You still haven't addressed my response. You're trying to suggest that, because some Christians herald ID theory, ID theory is therefore a Christian movement. Wrong.
(1) You are correct is stating that ID theory by itself "says nothing and attempts to say nothing about the characteristics of the designer" - and is therefore not "a Christian Movement". It seeks to appeal to people of all and no denominations.
(2) However, ID theory was initially proposed by Christian scientists (who, incidentally, soundly reject the "Young Earth" hypothesis and largely accept that evolution happens in neo-Darwinian terms).
(3) ID theory has gained momentum in America because "Young Earth Christianity" has been so thoroughly discredited.
(4) My "problem" is that ID theory is used almost exclusively by Christian groups (ARN, IDEA, "Reasons") pushing a largely right-wing US "conservative" agenda. Now, they can do that politically all they want - but it is bizarre and wrong to claim that they have a "scientific" base to their beliefs. (That's what the communists and nazis claimed too - if I may invoke Godwin;> - and look how much damage they did).
(5) Scientific advances - like the one cited in the original article - show how risible ID theory is. Our understanding grows constantly... It is ludicrous to announce "we've gone as far as we can go" in understanding any supposed "irreducible complexity".
(6) None of that says "there is no God". And who knows, maybe Science will eventually uncover some deep mysterious force behind creation - but it is just plain wrong to suggest that we've found any evidence whatsoever that one "must" scientifically exist.
(7) ID theory may not be an overtly "Christian movement": but it is not a "Scientific movement" either.
Wrong. Intelligent Design theory says nothing and attempts to say nothing about the characteristics of the designer. You're projecting here.
Oh really? Well, that's the ID drill (ARN ID FAQ) - but only because teaching the inference of "A Religion" from ID in public schools would be unconstitutional in the USA...
The whole point of ID theory is that it only posits the existence of a designer, and nothing about the designer's characteristics.
Hmmm... The whole point of ID seems to be to overlay religious agendas onto the framework of science, to combat "godless humanism";>
As I said, if there was any real evidence of ID, it would be like finding the black monolith in the film 2001... It would be the biggest discovery in the history of humanity...
The trouble is, the vast majority of life scientists - the experts in the field - think Behe and his fellow IDer's are simply seeing what they want to see - the fingerprints of god in natural processes.
Most Christians Scientists world-wide are happy to accept everything science teaches as "the work of God". That isn't enough for IDers.
Although it pretends otherwise, ID is a political movement motivated by a desire to support religious agendas.
But the vast majority of life scientists - of every and no religion - do *not* think that that there is a "proof by mathematical impossibility" of Intelligent Design...
Implying the existence of a god or gods from an unknown process is as much use as drawing "there be dragons" on the edge of a map...
My main beef, as I'm sure you noted, is the imposition of a given religious dogma from the "Intelligent Design" argument - usally "conservative Christianity"...
Just because we don't fully understand the mechanism for the creation of life, let's assume it must've been down to an all powerful creator...
No wait! Let's assume it's down to *our* set of creation myths, rather than anyone elses...
That means we are right and everyone else is wrong. From that we can justify free access to guns, bombing abortion clinics, and hating fags!
It makes perfect sense! Our God is a God of infinite love. That's why he cursed all of mankind - created in his image - for its first mistake in the garden of eden. That's why all the evidence he left in the universe contradicts the literal word of the Bible.
Praise the Lord! (As long as it's OUR Lord, and nobody elses...)
I'll be charitable and guess that they are "Intelligent Design" advocates.
How can we know that the odds against life occurring "are too great"? We are talking about a process we don't understand. Any guess regarding odds can only be a guess. And the fact of the matter is that we are all here... Ergo, life was created somehow or other. See TalkOrigins for more on the odds of life et al).
Conclusion 1: All the evidence is that life was created by natural processes. We don't know exactly how.
Nothing in that precludes the existence of "god". If a natural process created life, then surely it would be "his" natural process...
What IDer's attempt to argue is that the creation of life "requires" or "proves" not only (a) that god exists; but also (b) that he is a "conservative" christian god. It does nothing of the sort.
If there was any scientific evidence whatsoever of "design" in the building blocks of life - as the IDer's favorite Michael Behe suggests - it would be like finding a black monolith on the moon (as in "2001"). Behe has found nothing of the sort.
Conclusion 2: "Intelligent Design" theory goes nowhere (a) to proving the existence of god(s); or (b) to proving anything about his/her/its/their nature.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, forget all this magic man bullshit, we all know that the world was actually created from a gigantic explosion (let's call this the "big bang")
Well, the scientific evidence points to what we call a "big bang"... We don't know what was around before that...
So, we don't need "faith" (in the religious sense) to believe in the big bang - or other natural processes supported by evidence, such as evolution.
On the other hand, faith *is* required to believe in "the magic man" or whatever other creation myth tickles your fancy.
You still haven't addressed my response. You're trying to suggest that, because some Christians herald ID theory, ID theory is therefore a Christian movement. Wrong.
(1) You are correct is stating that ID theory by itself "says nothing and attempts to say nothing about the characteristics of the designer" - and is therefore not "a Christian Movement". It seeks to appeal to people of all and no denominations.
(2) However, ID theory was initially proposed by Christian scientists (who, incidentally, soundly reject the "Young Earth" hypothesis and largely accept that evolution happens in neo-Darwinian terms).
(3) ID theory has gained momentum in America because "Young Earth Christianity" has been so thoroughly discredited.
(4) My "problem" is that ID theory is used almost exclusively by Christian groups (ARN, IDEA, "Reasons") pushing a largely right-wing US "conservative" agenda. Now, they can do that politically all they want - but it is bizarre and wrong to claim that they have a "scientific" base to their beliefs. (That's what the communists and nazis claimed too - if I may invoke Godwin;> - and look how much damage they did).
(5) Scientific advances - like the one cited in the original article - show how risible ID theory is. Our understanding grows constantly... It is ludicrous to announce "we've gone as far as we can go" in understanding any supposed "irreducible complexity".
(6) None of that says "there is no God". And who knows, maybe Science will eventually uncover some deep mysterious force behind creation - but it is just plain wrong to suggest that we've found any evidence whatsoever that one "must" scientifically exist.
(7) ID theory may not be an overtly "Christian movement": but it is not a "Scientific movement" either.
PTET
Wrong. Intelligent Design theory says nothing and attempts to say nothing about the characteristics of the designer. You're projecting here.
;>
Oh really? Well, that's the ID drill (ARN ID FAQ) - but only because teaching the inference of "A Religion" from ID in public schools would be unconstitutional in the USA...
The whole point of ID theory is that it only posits the existence of a designer, and nothing about the designer's characteristics.
Hmmm... The whole point of ID seems to be to overlay religious agendas onto the framework of science, to combat "godless humanism"
As I said, if there was any real evidence of ID, it would be like finding the black monolith in the film 2001... It would be the biggest discovery in the history of humanity...
The trouble is, the vast majority of life scientists - the experts in the field - think Behe and his fellow IDer's are simply seeing what they want to see - the fingerprints of god in natural processes.
Most Christians Scientists world-wide are happy to accept everything science teaches as "the work of God". That isn't enough for IDers.
Although it pretends otherwise, ID is a political movement motivated by a desire to support religious agendas.
PTET
An interesting post...
;>
But the vast majority of life scientists - of every and no religion - do *not* think that that there is a "proof by mathematical impossibility" of Intelligent Design...
Implying the existence of a god or gods from an unknown process is as much use as drawing "there be dragons" on the edge of a map...
My main beef, as I'm sure you noted, is the imposition of a given religious dogma from the "Intelligent Design" argument - usally "conservative Christianity"...
Peace and all
Even better!
Just because we don't fully understand the mechanism for the creation of life, let's assume it must've been down to an all powerful creator...
No wait! Let's assume it's down to *our* set of creation myths, rather than anyone elses...
That means we are right and everyone else is wrong. From that we can justify free access to guns, bombing abortion clinics, and hating fags!
It makes perfect sense! Our God is a God of infinite love. That's why he cursed all of mankind - created in his image - for its first mistake in the garden of eden. That's why all the evidence he left in the universe contradicts the literal word of the Bible.
Praise the Lord! (As long as it's OUR Lord, and nobody elses...)
I am not a creationist.
Several posters have said this.
I'll be charitable and guess that they are "Intelligent Design" advocates.
How can we know that the odds against life occurring "are too great"? We are talking about a process we don't understand. Any guess regarding odds can only be a guess. And the fact of the matter is that we are all here... Ergo, life was created somehow or other. See TalkOrigins for more on the odds of life et al).
Conclusion 1: All the evidence is that life was created by natural processes. We don't know exactly how.
Nothing in that precludes the existence of "god". If a natural process created life, then surely it would be "his" natural process...
What IDer's attempt to argue is that the creation of life "requires" or "proves" not only (a) that god exists; but also (b) that he is a "conservative" christian god. It does nothing of the sort.
If there was any scientific evidence whatsoever of "design" in the building blocks of life - as the IDer's favorite Michael Behe suggests - it would be like finding a black monolith on the moon (as in "2001"). Behe has found nothing of the sort.
Conclusion 2: "Intelligent Design" theory goes nowhere (a) to proving the existence of god(s); or (b) to proving anything about his/her/its/their nature.
PTET