe in Intelligent Design (ie that God said, oh, let's take this rib and put it into Eve, let's make a serpent, let's make the animals and the fishes).

No. What you believe is Intelligent Design. What you've mencioned as "(ie that God said, oh, let's take this rib and put it into Eve, let's make a serpent, let's make the animals and the fishes)" is Creationism.

Intelligent Design opposes evolution, which I obviously agree with. So thank you for trying to explain to me my beliefs, but for the most part, I can handle it.

It doesn't opposes evolution. Instead, Intelligent Design justifies the creation of the universe to be God's creation. (ie that God created the Big Bang).

An interesting and somewhat funny part of the paper I posted earlier is that it said that many quite devout religious people who were scientists also believed in spontaneous generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Adoption_in_Christianity) (aka life from non-life, something similar to the modern abiogenesis). Who knows why abiogenesis is disagreed with now on religious grounds when it was accepted for a very long time before this, even at a time when religion was far more influential than it is now.

Instead, Intelligent Design justifies the creation of the universe to be God's creation. (ie that God created the Big Bang).= Creationism.

In the United States, it is against the law to teach creationism in any school that receives funding from the Federal government (it violates the Establishment Clause of our constitution).

No. What you believe is Intelligent Design. I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

So you believe in creationism?

So you believe in creationism? No.

I'm not able to deny the evidence of evolution or natural selection which causes my major issues with intelligent design beyond intelligent design merely being a gimmick.

Instead, Intelligent Design justifies the creation of the universe to be God's creation. (ie that God created the Big Bang).
= Creationism.
I thought that Creationism was the dogmatic adherence to the belief that God created the Earth in literally 6 days as stated in the Bible, not that He caused the Big Bang.

It will be interesting to see what will be discovered as increasingly powerful telescopes are put in orbit that can see farther and farther "back in time". Both (or all three?) sides of this argument may get their answer then.

I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

I was talking to EnderWiggin and he has made his point very clearly, so I don't understand why you disagree. And I never said that just because someone believe in God has to agree with Big Bang or whatever. I have just stated an example of what is Intelligent Design.

@ Achilles: I know that ID is a type of Creationism, but what I meant while writing Creationism is that someone beleives on the creation of Earth literally as stated in the Genesis.

I have just stated an example of what is Intelligent Design.
So was I, intelligent design is a fake scientific theory thought up by the Discovery Institute after they lost in the court of law. Someone that believes God has a hand in the Big Bang Theory does not mean they subscribe to the fake theory of intelligent design.

I just don’t believe in labeling someone as believing in intelligent design when it is a fake science only designed for political reason. I don’t care if people want to believe in creationism, intelligent design or witchcraft, let’s just teach real science in school and they can study creationism and intelligent design at home or in church. ;)

I thought that Creationism was the dogmatic adherence to the belief that God created the Earth in literally 6 days as stated in the Bible,= Fundamentalism/Literalism

not that He caused the Big Bang. For the purposes of U.S. law, still = Creationism.

It will be interesting to see what will be discovered as increasingly powerful telescopes are put in orbit that can see farther and farther "back in time". Both (or all three?) sides of this argument may get their answer then.No need. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Big Bang. Nearly every prediction that was made has been confirmed.

The only piece of the puzzle missing is what caused it, however we don't need that piece to know that it happened. So the question here is "did god cause the big bang?" and unfortunately, no telescope is going to answer that question.

No.

I'm not able to deny the evidence of evolution or natural selection which causes my major issues with intelligent design beyond intelligent design merely being a gimmick.

What would you call your belief/point of view then?

No need. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Big Bang. Nearly every prediction that was made has been confirmed.
Oh, I'm not contesting that it happened; I'm sure that it did. What I'm curious about its what came before it.
The only piece of the puzzle missing is what caused it, however we don't need that piece to know that it happened. So the question here is "did god cause the big bang?" and unfortunately, no telescope is going to answer that question.
I don't think that it would either, but it might show what the Big Bang was the result of, and what it came from.

What would you call your belief/point of view then?

diet christianity
christianity zero
the carbless christianity (low in transfats)

I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
So, you neither believe god created the universe, guided the universe, guided evolution, created life, etc.

What exactly does that mean? You believe in a god that has essentially done absolutely nothing ever?

Then why exactly believe in your god at all?

There are some concepts of God that view him as a sustainer of existence, i.e., God doesn't do anything because he does everything. The issue of intelligent design wouldn't come up in such systems since they are axiomatic, not empirical. With this kind of concept, saying "God did it" would be wholly redundant and the believer would have no hangups with science, aside perhaps from ethical problems which might arise (cloning humans, genetic manipulation, etc).

Oh, I'm not contesting that it happened; I'm sure that it did. What I'm curious about its what came before it.Technically speaking, the question is a non sequitur because there was no "before". Space-time began with the big bang, therefore there was no time "before" the big bang, therefore nothing could have happened.

Clearly this train of thought will only lead to bottom of a bottle of Tylenol, but I find it helps to realize that we are really sophisticated apes. When you consider that dogs can't learn Algebra, I think the fact that we can design cars means that we punch well above our weight.

I don't think that it would either, but it might show what the Big Bang was the result of, and what it came from.We have hypothesis, but unfortunately, we lack the technology to measure on the scale necessary to test them. Doesn't mean that we won't. It just means that these are questions that might not be answered in our lifetimes.

Brane cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology)
Zero energy universe (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html)

I'm sure ET Warrior would have other great links as well.

What would you call your belief/point of view then?
My personal faith.

diet christianity
christianity zero
the carbless christianity (low in transfats) Is that better than one of my friends’ suggestion of “closet atheist’?

So, you neither believe god created the universe, guided the universe, guided evolution, created life, etc. Never really wrote that. I wrote I did not believe in a Conservative Think Tank’s attempt to get around a Supreme Courts ruling and introduce Creationism into the classroom in disguises as “intelligent design.”

What exactly does that mean? You believe in a god that has essentially done absolutely nothing ever? No. I have faith in a God, but understand that there is absolutely no way for me to give proof of his/her existence. Highly illogical, but I don’t believe I’ve ever presented myself as a logical being and if I have I apologize.

Then why exactly believe in your god at all? Mark12:17

John 20:29
:D

dude, it's low in transfats

Technically speaking, the question is a non sequitur because there was no "before".
Actually it isn't, because it originated from nothing, as I suspected.

Isn't that scientifically impossible?

I don’t believe I’ve ever presented myself as a logical being and if I have I apologize.Do you want me to pull examples from just this thread or can I use your entire posting history to prove you wrong? :D

The reason your faith has never been an issue for me is because you acknowledge that it's not logical (a statement, which in itself, shows not only a capacity for logic, but it's application). I don't worry about what you're going to do in a voting booth because I know that you're voting with your head first and your religious faith not at all.

You want to have your cake and eat it too and because we're friends, I'm inclined to let you, but please don't convince yourself that you have me fooled :D

Actually it isn't, because it originated from nothing, as I suspected.

Isn't that scientifically impossible?I guess I would need to know which law(s) of physics it violates. :confused:

Even if we ignore the whole "space-time sprung into existence at moment zero, therefore neither 'something' nor 'before' apply" and try to soldier on anyway, we're simply spiraling into an infinite regress. We found "something" "before" moment zero. Okay. Great for us.

...

....

.....

What came before that? And before that? And before that? *initiate ad infinitum*

We have the same infinite regress problem with the god hypothesis however the god hypothesis has absolutely zero evidence, isn't based on any observations, etc. All of the weaknesses. None of the strengths. That we should be skeptical of the scientific "explanation" and accepting of the religious one smacks of a hypocrisy that I cannot even begin to wrap my head around (please note that I am not accusing you of doing so :)).

I guess I would need to know which law(s) of physics it violates. :confused:
The First Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics), specifically conservation of mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) and energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), unless I'm mistaken, of course.

The First Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics), specifically conservation of mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) and energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), unless I'm mistaken, of course.The big bang theory posits that all energy existed in a singularity which expanded, cooled (becoming matter), etc to become the physical universe. If you're trying to apply this to what came "before" the singularity, I'll have to refer back to post you just replied to :)

So you're saying that because the universe did not exist in the "before", that the laws of physics that define the universe cannot be applied because there was nothing to apply them to, correct?

Makes sense.

We have physical laws that make sense, are consistently observable, etc, etc when applied to things on the macro scale. When we try to apply them to the micro scale they break down (uncertainty principle dictates that we work with things on the basis of probabilities). Trying to unify these "two universes" has been the holy grail of theoretical scientific community for the last 90 years or so. Einstein was working on a "unifying theory of everything" when he died. Others picked up the mantle and the race has been on ever since (you may have heard of "string theory", "superstring theory", etc).

Anyway, yes, because the singularity existed on the Planck scale, the laws you are referencing may not necessarily apply. Once expansion was initiated (aka "the big bang happened"), they would take over.

I think both sides in schools need to be presented, debated, and let people make up their own minds. Creationism shouldn't be the only thought of the issue, and neither should be evolution. Both I feel need to be taught as they are theories. Let people make up their own minds. And it is a matter of opinion.

Some will only believe what they see as something they can touch, others are not sure, but the rest will have their belief regardless of evidence, or lack of evidence against or for Creationism.. But I feel in classes the debate should be allowed.

I think both sides in schools need to be presented, debated, and let people make up their own minds.If someone wants to cut another program so that they can offer a "history of religious philosophy" course in order to discuss all the creationism myths in public school, then that is one thing.

non-science has no place in the science classroom.

Creationism shouldn't be the only thought of the issue, and neither should be evolution.But evolution is science. Why shouldn't we teach science in science class?

Both I feel need to be taught as they are theories.No they are not. "Theory" and "theory" are not the same thing.

EDIT: Short podcast discussing scientific Theories (http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52009-04-16.mp3) (~8 minutes)

Let people make up their own minds. And it is a matter of opinion.No, it is not. People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

EDIT: Might be time to dust this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=7) off again. (~10 minutes)