Is The Genetic Code Proof Of Intelligent Design?

I think you are basically voicing my bent on the matter.
there is a wisdom at play here.
Science continues to discover what is there…existence and how it operates…every now and then scientists toss out a huge paradigm of the day for another…

but existence still is there in it's reality…

the fact we heal ourselves is amazing, it's amazing that we get sick as well.

Am i permitted to say there is a wisdom to it all.

i don't actually Believe that God is some super being…but i do Believe God is the collective of it all and is wisdom incarnate . We are God , everything is God..Some of us use our will to an extent that would be deemed God like and miracle producing…i think quantum physics is explaining all that..

 

I agree with you and the other posters in the responsibility of profs to focus on the material at hand, or the lesson plan, etc. That's not entirely what I'm talking about when I say I see their agenda. First, other students bring up religion during the period in which class material is being taught, no matter the rules for a prof, and it is their handling of these situations that I recognize an agenda. Second, communication occurs in college outside of the prof's duty to focus on the lesson. Politics, philosophy, entertainment, and yes, religion is sometimes discussed openly prior to class starting, or after class, or in the hallways etc. In these situations, the prof has no duty to keep any discussion on track. And again, it is their responses to the topic of religion, that appear different than their responses to other topics. And most seem to frown on the very idea of belief in a religion from what I see...

- - - Updated - - -

Well, you will just have to believe that, because I am not giving up any information than I already have that could help someone discover my identity.

 

This is a bit like me tying to talk football.

When I started talking about the rink and how many goals, it would be a sort of tell.

You do not speak as one with any actual experience in the halls of academia.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, you sound like someone who does have experience at a University.

 

Why, because of the excess verbiage used to describe a point not related to why I feel there is an agenda against religion at liberal colleges? Of course the professors have a duty to keep on topic. That doesn't explain the bias that I see in off-topic discussion. I know the impression I have received of any talk associated with religion in front of anyone in authority at my university, and nothing said here will change that.

 

I have a different perspective. Most can't talk to you about it because most of what you talk about seems to be at best a parody of a creationist version of the theory of evolution. You would certainly get a warmer response if your opening gambits were not so bizarre.

 

That was the point of my comment. You are attributing a false agenda.

That makes no sense whatsoever. It actually suggests that you are projecting the mirror image of your own agenda, rather than recognizing what is actually taking place.

In those situations, the Prof has no duty to engage with you at all. But when he/she does, why would you expect them to not engage you honestly?

That is frankly absurd. I have never seen that, and I have more than one degree and teach myself. I have little doubt that what you have experienced was their attitude towards bad science. That you attribute it to some imaginary antipathy tp religion is entirely on you.

You can't honestly believe that anybody has the slightest interest in your identity.

 

No, because your description of what goes on at a university does not ring true.
That is why i made the analogy of me trying to do an after game show for a football game.

I dont think any of us who do have a university background have had any similar observations.

 

I never use excess verbiage. I choose my words very carefully. Unlike you, I have a deep interest in clear communication.

Of course, clear communication presumes having clear ideas to communicate.

Of course they are biased. They have earned that bias. There can be no claim of actual knowledge and expertise without bias.

That you mistake their bias for good science to be a bias against religion is purely a projection of your own sloppy thinking on others who do not share that particular deficit.

 

The statement about learning the ToE does not ring true.

Its like with what I observed about the equally bizarre parody of the anti christian professors.

Does not ring true as real observations of actual experience.

 

You say false, but it is my perception. And to be clear, the bias is subtle at most times.

I see the same attitude in colleges that I see here toward religion, especially in the science and history fields. Religion imo, is generally viewed as a bad thing. Changing one's religious beliefs according to the science one knows is considered a bad thing. Why? Imo, they are separate human activities, with separate purposes. Religion is generally discussed as something negative, that has inhibited human progress in history and science. Any possible benefits of religion to humanity aren't discussed in history, but the negative consequences are highlighted. If my religion says God intelligently designed the universe, imo, science is far from disproving that to my satisfaction. If they do, I'll change my religious beliefs. But until then, I'll incorporate what I've learned in science into my religious beliefs. And I'd appreciate if profs and others would stop acting like my attempt to fit my religious beliefs into what we know of science is somehow detrimental to learning.

I've said some critical things about various govt agencies here. I know people working within those agencies. And some people can be nasty, to the point of using this material against me in a hiring procedure. I'd rather not have to worry about it.

 

when you are right you are right

 

This doesn't explain the general scoffing at religion and morality in political and history classes. There is no theory of civilization yet. We do know that in order for science to progress, we need civilization. The Dark Ages show that unless a certain level of law and order, or civilization is maintained, science grinds to a halt. Unlike science, religion and morality need to be considered when making rules in society, in order to guide it. I think one thing history proves is that societies can spin out of control, and a lack of morality can be a factor. Religion and morals have a purpose in society. That doesn't mean they are always used correctly. But I have witnessed religion and morality repeatedly scoffed at throughout my college career, and sometimes open statements of ridicule are tolerated in class. Sometimes the prof participates, sometimes the ridicule isn't corrected. Either way, I sense an anti-religion agenda, especially against Christianity.

 

Assumes facts not in evidence. That said, if you come away butt hurt from a circumstance in which your opinions have not fared well, perhaps the crucible of ideas is an arena in which you had best not play.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about? There are several! Not that they have anything to do with this thread.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103201981293
http://today.duke.edu/2009/10/sucheta.html
http://bruceowen.com/emciv/341-08f-09-Theories.pdf

 

I've seen this sort of reaction pretty often, and it's a natural ramification of the "if you're not for us you're against us" mentality. Science, not praising Jesus every other abstract, must therefore necessarily be against Jesus. The history of (you name it - agriculture, warfare, biology, beer), focusing as it does on these specific topics rather than on Jesus, must necessarily be against Jesus. If classes don't begin with prayers to the One True God, they are anti-religion. Neutrality is not possible. There is no target of human curiosity into which Jesus can't be injected (however irrelevant it may be), and therefore leaving Jesus out is anti-Christianity.

In my college career, about 8 years of it. I never heard any professor mention any religion, EXCEPT where religion was relevant. Much of those years was spent studying politics and history, as well as math and science. I couldn't help but sense a NON-religious agenda. Which in my world is something different from an anti-religion agenda, but in the Christian world, apparently these are identical.

 

Sounds like my observation of 6 years and 3 months.

You speak as one who has been there, our hero of this discussion here speaks as one who has not.

Else, he sees things that are not there. I dont know how else a person could think they have had these experiences he speaks of.

 

I brought up the fact that intelligent design questions aren't usually received well in colleges because I know they aren't. But I realize now that my complaint is different from the complaint of creationists involved in SCOTUS battles. They seem to want intelligent design/creationist ideas taught or mentioned during physical/natural science class time, which I do not agree with. I have a problem with the slant on religion and morality in history and political classes (because I think understanding morality and society is more advantageous than assuming religious folks are nuts), and I have a problem with natural/physical science profs' cold shoulder attitude when I approach them with questions related to morality and intelligent design, outside of class. They must think that I have some motive to proselytize or something. That is not the case. I was never raised in religion. There was never a mention of God in my home. I went to church maybe 5 times from ages 5-11. It was during a neighbor's visit, when I was around 9, that I received a KJ bible. As a kid, I read it a couple of times. But that's not all I read, and I am not Christian. I believed in the creationist stories for only a few years, maybe until junior high school. I adjusted my beliefs from what was written in the Bible, and I continue to adjust my beliefs so that they at least match what is factually known in science. But in order to do this, I need to ask profs questions in private, which I do. Nothing I have learned so far shakes my belief in God.

But I apologize for taking the thread off topic into whether or not there is a bias against religion in academia. I tried to explain my thinking that led me here above, perhaps we can agree to disagree about the religion bias in college, so we can move on.

 

Couple of things.

ID cannot be disentangled from creationism, it is a subset of creationism.


If you find people get uneasy or dismissive when you bring up religion there are some good reasons. The campus I am on has pretty strict rules about discussion of religion or politics

And, if they assume you are out to pros. or preach, they can hardly be blamed. They get that
so often, and it is invariably so chick-tract, that you'd have to find a really dumb professor who'd want to step into that again.

I've seen posters for "debate", challenging any professor to get up on stage and mano a the creo-evo stuff. They never get a taker, but they win either way.

So yeah, they shy away from such discussions with you. If you convince someone first you are not going to chick-tract them, you will have more success. i think. Sincerely, I wish you good luck in that. I hope you do succeed some time.

 

Here I will also emphasize that "intelligent design" is repackaged creationism, it's pure religion. It won't be well received outside religious discussions, because it's irrelevant outside religion. And it won't be well received within religious discussions, because "intelligent design" is nothing more than watered-down and "wink wink" non-religious religion for the purpose of making an end-run around court decisions. In a nutshell, both science and religion rightly recognize it as a dishonest misrepresentation of religion to try to trick unscientific people into false beliefs.

Then a word of advice: "intelligent design" is a keyword indicating creationism, and it is nothing more than creationism. So again, it's irrelevant outside religion, and dishonest within religion.

Are you serious? Why would you approach a science professor with misrepresented religion and expect him to do anything but dismiss you? If you really wish to discuss these topics, seek out the religion or philosophy department faculty.

Another word of advice: the term "intelligent design" was invented purely and solely for the purpose of proselytizing and not for any other purpose. You can't even SAY this term without people understanding this.

If you're trying to line up biblical verses with natural science (and why would anyone want to do that?), why ask any professor? Just decide what YOU think it means. You won't find any science in the bible. Nor can science speak at all about any god you choose or invent. You are barking up the wrong tree.

I have never seen this bias. I've known professors who adhere to many different religions, but if they aren't teaching religion classes, their religion has been irrelevant to the subject and simply not mentioned. Outside of class you might learn each of their personal beliefs. But you SOUND like you see a bias against YOUR religious faith, which seems to translate as "others don't share the same faith, so they are biased!"

 

Certainly, by now you must realize that few others in this thread have any confidence that what you "know" is actually true.

That said, you also appear to be backpedaling here. Stepping back from claims pf mockery and abuse, you now are simply claiming "that intelligent design questions aren't usually received well." Of course they're not received well. Why would anybody expect them to be received well? Astrology is not particularly received well in astronomy classes either. So too for alchemy in a chemistry lab.

 

Hear hear! Zactly right on.

 

I am backpedaling out of respect for the rules. I could go on, but not in this thread.

 

I use "intelligent design" loosely, and I am not referring to whatever movement may have adopted the term. I don't agree with being packaged into a group of people that may or may not share my beliefs. I use experience and knowledge, which sometimes I gain through questions of profs, to determine my beliefs.

Beliefs that say the Earth is only 5-10k years old are ridiculed countless times here, and elsewhere. I thought that the ridicule occasionally seen in this forum and possibly even this thread (related to creationist beliefs such as the Earth was once flooded) was a method (despite my opinion of its effectiveness) that had a purpose. That supposed purpose is to encourage folks to learn scientific facts that might contradict some of their notions. If one can't ask the professors with scientific knowledge if this or that is possible according to the natural/physical sciences, then who can one ask? Asking if it is possible that the genetic code could have been designed by an intelligence is a perfectly valid question in my view. Without questions like this, I would still be believing what I believed at 9, that Noah gathered all animals of the Earth into a single boat.

I have a belief in God. I am not limiting my beliefs to what a group says they should be. This means I must justify my God with what is known through valid science. For me! To justify, I must ask questions. I apologize for not understanding your opinion, which seems to be that my questions to profs in private (or my questions in general, anywhere) are somehow breaking a protocol (one which I also don't understand). I'm simply being a human.

 

Oh no you don't. The term "intelligent design" was COINED (NOT adopted, coined) by Philip Johnson of the Discovery Institute. He was very explicit. The term MEANS "My god did it, but I'm carefully not mentioning gods. We all know who the Inelligent Designer was."

You ask others to tell you what you believe? After all, we all base our beliefs on knowledge and experience, and some of that is gained through reading, discussion, and other inputs.

What else would you expect? Do you think there is any possible sense in which that claim might be true?

The notion of a global flood is interesting and perhaps moralistic myth, but the claim that it's natural science is frankly stupid on the merits.

This is BS. The mythical fables in Genesis are so far removed from reality that no sensible person would need to ask whether they are actual history. Now, even the professors understand that nature can do some pretty unanticipated things. There have been natural atomic reactors, for example. But nobody writing the bible was trying to be historical about these myths.

Again, you are being evasive. The Intelligent Designer, being an alias for an omnicient good, could certainly have designed whatever It wanted. But a sensible question, rather than a leading question, might be "how could the patterns of DNA that form genes have come to be?" To drive a dead horse into the ground here, there is no possible sensible scientific question anyone could ask, that REQUIRES the presumption of one or more gods.

And as many have pointed out repeatedly, the "genetic code" is NOT a code in the sense of a symbolic encryption scheme. Genes produce proteins the same way that rocks thrown through windows produce broken glass - directly and immediately, with no encoding or decoding involved.

Why limit yourself to just one? I'm just curious, I have no problem with whatever you believe.

Why? If your god is limited to what science can address, it's completely superfluous. If not, science is irrelevant.

Nothing wrong with asking questions, but asking questions about science won't tell you anything about your god, and asking questions about your god won't tell you anything about science.

(And I will say that in my extensive experience, nobody ever asks such questions to evaluate their gods, since their gods are accepted a priori. Without exception, such questions are asked, at some level, to rationalize a pre-existing belief. The question to ask yourself is, IF there are no gods, what answer to what question would satisfy you that this is true, or even suggest that this is true? "Intelligent Design" is in the domain of people who instinctively understand that IF the Real World is incompatible with their god, then reality is wrong. Belief ALWAYS trumps facts when they can't be reconciled, forcing either a rejection of reality, or a re-imagining of reality, distorted beyond all recognition, to FORCE it to fit the Belief.)

 

We recognize that you are far beyond the level of the "Creotards" who usually so sully anything they touch.

Just keep in mind, Id say, that "intelligent design" IS about some sort of god.

In the pure absence of evidence of a god, there is not really a lot to discuss.

There are a number of solid possibilities there, including doing independent study. But sure, its good to be able to ask a expert.

Im not sure why you would ask tho, because of course it is possible. Nobody has any evidence, tho, so its hard to know how likely.

Always good when someone finds a way out of that cult, good for you that you made it!

I can see cross checking an interpretation of the bible against outside sources. No science is at all likely to reveal "god" tho. And really, if you could prove god, then of what use is faith?

If you ask about ID, you are likely to get people thinking you are going to play creo-evo, and
wont get a good reception.

I dont really see what there is to discuss anyway, on that level. Of course there could be a god; of course he could have designed as he chose. I personally would go with the properties of water
as a sign, if I were so inclined. But there just isnt really anything known at this time that show
whether there is ID or a god.

Sooo..... what does a person do with that?