Theory of Intelligent Design

A "fledgling concept"? What you refer to as a fledgling concept has been around since man began to think and speak.

 

What is the origin of your "involved" "intelligence"?

 

QUOTE="yabberefugee, post: 1067275621, member: 73761"]I would like to applaud all the deep thinkers that attack the concept of intelligent design, They promote many concepts that are quite impressive until they meet that dead end, From there they precede with something us Bible Thumpers have found long ago....Faith.
Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
Why this reluctance to admit to and finally embrace Faith? It is my belief that human nature has an innate desire to explain ALL things. In doing that, they believe they can finally dispel all Faith in a Supreme being and be god's to themselves. If one would study merely the Book of Genisis, they would find the inclination of that nature was with us from the time we developed this mass between our two ears![/QUOTE]

 

Faith has no value in the search for truth because it can lead you to any conclusion.

 

What physicists say that?

Tom Campbell is into woo.

No one can negate, with evidence, The Universe and everything and everyone in it was Created Last Thursday.

 

Yep...Faith and Hope.

That goes a long way toward addressing: What do you think the merits of it are scientifically?

I would hope that you could produce any evidence that the entire Earth was covered in water as described in Genesis. I have no faith that you can.

 

None. It's just a way to justify special creation. IMHO, intelligent design wouldn't create a mite that reproduces in the egg sac by a male mite raping it's sister by sticking it's penis-type organ through the sister's shell, and other brother mites are sticking their penis-type organ into the body of the brother, in order to hijack the rape.

 

I never asserted it as evidence. It is conjecture. I do a lot of that, given there is no certainty in many things, even if some people might claim it. Are you not one of these people? If not, pardon me.

 

As I have previously stated in forums;the conflation of faith as "unevidenced belief" with faith as "justified confidence" is simply a word trick used to buttress religion. In fact, you’ll never hear a scientist saying, "I have faith in evolution" or "I have faith in electrons." Not only is such language alien to us, but we know full well how those words can be misused in the name of religion.

 

You are just rejecting what some physicist think. Since you do not agree with them, you discard them as Woo Woo. Yet each on of them could tear you a new ********* in a serious debate, and perhaps even show your own beliefs are chock full of philosophical assumptions.

In fact you would disagree with some of the founders of QM. With my signature being one of them. But IMO, sir you are not smart enough to hang with any of these men you would vehemently disagree with. No offense. But your arrogance is a bit too much. You would even call David Bohm, Woo. All that many of these physicists have done is simply to take their knowledge of QM, and consider what the implications might be, without closing their minds off as your team does. It bothers you, for it perhaps interferes with your philosophical beliefs and assumptions. My opinion.

 

The word "faith" has two very different definitions. So I have no problem saying "I have faith in the Theory of Evolution"

I am also aware that the scientifically inclined eschew the use of the word "faith" because the religious science deniers often use it to attack them. To those who intentionally misuse the word I say - screw you and your ignorance - learn to use and understand a dictionary.

I have faith in the scientists who develop and enhance scientific knowledge. I have this faith because I am aware of the training and education these people have.

 

to claim we had to have a beginning or a creator, but then exempt that creator from the same requirement. I'm not saying you are making that argument, I'm saying that people who do make that argument are making an invalid argument, due to special pleading.

 

No. I reject what one physicist thinks.

Woo is woo. It is discarded by science.

Probably true. It's hard to argue with people who are into metaphysics (abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.)

Just because a person has a good idea doesn't mean all his ideas are good.

I have turned off annoying self-serving signatures, so I have no idea who you are referring to.

Just because a person has a good idea doesn't mean all his ideas are good. Just because someone understands quantum mechanics doesn't mean his philosophical concepts have any merit.

My team?

What bothers me is people who believe in woo.

You did not address the following...

 

True, but certainly we would be warranted in accepting it if it was our best explanation.

Notice that this hypothesis (or theory, but that can be misleading in this context) doesn't make any claim about what the intelligence is. It doesn't need an identity of the intelligence since intelligent phenomena has common features regardless of what we think the identity is.

 

That is not inconsistent with intelligent design, in fact, I believe that may be the explanation of the first cells (preceding biological evolution).

 

I am referring to scientific aspects here, not religious faith. What you say here has nothing to do with the thread topic here.

 

What is absurd about it?

 

Yeah, your right, it would be more accurate to call it a hypothesis.

No, natural selection is simply the fit surviving and reproducing, there is no managed goal here, just environmental and genetic pressures.

That actually is not true, intelligent design follows the scientific method.

 

Fallacious approach. You don't need an explanation for your explanation, especially when it comes to a hypothesis regarding systems.

 

So if I am to base my conclusions on your findings I must have faith in you. That seems to be what you are saying.

So much that science can't explain....then comes faith.

 

A scientific theory generally requires it to be testable and for it to make predictions and/or postdictions. ID doesn't adequately satisfy either of those conditions. It's for that reason that most rational scientists discredit it. It's not meant as a criticism against the belief in a deity or designer. It's just that it does not meet the requirements for it to even be a scientific theory. That's not to say that there aren't atheist scientists out there that dismiss it solely because it invokes God and aggravates their anti-religious prejudices though. A rational scientist, on the other hand, will avoid the prejudice trap and evaluate it for what it is. When doing so it still falls flat...at least as a scientific theory.

 

So for how many years have "scientists" put their "faith" in the "theory of evolution"? Actually so many, they now state it as fact!

 

False, intelligent design is not related to creationism.

This has nothing to do with some religious text, I am referring to a scientific hypothesis regarding an explanation for certain features of systems, not any religion.

 

What is absurd about what?

The blind guess that there are features of the universe best explained by intelligent design?

The blind guess that there is at least one god?

The blind guess that there are none?

Ya gotta be a bit more specific.

 

Which of course is unrelated to this thread topic.