Intelligent Design: Viable Theory or Religious Rewording?

• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  It's probably not fair for me to comment without watching, but I refuse to contribute any money to this guy or his cause.
  
  http://www.expelledexposed.com/

  If you ever watched the documentary you'd know that Ben Stein and the documentary never claims to believe in Intelligent Design at all, the whole documentary is based around the fact that modern science has basically persecuted anyone who happens to believe in a form of ID. From firing people to blackballing them in publications because of their personal beliefs that have nothing to do with the science they were teaching/researching.
  
  That's the basis of the documentary, it wasn't a documentary on ID vs evolution.

  While they may not directly claim it, I don't believe the "documentary" to have unbiased intent.
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  While they may not directly claim it, I don't believe the "documentary" to have unbiased intent.

  You and I both know you can't claim that until you've watched it.
• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  While they may not directly claim it, I don't believe the "documentary" to have unbiased intent.

  You and I both know you can't claim that until you've watched it.

  That's not entirely true. I base my opinion off of reviews of the movie and rebuttals to it's claims.
  
  I can make the same claim for any Michael Moore movie. He may very well make good points, but I won't contribute a penny to anything he has a hand in because I believe he is a political hack who makes biased movies.
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  That's not entirely true. I base my opinion off of reviews of the movie and rebuttals to it's claims.
  
  I can make the same claim for any Michael Moore movie. He may very well make good points, but I won't contribute a penny to anything he has a hand in because I believe he is a political hack who makes biased movies.

  Show me the "rebuttals to it's claims", I wouldn't mind reading them.
  
  I have actually watched the documentary, as well as Al Gore's "truth" and some of Moore's...well, "stuff".
  
  I will say that Stein's for the most part never claimed one theory to be correct or false.
  
  About the closest he got to even hinting at his own beliefs was when one leading evolutionary biologist brought up the alien seed theory, Stein asked him how was that any less "preposterous" than believing a supreme being or "god" started life on Earth. Stein basically said that both the alien seed and ID took big leaps of faith as neither can be proven/disproven.
• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  That's not entirely true. I base my opinion off of reviews of the movie and rebuttals to it's claims.
  
  I can make the same claim for any Michael Moore movie. He may very well make good points, but I won't contribute a penny to anything he has a hand in because I believe he is a political hack who makes biased movies.

  Show me the "rebuttals to it's claims", I wouldn't mind reading them.
  
  I have actually watched the documentary, as well as Al Gore's "truth" and some of Moore's...well, "stuff".
  
  I will say that Stein's for the most part never claimed one theory to be correct or false.
  
  About the closest he got to even hinting at his own beliefs was when one leading evolutionary biologist brought up the alien seed theory, Stein asked him how was that any less "preposterous" than believing a supreme being or "god" started life on Earth. Stein basically said that both the alien seed and ID took big leaps of faith as neither can be proven/disproven.

  http://www.expelledexposed.com/
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  
  http://www.expelledexposed.com/

  Some valid points, but man, they are quoting bloggers for evidence and using opinions as facts for reaons people were fired. I think I saw less opinion in a M. Moore documentary.
  
  Again, I'm not saying there weren't some valid points on that site, but that had an OBVIOUS slant/bias even calling anything against evolution "bad science" a few times.
  
  I do have to admit, there were a few times that inadvertantly the website said "yup, expelled was correct" but then went onto say "but you can see why XYZ did what they did" like it was justified.
• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote: Again, I'm not saying there weren't some valid points on that site, but that had an OBVIOUS slant/bias even calling anything against evolution "bad science" a few times.

  I think both sides are obviously biased.
  

  jmog wrote:I do have to admit, there were a few times that inadvertantly the website said "yup, expelled was correct" but then went onto say "but you can see why XYZ did what they did" like it was justified.

  You do have to admit? You say that like you're on their side. Lol, that would be like me saying "I have to admit Expelled is biased trash."
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  You do have to admit? You say that like you're on their side. Lol, that would be like me saying "I have to admit Expelled is biased trash."

  Well, when most of that website was biased and you get a few times that it said the documentary was correct, the idiom "I have to admit" was not suggesting a 'side' more like a "wow, surprising".
  
  I find it interesting you won't watch the documentary because its biased, but use a biased website as your resource as proof the documentary is biased.
• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote: I find it interesting you won't watch the documentary because its biased, but use a biased website as your resource as proof the documentary is biased.

  I'm not so much opposed to watching it as I am to contributing to their cause. If I could get it for free I would consider watching it.
• 74Leps

  Haven't read every post, but will add this:
  
  Anything considered 'alive' has a code in it - DNA. A code contains information. Information implies intelligence. Life only comes from what is living.
  
  Intelligent Design actually has empirical evidence going for it, while evolution only has theories. In fact, ID is more scientific than evolution as ID is consistent with what is observed in the real world.
  
  
  "Evolution" needs to be defined properly before we can argue without convincing anyone from what they already believe. "molecules to man" evolution has absolutely nothing to back it up.
  
  Natural selection can only choose from a subset of what is already present, mutations are copying errors. NEVER is observed a truly beneficial mutation - one that increases qualitative sophistication - NEVER.
  
  Or would you like to provide a valid example . . .
  
  Maybe one of you 'evos' will suggest the nylon bug, for example . . .
  
  Richard Dawkins doesn't want to be interviewed by creationists or IDer's because he has no real answer for some of their questions.
• FatHobbit

  

  74Leps wrote: Haven't read every post, but will add this:
  
  Anything considered 'alive' has a code in it - DNA. A code contains information. Information implies intelligence. Life only comes from what is living.
  
  Intelligent Design actually has empirical evidence going for it, while evolution only has theories. In fact, ID is more scientific than evolution as ID is consistent with what is observed in the real world.

  To prove ID (that there is a designer) you would need to apply the scientific method. That's not really possible with ID. (Which is why in my opinion it does not belong in a science class.)
  

  74Leps wrote:"Evolution" needs to be defined properly before we can argue without convincing anyone from what they already believe. "molecules to man" evolution has absolutely nothing to back it up.

  Evolution = natural selection.
  
  We have somewhat defined that already. (at least in this thread) That can be tested using the scientific method.
  
  Abiogenisis = molecules to man. That can also be tested, but has not been proved. (Even if they do prove it in a lab, that does not to my mind prove that's how it actually happened.)
  

  74Leps wrote:Natural selection can only choose from a subset of what is already present, mutations are copying errors. NEVER is observed a truly beneficial mutation - one that increases qualitative sophistication - NEVER.
  
  Or would you like to provide a valid example . . .

  Sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. That's one mutation that is beneficial.
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  I'm not so much opposed to watching it as I am to contributing to their cause. If I could get it for free I would consider watching it.

  Can't remember which, but its been on HBO or Showtime a number of times, which is where I saw it.
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:

  74Leps wrote: Haven't read every post, but will add this:
  
  Anything considered 'alive' has a code in it - DNA. A code contains information. Information implies intelligence. Life only comes from what is living.
  
  Intelligent Design actually has empirical evidence going for it, while evolution only has theories. In fact, ID is more scientific than evolution as ID is consistent with what is observed in the real world.

  To prove ID (that there is a designer) you would need to apply the scientific method. That's not really possible with ID. (Which is why in my opinion it does not belong in a science class.)
  

  74Leps wrote:"Evolution" needs to be defined properly before we can argue without convincing anyone from what they already believe. "molecules to man" evolution has absolutely nothing to back it up.

  Evolution = natural selection.
  
  We have somewhat defined that already. (at least in this thread) That can be tested using the scientific method.
  
  Abiogenisis = molecules to man. That can also be tested, but has not been proved. (Even if they do prove it in a lab, that does not to my mind prove that's how it actually happened.)
  

  74Leps wrote:Natural selection can only choose from a subset of what is already present, mutations are copying errors. NEVER is observed a truly beneficial mutation - one that increases qualitative sophistication - NEVER.
  
  Or would you like to provide a valid example . . .

  Sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. That's one mutation that is beneficial.

  Sickle cell anemia is beneficial?
  
  Symptoms:
  blood restriction to organs causing pain and organ damage
  acute, painful enlargement of the spleen
  
  Complications:
  spleen infection
  stroke
  gallstones
  jaundice
  
  I could keep going, but come on, sickle cell anemia has 1 thing that "helps" and even with the laundry list of bad things its "beneficial"?
• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote: Sickle cell anemia is beneficial?
  
  Symptoms:
  blood restriction to organs causing pain and organ damage
  acute, painful enlargement of the spleen
  
  Complications:
  spleen infection
  stroke
  gallstones
  jaundice
  
  I could keep going, but come on, sickle cell anemia has 1 thing that "helps" and even with the laundry list of bad things its "beneficial"?

  It is when the person beside you is dying from malaria.
• krazie45

  

  FatHobbit wrote: It is when the person beside you is dying from malaria.

  I mean that's a bit of a stretch. That's like me saying that being born albino is good because it prevents me from getting vilitigo. Or that being born without arms means I'll never have carpel tunnel.
• FatHobbit

  

  krazie45 wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote: It is when the person beside you is dying from malaria.

  I mean that's a bit of a stretch. That's like me saying that being born albino is good because it prevents me from getting vilitigo. Or that being born without arms means I'll never have carpel tunnel.

  In the states malaria is not a huge problem, but the CDC estimated that between 708,000 and 1,003,000 people died from malaria in 2008.
  
  http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/facts.html
  
  People who only have the 'sickle cell' gene from one parent (heterozygous) are less likely to die from malaria and do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease.
  
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html
• BoatShoes

  a natural evolutionist will tell you that any mutation that improves an organisms ability to survive and replicate is a beneficial mutation.
  
  One example of a beneficial mutation in the human population is that a 32 base pair deletion in C-C chemokine receptor 5, a protein encoded by the CCR5 gene....this has a negative impact on the function of T Cells and is widely dispersed throughout people of European descent and is thought to have allowed Europeans to have a better ability to survive things like smallpox and the bubonic plague and now today allows homozygotes to be resistant to HIV infection and heterozygotes to delay the onset of HIV infection.
  
  Also...it seems to me it would be unwise for an itelligent design person to argue that mutations are always detrimental as that doesn't do well for the inductive inference that there must be design as the result of intelligence.
• jmog

  BoatShoes wrote: a natural evolutionist will tell you that any mutation that improves an organisms ability to survive and replicate is a beneficial mutation.
  
  One example of a beneficial mutation in the human population is that a 32 base pair deletion in C-C chemokine receptor 5, a protein encoded by the CCR5 gene....this has a negative impact on the function of T Cells and is widely dispersed throughout people of European descent and is thought to have allowed Europeans to have a better ability to survive things like smallpox and the bubonic plague and now today allows homozygotes to be resistant to HIV infection and heterozygotes to delay the onset of HIV infection.
  
  Also...it seems to me it would be unwise for an itelligent design person to argue that mutations are always detrimental as that doesn't do well for the inductive inference that there must be design as the result of intelligence.

  I think you'll find that anyone who understands the science and believes in ID or creation, that person also understands interspecies mutation/evolution. However, said person might disagree with intraspecies mutation/evolution (aka a fish becoming a frog).
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  If you don't believe that chimps and humans are related then you're either in denial or don't have all the info.
  
  IT'S REAL!!!
• FatHobbit

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: If you don't believe that chimps and humans are related then you're either in denial or don't have all the info.
  
  IT'S REAL!!!

  I agree with you, but that's not a very convincing argument.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  All you have to do is examine ALL the evidence....It's available. It's the logical conclusion.
• jmog

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: If you don't believe that chimps and humans are related then you're either in denial or don't have all the info.
  
  IT'S REAL!!!

  If you believe that chimps and humans are related then you're either an idiot or you believe everything you are told.
  
  
  See, I can make broad retarded statements too.
• FatHobbit

  

  I'm curious. If you don't believe that chimps and humans are related, do you believe that DNA tests can prove who you're related to? Can they prove who the father of a child is? (This isn't directed at anyone in particular.)
• BoatShoes

  jmog wrote: I think you'll find that anyone who understands the science and believes in ID or creation, that person also understands interspecies mutation/evolution. However, said person might disagree with intraspecies mutation/evolution (aka a fish becoming a frog).

  It's been my experience with creationists (not so much IDers) that the terms they use to describe evolution; microevolution and macroevolution have elastic meanings for them. For the scientist; Macroevolution is "any change at the species level or above" but a creationist will say any observed evolutionary divergence in biology as "just micro-evolution"
  
  In my experience, IDers don't have a problem with this...they just say the only way it could have all happened were by the hand of some intelligence...or at the very least, the only way abiogenisis could have happened would be if there was some intelligence.
  
  And, eventually this all eventually comes down to the cosmological argument because even if it were proved that monomers and amino acids could be formed spontaneously in the right conditions and that they can beyond a shadow of a doubt combine in ways, improving their chances to survive and replicate in competition, to the point where we would arrive at the world we have now rich in biodiversity....
  
  the committed theist, unshaken by any evidence at all (just like the committed atheist)...will always retreat to the inference that some kind of intelligence must have at least cause the big bang which caused the earth to exist and to have the environment it had which allowed for monomers to form and so on until there were humans with conscious experience of the world.
  
  The committed theist will never budge in the face of logical reasoning or evidence but perhaps only emotional persuasion because that belief goes right down to the essence of who we are.
  
  I just really don't even see the point in arguing about it...you want kids to hear about and ask the big questions, have the local school board require a full year long philosophy class when kids are freshmen that would include logic, a brief history of philosophy, morality and ethics, and philosophy of religion/epistemology (which would include the ID and Creationist accounts and irreducible complexity and other things). People who learn philosophy do better on standardized tests, are better at critical thinking and ultimately more reasonable people anyways...and, philosophy majors could have new opportunities teaching at the high school lever rather than hoping to land jobs at universities.
  
  Let scientists remain skeptics and work within the natural observable world and not worry about those big questions or "first philosophy"
• bigmanbt

  jmog wrote:

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: If you don't believe that chimps and humans are related then you're either in denial or don't have all the info.
  
  IT'S REAL!!!

  If you believe that chimps and humans are related then you're either an idiot or you believe everything you are told.
  
  
  See, I can make broad retarded statements too.

  Except your statement is retarded and his was backed by genetics.