»

[trekiej]

Ben Stein's movie is a documentary on scientist being alienated from academia for mentioning intelligent design.
It has a Richard Dawkins interview at the back.

[bloodline]

"Intelligent Design" is Intelligent in name only.

It is a fundamentally flawed hypothesis, that can not be backed up either by experiment or evidence. It is not science, it is superstition.

-Edit- As a scientist I will back up my claim:

List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classesList of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. According to The New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth". Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin", The New York Times. Retrieved on 28 September 2007. "Teachernet, Document bank". Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families (September 18, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-01. "The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer." Nature Methods Editorial (2007). "An intelligently designed response". Nat. Methods 4 (12): 983. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. Mark Greener (2007). "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?". EMBO Reports 8 (12): 1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131

[Wilse]

It is not science, it is superstition.

Precisely.

[trekiej]

Interesting, did we come to that conclusion by using the scientific method? :-)

[trekiej]

I will be as bold as to say that intelligent mind implies intelligent design.
If evolution was true would we even be having this discussion?
I guess we could say the same about religion.

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:
Interesting, did we come to that conclusion by using the scientific method? :-)

Yes, you put Intelligent Design to the test (we do the same with the theory of Evolution by natural selection). The end result is that the hypothesis of Intelligent design is shown to be false, but by contrast the hypothesis regarding Evolution by Natural selection has yet to fail any test.

Please note that I did offer examples in my original post. Every piece of evidence put forward to support Intelligent design has subsequently been shown to have a logical and verifiable scientific explanation.

This is not an argument for or against the existence of a god, but only that Intelligent Design is false, and the teaching of is is no more valid than teaching that the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

trekiej wrote:
If evolution was true would we even be having this discussion?

No.

So don't.

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:
I will be as bold as to say that intelligent mind implies intelligent design.
If evolution was true would we even be having this discussion?
I guess we could say the same about religion.

Your statements don't make much sense. Firstly you can't make the assertion that an intelligent mind implies intelligent design, that's like saying; because my cat is blue, the cars in the street can't turn right...

As you can see with both statements one must assume a great deal to connect the initial statement with the sub clause...

The existence of an intelligent mind makes no implication at all regarding its design, just as the colour of my cat makes no implication as to the functioning of cars in the street.

Maybe you can reassert the question?

[trekiej]

Huh? I do not seed the connection of the cat and the car. To me those are not relevant and I know that is what you are implying. It would mean to me that intelligence had to come from some where.
edit:
Sure, some would say that cats and dogs are not intelligent and some would say that they are. I hope you would agree that Man is higher than animal. I feel that purpose would/could point to intelligent design. Yet, there are people who say they do not know what their purpose in life are. My view is that man was created to serve and worship God.
end edit:
Gen 1:26-27 (God created man in his own image)
Gen 2:7 (God made man a living soul)
Sorry, if the Bible does not make since, they are not my words and I can not apologize for them.
I understand what you mean by superstition and would have to think about what some would call Hillbillies. Mountaineers who say that if your hand itches you are going to get some money and if the other itches then someone is going to get married.
If religion is superstition and that means to me that so is witch craft, Hindu, etc is also.

With the Bible I would have to say that what would separate it from superstition,at least in parts, is the eye witness accounts contained there in.
I do not believe that it is superstition in its entirety.
I will try to get around to reading what you posted. I do want to know both side of the issue.
Cheers.

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:
Huh? I do not seed the connection of the cat and the car. To me those are not relevant and I know that is what you are implying. It would mean to me that intelligence had to come from some where.

What is intelligence? We have electronic systems now that can outperform a human in their respective fields...

Gen 1:26-27 (God created man in his own image)
Gen 2:7 (God made man a living soul)
Sorry, if the Bible does not make since, they are not my words and I can not apologize for them.

If you hold them up as examples, but are unable to explain or verify them, then the words hold no more credibility than the words of a comic book.

I understand what you mean by superstition and would have to think about what some would call Hillbillies. Mountaineers who say that if your hand itches you are going to get some money and if the other itches then someone is going to get married.
If religion is superstition and that means to me that so is witch craft, Hindu, etc is also.

Indeed. I am a scientist. I only accept that which can be verified... I don't really care what people believe, as long as those views do not get in the way of science, progress and humanity.

With the Bible I would have to say that what would separate it from superstition,at least in parts, is the eye witness accounts contained there in.
I do not believe that it is superstition in its entirety.

The problem with the Bible is that, almost none of it can be crossed referenced with other writers, writing at the same time. Note that Jesus is supposed to be someone VERY important... yet, there is no mention of his existence outside of the bible, he clearly didn't make much of an impression.

All other historic writers can be cross referenced, the parts that match up we can accept as most likely to be accurate.

I will try to get around to reading what you posted. I do want to know both side of the issue.

I would suggest reading Richard Dawkins, he take considerable effort to ensure that all his books are well researched and beyond question.

The specific book that coverers Intelligent Design is "The God Delusion"... the first few chapters are awfully ranty, and can get tedious, but he does eventually get to the subject matter, and it is really good.

For a nice clear explanation please read "The Selfish Gene", which does demand quite a bit of the reader when it gets to "Game theory", but I still consider it one of the best books ever written, and should be on your reading list with "A brief history of time".

[Wilse]

trekiej wrote:
I will be as bold as to say that intelligent mind implies intelligent design.

I will be as bold as to say it implies nothing of the sort.

If evolution was true would we even be having this discussion?

If evolution was not true would we even be having this discussion?

I guess we could say the same about religion.

Indeed we could.

[Wilse]

I hope you would agree that Man is higher than animal.

Since we are all animals, absolutely not, no.

there are people who say they do not know what their purpose in life are.

I'm one of those. I don't have any need for a fabricated 'purpose'. I'm happy just to live my life, no 'purpose' needed.

My view is that man was created to serve and worship God.

In my view:
1. There almost certainly is no god;
2. Even if there were and this God created man to serve and worship it then that is one insecure, slave-driving arsehole of a god.

Sorry, if the Bible does not make since, they are not my words and I can not apologize for them.

But the difference is I recognise inconsistent horsefeathers when I see it.

Gen 1:26-27 (God created man in his own image)
Gen 2:7 (God made man a living soul)

Yay! Let's quote some scripture:

I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.--Dt.5:9

If the above was really uttered by your God then you're welcome to the vengeful {bleep}.

:roll:

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:

edit:
Sure, some would say that cats and dogs are not intelligent and some would say that they are. I hope you would agree that Man is higher than animal. I feel that purpose would/could point to intelligent design. Yet, there are people who say they do not know what their purpose in life are. My view is that man was created to serve and worship God.
end edit:

Before I could comment on the intelligence of a cat or a dog, we would first need to define intelligence.

How is Man higher than animal? You share the same basic planform as a cat, and share identical organs... where the only differences are the respective specialisms of those organs. You have a bigger brain than a cat, but your teeth and claws are essentially useless compared to the cat... You need to wear clothes, the cat has a highly developed fur coat...

By higher I suppose you mean superior?

I would suggest you think about this:

You and a tiger in the jungle... who is the higher organism? (hint- my money is on the tiger).

[Oliver]

Regardless of whether the notion of intelligent design is believed, it has no relation to science. It has no place in a science curriculum. It is neither derived by, nor testable by scientific method. Furthermore, as a postulate, thought experiment, or axiom, it leaves much to be desired.

Scripture also does not represent self evident truth. These are words written by various people over a period of time, edited by very political closed committe, and subject to interpretation and translation. Again, nothing scientific here.

bloodline wrote:
The problem with the Bible is that, almost none of it can be crossed referenced with other writers, writing at the same time. Note that Jesus is supposed to be someone VERY important... yet, there is no mention of his existence outside of the bible, he clearly didn't make much of an impression.

Are you sure about this? I believe he and his supposed virgin mother at least get a mention in the Koran. I don't know what the source would be for the information though.

[Oliver]

trekiej wrote:
Huh? I do not seed the connection of the cat and the car. To me those are not relevant and I know that is what you are implying. It would mean to me that intelligence had to come from some where.
edit:
Sure, some would say that cats and dogs are not intelligent...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't really talking about cats and dogs or intelligence at all; he was talking about logic, and your use of a non sequitur argument. Logic is an interesting discipline in itself, and one which is very often neglected.