Intelligent Design

Whip gets another spin off!

Published on August 13, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

OK, we have what, a bushel full of articles on Intelligent design (ID)? OK, here is another, and for the record.

Do I believe in ID? I believe that it is a possibility.

Why? Because evolution does not address all the questions and there are a ton of inconsistencies.

DO I know it is true? Hello! I said it was a possibility, not a fact.

Do I advocate teaching it in science class? NO! I believe in teaching it in philosophy as I think all my answers are consistent with.

Can it be true? Until we know all the facts, YES! The simple facts that the theories now taught as facts have holes in them, means that the possibilities exist.

In the end, it may or may not be true. But this is what I do believe (outside of religion).

We are not alone. Our solar system is young. There may be races out there far older than ours and may have visited our planet before. How would one explain the fact that the Egyptians, Mayans, Incans and Aztecs created pyramids? Sure random chance plays a part. IT could be random. But is it?

I will tell you what I am not. I am not a human ego centrist. I don't believe in this vast universe that we are the only sentient beings. We may be the most advanced, or we may not.

To me, ID has very little to do with a God, and everything to do with seeding the stars.

just suppose we finally reach out to the stars. And we find some earth like planets that are a botanical garden, yet with no animal life. Do you think we are going to just leave it that way? NO! We are going to 'seed' it. And seed it with animal life, and perhaps if our TECHNOLOGY is advanced enough, with sentient life.

Why? It may be to have a bunch of willing farmers to grow food for us. It may be so that astronauts can have some one to talk to. Or it may be that a marooned astronaut got horny!

I find it laughable that so many are so willing to dismiss the idea of ID when the fact is the more we learn, the more we realize we plain don't know.

Science (yes that bug a boo!) has traced human ancestry to a woman in Africa about 250k years ago. So who was the father? Can anyone prove to me the father was not an alien? can Darwin explain that?

The answer to both is NO. It may have been oog the cave man. It may not have been. And you know why?

Because we DON'T KNOW.

So to those who are so adamant against ID, I challenge you. Explain why we can trace humanity to a single female 250k years ago. And yet we don't know the father.

you do that, and I will abandon this hypothesis. Until then, I only have one thing to say.

The earth is not flat! Open your mind to the possibilities!

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Aug 13, 2005

In this case, I really do have to ask, why are we being luddites? After all, no one can prove (yet) that it is false. and in fact, it really does not have anything to do with religion, albeit it is not contradictory to most religious beliefs.

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

Do I advocate teaching it in science class? NO! I believe in teaching it in philosophy as I think all my answers are consistent with.

After all, no one can prove (yet) that it is false. and in fact, it really does not have anything to do with religion, albeit it is not contradictory to most religious beliefs.

I don't think the problem is not with ID in general, I think it's with the fact that many want it taught in science class.

bakerstreet

on Aug 13, 2005

"I think it's with the fact that many want it taught in science class."

"Taught" is pretty general in this case, and doesn't really describe what the cases most often cited are even about.

I think the reality is many people don't want the assumption made in science class that ID is invalid. This isn't just an assault on unbiased science, there's plenty of call and response on both sides, as evidenced by the insensitive remarks being cast back and forth here...

Draginol

on Aug 13, 2005

What inconsistencies are there in the theory of evolution? Can you name one?

1) Do you not believe that genetic mutations occur in nature? Because this is documented fact.

2) Do you not believe that genes are passed down to ones offspring? Because this is a documented fact.

3) Do you believe that those best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive than those who are not?

4) Do you believe that if enough genetic changes occur in a group of organisms that they will eventually be unable to reproduce with the original group?

5) Do you believe that the Earth's age can be measured in billions of years?

If you believe these 5 things, you're an evolutionist.

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

"Taught" is pretty general in this case, and doesn't really describe what the cases most often cited are even about.

It's what the article is about.

I think the reality is many people don't want the assumption made in science class that ID is invalid.

That assumption isn't made simply because evolution is taught. Is there an assumption that geometry is invalid because it's not taught in an English class?

There is a place for ID to be taught in school. It's just not a science class.

bakerstreet

on Aug 13, 2005

"It's what the article is about."

I know. That's why I think it is a bit difficult to discuss teaching something in class when no one wants to address what is going to be taught (when most people aren't suggesting anything be "taught" at all). I guess we could insist that references to God and religion be purged from any recommended science reading, but you are going to axe a lot on the other side at the same time.

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

That's why I think it is a bit difficult to discuss teaching something in class when no one wants to address what is going to be taught (when most people aren't suggesting anything be "taught" at all).

I think this would be remedied if the proponents of teaching it proposed teaching it in a philosophy class, as opposed to "alongside Darwinism."

bakerstreet

on Aug 13, 2005

"I think this would be remedied if the proponents of teaching it proposed teaching it in a philosophy class, as opposed to "alongside Darwinism."

Which is where they would probably want it, if they didn't feel that the "Darwinian" environment wasn't confusing and hurtful to kids who need to understand that they can believe what they like without their intelligence being called into question. As I said, you can't see this as an random attack, this is created by a particular environment.

When someone in intellectual authority, who dictates your success by grading what you write, spends 50 minutes grinding away at your beliefs, sometimes it doesn't help that 6 months later you get a bit of vindication in another class. Your beliefs are still squelched, and that is difficult for some people to deal with.

philomedy

on Aug 13, 2005

When someone in intellectual authority, who dictates your success by grading what you write, spends 50 minutes grinding away at your beliefs, sometimes it doesn't help that 6 months later you get a bit of vindication in another class.

The way that certain horrible teachers go about their job is not "the Darwinian environent", though, nor is it Darwinism, or evolution. What you're talking about is flawed individuals. Since we have no way of knowing which of these individuals is flawed, we cannot take action until the "crime", as it were, is committed.

Like you said in a response to one of my articles, we cannot start policing the crimes before they happen. There is nothing about evolution that is inherently threatening or hostile to anyone's religious beliefs. It isn't right to police the theory because some teachers don't know what they're doing.

Shovelheat

on Aug 13, 2005

Science (yes that bug a boo!) has traced human ancestry to a woman in Africa about 250k years ago. So who was the father? Can anyone prove to me the father was not an alien? can Darwin explain that?

Hmmm... what's that occam's razor thingy?

drmiler

on Aug 14, 2005

Uhhh hey guys? Here's the original article that started this whole mess. Can "ANY" of you show me where they talk about "teaching" ID?

I just don't understand the Left's utter paranoia about mentioning the sheer possibility that God exists. There is an article by Claudia Wallis in the August 15th issue of Time Magazine that discusses the current flap over Darwinisn/Intelligent Design, and after reading it I honestly can't grasp what the left's problem is in regards to this issue. Here is the opening paragraph from that article.

"Sometime in the late fall, unless a federal court intervenes, ninth-graders at the public high school in Dover, Pa., will witness an unusual scene in biology class. The superintendent of schools, Richard Nilsen, will enter the classroom to read a three-paragraph statement mandated by the local school board as a cautionary pre-amble to the study of evolution. It reads, in part:

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence...Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People" is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view...As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

After that one-minute reading, the superintendent will probably depart without any discussion, and a lesson in evolutionary biology will begin."

Did ya'll catch that?

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

I don't think the problem is not with ID in general, I think it's with the fact that many want it taught in science class.

In time that may be an option. But for now, I want to see it exposed to students so that perhaps one day they can prove or disprove it. Unlike the flat earth issue, we still dont know enough on this to not know enough.

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

I think the reality is many people don't want the assumption made in science class that ID is invalid. This isn't just an assault on unbiased science, there's plenty of call and response on both sides, as evidenced by the insensitive remarks being cast back and forth here...

I think in this case this is like PBA. The advocates are so afraid of an alternative theory, that they must fight any perceived heresy.

And that is the real crime.

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

If you believe these 5 things, you're an evolutionist.

Do you beleive that life sprang from comets?

Do you believe that Mutation accounted for the dominance of Cro Magnon over Neanderthal?

Do you believe that Darwin explains the difference between Cro Magnon and Neanderthal?

You see, you have gaps as well. Simple truth, no one knows this stuff yet. They may in time. Until they do, the real reality is we dont know.

I can believe in evolution and still believe in ID. SOMETHING made man the top species. Darwin? Prove it. ID? Prove it.

NOTHING is evident that would prove either at this point. So WHY dismiss one out of hand?

Dr Guy

on Aug 14, 2005

That assumption isn't made simply because evolution is taught. Is there an assumption that geometry is invalid because it's not taught in an English class?

Now that is cicular logic! Please, dont try that one again as it is very weak.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!