Is Intelligent Design Scientific Theory?

[KenHigg]

I think that's a door they risk opening, yes.

Then I think this is a, if not the, fundamental reason why we need separation of church and state.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

See there is nothing wrong with criticising Darwinian Theory even its supporters acknowledge that 'survival of the fittest' is more complex than once thought. But saying there are problems with a particular theory doesn't make that theory false or make your theory true.

Good point dt. Darwinian Theory is not watertight; however to then leap from any weaknesses in Darwinian theory to "God must have created the universe" is very dangerous!

 

[KenHigg]

Nope. Intelligent Design is a specific theory. It has been put forward as a Scientific theory which states that the designs in nature are too complex to not be created by intelligence, or by design. The main underpinning of this theory was on the flagellum (not sure of the spelling of this) of a small organism (bacteria I think, my biology is not good), used to propel the organism. There were many parts to this, so many (say the Intelligent Theorists), that it could not have developed on its own through evolution. No single part or group of parts could possibly have a function, only all the sum of the parts together (there were over a hundred I think). This is wrong, and has been proved to be wrong through scientific method; inside the flagellum is a simple "syringe", which of course completely debunks the theory. Q.E.D.

In an indirect way, what you say could be right. However, when you state something as scientific fact, you must adhere to the rules of science, and when scientific method debunks your hypothesis, you need to take it on the chin ;-)

I guess my question should have been a bit more clearly posed; 'Is the focus of the intelligent design issue in the US centered around teaching religious assertions in public schools?...

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Then I think this is a, if not the, fundamental reason why we need separation of church and state.

I think this is an extremely wise standpoint taken in American, and one which should be espoused by more countries. I was very pleased when I saw the result of the original case of the Dover school board. A great triumph for American education I thought.

However, this begs the question of how George Bush is allowed to bring God into so many of his speeches... surely he's breaking the law there?

 

[Kraj]

However, this begs the question of how George Bush is allowed to bring God into so many of his speeches... surely he's breaking the law there?

It would seem that way, but Bush's freedom of speech is as protected as anyone else's. The reason why Bush talking about God doesn't violate the Constitution is because the First Ammendment prohibits the government from making a law that endorses or forbids a religion. Elected officials are free - and encouraged - to be influenced by their religious beliefs.

 

[KenHigg]

I think this is an extremely wise standpoint taken in American, and one which should be espoused by more countries. I was very pleased when I saw the result of the original case of the Dover school board. A great triumph for American education I thought.

However, this begs the question of how George Bush is allowed to bring God into so many of his speeches... surely he's breaking the law there?

Not sure how that figures in legally..(?) I guess if enough people don't believe in God and want say an atheist or Buddha person in office they can vote him in... So if he went on and on about Buddha leading him in his decisions he'd be free to, just not for long...

 

[dt01pqt]

Good point dt. Darwinian Theory is not watertight; however to then leap from any weaknesses in Darwinian theory to "God must have created the universe" is very dangerous!

I think fear gives these crackpot campaigns momentum. Actually I would be quite comfortable is someone gives an alternative theory so long as there was some supporting evidence. I don't think this campaign is about anything else other than the egos of the people involved.

I think the deck of cards example was a poignant one. If the cards weren't dealt out simply predetermined that would make life infallible. See life has failed to take hold in the majority of the solar system. So therefore it is entirely possible that chance was on our side. In fact the deck of cards is bigger that just evolutionary changes it included the conditions for life in the first place.

There is a perfectly credible theory that some forms of bacteria may have travelled to earth on a comet. This is the type intelligent discussion we should be having.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I guess my question should have been a bit more clearly posed; 'Is the focus of the intelligent design issue in the US centered around teaching religious assertions in public schools?...

Yes I would believe so Ken, wholeheartedly. Which for me is just wrong. It would also worry me as I would then question why this was happening.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

There is a perfectly credible theory that some forms of bacteria may have travelled to earth on a comet. This is the type intelligent discussion we should be having.

Indeed Where did life come from? Discuss.

Maybe not a thread for a Friday afternoon dt ;-) I'll be going home in a while to kill off a few brain cells, not exercise them!

 

[reclusivemonkey]

It would seem that way, but Bush's freedom of speech is as protected as anyone else's. The reason why Bush talking about God doesn't violate the Constitution is because the First Ammendment prohibits the government from making a law that endorses or forbids a religion. Elected officials are free - and encouraged - to be influenced by their religious beliefs.

As usual Kraj I can rely on you to explain all things the other side of the pond clearly and succinctly

 

[Kraj]

There is a perfectly credible theory that some forms of bacteria may have travelled to earth on a comet.

Indeed Where did life come from? Discuss.

This will be the basis of my new book entitled, "And God Shat a Comet".

As usual Kraj I can rely on you to explain all things the other side of the pond clearly and succinctly

Why, thank you!

 

[ShaneMan]

BTW, reclusivemonkey (and anyone else who's interested), for the record I believe in God and I believe God created the universe and life as we know it via the processes we have scientifically discovered. What I don't believe is that my personal belief can be proven or disproven, or that my belief has anything to do with science.

Well said Kraj. I believe the same and hope you don't mind me sharing your words to say "ditto."

 

[Kraj]

Well said Kraj. I believe the same and hope you don't mind me sharing your words to say "ditto."

Thank you! Be my guest...

 

[FoFa]

OK, my prior post was just to get you thinking (rather than trying to shoot it down). For instance, if the BIG BANG theory is correct, and someone like GOD did create it, than how do you know the universe is not exactly where it should be by GOD's design? Also in my prior post one that could happen is that life that we created on some other plant, in theory, could have a GOD in their eyes who created them all at once and the irony would be it would be us (as many movies/stories/books have protraied). We tend to look at these from a human perspective, and if GOD does exist, most likely our understanding could not encompass GOD's existance. So we can not say for sure that the universe is where it should be by some hand of GOD work, or just by chance. Science can't prove it one way or the other. But neither can religous followings.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

BTW, reclusivemonkey (and anyone else who's interested), for the record I believe in God and I believe God created the universe and life as we know it via the processes we have scientifically discovered.

Of course, anyone who has a "faith" should not be threatened by Science On the program which sparked this thread, there was a notable christian scientist (A Jesuit Priest was also an Astronomer) who said Intelligent Design was damaging to Science and Religion.

What I don't believe is that my personal belief can be proven or disproven, or that my belief has anything to do with science.

Ah, well in some ways we agree in faith then Kraj. Personally I am agnostic, so I too believe the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved. This is why to me Science and Religion can never cross. Trying to answer questions raised in religion with science, and vice-versa to me is only asking for trouble. I don't know whether anyone is familiar with "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", but its this idea that you can look for the "meaning of life" in science that drove the poor bloke nearly out of his mind! I will expand a little on my religious beliefs, but in reply to FoFa, as I think its more in line with his reply to me there...

 

[reclusivemonkey]

OK, my prior post was just to get you thinking (rather than trying to shoot it down).

No problem FoFa, I never took it that way, you were perfectly civil and objective However, I will explain why I can't really expand on your points.

I consider myself to be a religious person, in the William James sense. He said that we all have a religion; it is what we use to answer the unanswerable questions. I believe in a force which underlies every living thing, and everything in the Universe. However, I don't believe that any human being can even begin to comprehend this (God, if you like, in the Christian sense), never mind even begin to discuss it in language. If there is a God, or a life force, then it is so beyond our comprehension, any discussion is ultimately futile. I couldn't even being to start to discuss it. Every time I think about it (which isn't as often as it used to be), my brain starts to go on increasingly large infinite loops. I can discuss religion as a subject, but not my own personal beliefs and explanations for the universe, as I just don't think the human brain can even begin to tackle it.

 

[Kraj]

OK, my prior post was just to get you thinking (rather than trying to shoot it down).

I hope you didn't take my response as a shoot-down. It appeared to me that your scenario was intended to support intelligent design; I simply pointed out the places where I felt you needed to explain more in order for me to understand the connection. I tried to specifically avoid implying your ideas were wrong or invalid. If I failed in that effort, I apoplogize.

I don't believe that any human being can even begin to comprehend this (God, if you like, in the Christian sense), never mind even begin to discuss it in language.

If you're referring to complete comprehension of God (the term used for simplicity's sake) then I agree. I do think, though, that the human mind is capable of understanding the qualities of God that relate to the universe. Since humans are bound by the laws of the universe, we cannot comprehend the qualities of a force not bound by those same laws. But if that force does exist and has, at any point in time, had some interaction with or influence on the laws of the universe, we should be able to comprehend that. Does that make sense or did that come out as babble?

 

[KenHigg]

As usual Kraj I can rely on you to explain all things the other side of the pond clearly and succinctly

He does have a way with words...

(Enjoy this civil discussion while it lasts... )

 

[Rich]

I think that's a door they risk opening, yes.

BTW, reclusivemonkey (and anyone else who's interested), for the record I believe in God and I believe God created the universe and life as we know it via the processes we have scientifically discovered. What I don't believe is that my personal belief can be proven or disproven, or that my belief has anything to do with science.

Then where did God come from ?

 

[KenHigg]

Then where did God come from ?

Here the crux of the faith thing from my persective (In case anyone cares ):

When considering some things, like how things are in the really big and really small, at some point theories and faith are all we have. When the theories become weak enough, faith is all we have. You either have a weak theory or a strong faith...