I know nothing of what I speak. This is a brainfart at best, and probably "OLD".

I assume that the doctrine of Intelligent Design attempts to claim that the changes in organisms over time are caused by the influence of a given "higher power", rather than evolution. Changes in organisms over time, or "adaptations" (as evolution would call them) unarguably provide the organisms they occur in advantages for survival.

Now what is intelligence without a goal to be applied to? I assume that the "higher power" responsible for the changes of organisms over time has some type of ultimate objective or goal. A following, reasonable assumption would be that this ultimate objective would be to maintain a dynamic, self-sustaining, and balanced terrasystem. Considering the fragility of every ecosystem on earth within the idea of Intelligent design leads me to no other assumption--if our "higher power" meant to do anything but the aforementioned, then ecosystems such as those that exist on this earth would not have received the careful guidance they needed to exist as they do (having a reasonable enough balance between vegetation, pollinators, herbivores, omnivores, carnivores, decomposers, etc. to persist as wholes).

So, why is it that our "higher power" has ignored their assumed end-goal in their development of the human being? We overpopulate on incredible levels, use far more than our reasonable share of natural resources within the terrasystem, destroy entire ecosystems and cause the extinction of countless other species, and are in many ways destroying the planet's ability to sustain any type of life as we know it. We are, no mistake, completely unbalancing the terrasystem and combating it's ability to self-sustain--all with no visible end.

So, with the assumptions I've made thusfar, could the design of the terrasystem by your given "higher power" be... not so intelligent?

You raise a great point.. It's incredible that not one of the people who want ID taught in schools has attempted to comment yet...

Perhaps they didn't see it..

Bump...

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

It's incredible that not one of the people who want ID taught in schools has attempted to comment yet...



Nobody wants ID taught in schools, they want Creationism taught in schools. ID leaves room for people to believe in any number of non-YHWH gods.

ID is stupid. It has even less basis than evolution or creationism. I believe in creationism, though I don't think it should necessarily be taught in schools. I was taught evolution in school, and it didn't have any effect on what I believe, and it shouldn't effect anyone who actually believes in their religion. I don't see some people's problem with it being taught in school.

The Vatican just decided that ID is not science and should not be taught as such: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/18/ap/world/mainD8F7BDS03.shtml

I welcome this change.

That's been the non-official stance of the church for the past few decades at least. They still teach creation to kids, but when they're able to understand evolution, they teach them that.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

The Vatican just decided that ID is not science and should not be taught as such:

The only problem is alot of ID suporters think that Catholocism is a form of devil worship.

Well, ID supporters are also fucking retarded, so what can you expect?

So nobody is going to defend ID here?

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

So nobody is going to defend ID here?

The people who would don't stop in as often as they used to. Maybe someone will come and take the bait but you can't count on it.

At one point I believe we were promised a thread explaining why creationism is valid science, or some such thing.

I get the feeling the constant thrashing ID and creationism has gotten has been off putting for people who are used to the comfortable environment of nodding churches/conventions/shills.

Well, when a life-long Christian and conservative, appointed by George W. Bush to the bench, has this to say of 'Intelligent Design' in his ruling: " The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html) ", you know the case for ID is complete shit. There's nothing else to say really.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-22-2006).]

And what's even funnier is the Discovery Institute (a group promoting ID) called him an "activist" judge.

The way i see it, ID is not just a mere relabeling of creationism. It is a relabeling of one type of creationism.. old earth creationism, to:

1. make it possible for those that want to hold onto both a belief in the Bible and accept what science says

2. try to soften the discord of atheistic evolutionists toward Christians (reguarding, mostly, intelligence).

Basically, it seems that the intent is a way to make both groups say, "well, it's possible.." without offense... not that it has worked out that way.

Now, on a slightly different note.. chubbyman25 said, "and it (evolution) shouldn't effect anyone who actually believes in their religion." I dont think that the debate between creation/design vs. evolution is much of a factor in the salvation of those that believe, but rather the importance of the debate is for the sake of those that do not have salvation due to the belief that evolution proves (to them) that the Bible wrong (and therefore, in their mind, either God is lying or non-existant).

The intent was much more than that.

After "Intelligent Design" had been established in the classrooms with the guise of scientific theory (as the ID proponents hoped it would) they would slowly insert religious overtones until there would be nothing left except a Christian belief on creation and Christian morality taught in the classrooms, Constitution be damned.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The intent was much more than that.

After "Intelligent Design" had been established in the classrooms with the guise of scientific theory (as the ID proponents hoped it would) they would slowly insert religious overtones until there would be nothing left except a Christian belief on creation and Christian morality taught in the classrooms, Constitution be damned.

So they are trying to get schools back to how they once were... by teaching Morality.... what a terrrible thing those dirty bastards are trying to do LOL

Nope, they are trying to get God illegally shoved into schools and get their personal morality taught .

Ironically they are doing so by lying to students, teachers and the public. What a way to show christian morality. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Beta dealt with that nicely. Anything else xtreem?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Nope, they are trying to get God illegally shoved into schools

Do you mean "separation of church and state" type of illegal?

quote:and get their personal morality taught.

oh, i see. i didnt realize that 20th and 21st century IDist wrote the book on morality. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Ironically they are doing so by lying to students, teachers and the public.

While i would agree with you that ID is incorrect (even though it is from a different reason), it does not necessarily mean that they are lying. They may be simply mistaken.

quote: What a way to show christian morality.

Pardon me if i'm remembering someone else, but it seems to me that you've said in past posts that morality (or was it 'right and wrong'?) is subjective. If there is no absolute moral law Giver, then I would agree with you (or, whoever said it) but in that case it doesnt matter whether that christian morality is hypocritical or not (that is assuming that they are lying and not merely mistaken).. but in that case it really doesnt matter what people are taught, or believe or teach.

But if the Judeo-Christian God is the Moral Law Giver, then you still would have to prove that:

1a)these people are truly Christians

and if they are truly Christian,

1b)that they are correct in their understanding of God's Word

2)their intention is to decieve and not merely mistaken (in science and/or in doctrine -- which i pointed out that i think it is a form of compromise quote:1. make it possible for those that want to hold onto both a belief in the Bible and accept what science says

2. try to soften the discord of atheistic evolutionists toward Christians (reguarding, mostly, intelligence)).

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Do you mean "separation of church and state" type of illegal?

By illegal I mean a violation of the first amendment based on previous supreme court rulings such as the 'Lemon test' and Edwards v. Aguillard.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

oh, i see. i didnt realize that 20th and 21st century IDist wrote the book on morality.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The end goal of ID is to get God taught in school as the creator of all and to get their version of morality taught in school as well.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

While i would agree with you that ID is incorrect (even though it is from a different reason), it does not necessarily mean that they are lying. They may be simply mistaken.

As far as the recent Dover, PA case is concerned, they lied.

Lie: ID is a secular science and is not a form of creationism, the book being promoted is secular.

Truth: The Book "Of Pandas and People" (which was promoted by the Dover school board) is published by the FTE, a group who promotes textbooks presenting a christian perspective. Early editions of the book were about creationism. When it was ruled in ED v Ag that creationism could not be taught in schools the book was edited, changing "creationism" to "Intelligent design" and changing some of the focus of the book. The early edition of the book and the later edition give virtually the same definition for creationism and Intelligent Design.

Lie: A school board member told the court he did not know where the money came from to donate the ID books.

Truth: That same board member had raised the money in a Church and then funneled the money through his father so it could be donated anonymously to avoid the appearance of a church buying the books.

These are two off the top of my head.

Whether the heads of ID are lying or just mistaken is still up for grabs, however the fact they have stated their goal is to introduce religion and have ignored evidence against their claims doesn't bode well for them either.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Pardon me if i'm remembering someone else, but it seems to me that you've said in past posts that morality (or was it 'right and wrong'?) is subjective. If there is no absolute moral law Giver, then I would agree with you (or, whoever said it) but in that case it doesnt matter whether that christian morality is hypocritical or not (that is assuming that they are lying and not merely mistaken).. but in that case it really doesnt matter what people are taught, or believe or teach.

The point of showing how they themselves go against their own morality is to show the hypocrisy of their actions, and the irony involved in that hypocrisy. In this context, whether or not morality is subjective is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not they are going against the morality they claim to represent, which they have.



quote:

But if the Judeo-Christian God is the Moral Law Giver, then you still would have to prove that:

1a)these people are truly Christians

and if they are truly Christian,

1b)that they are correct in their understanding of God's Word

2)their intention is to decieve and not merely mistaken (in science and/or in doctrine -- which i pointed out that i think it is a form of compromise



He would have to prove no such thing. They have made their moral standing clear, what he would have to show is whether or not their actions have gone against the moral code they claim to represent; and in posting events where they have lied, or been decietful, he has done so.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Do you mean "separation of church and state" type of illegal?

By illegal I mean a violation of the first amendment based on previous supreme court rulings such as the 'Lemon test' and Edwards v. Aguillard.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

oh, i see. i didnt realize that 20th and 21st century IDist wrote the book on morality.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The end goal of ID is to get God taught in school as the creator of all and to get their version of morality taught in school as well.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

While i would agree with you that ID is incorrect (even though it is from a different reason), it does not necessarily mean that they are lying. They may be simply mistaken.

As far as the recent Dover, PA case is concerned, they lied.

Lie: ID is a secular science and is not a form of creationism, the book being promoted is secular.

Truth: The Book "Of Pandas and People" (which was promoted by the Dover school board) is published by the FTE, a group who promotes textbooks presenting a christian perspective. Early editions of the book were about creationism. When it was ruled in ED v Ag that creationism could not be taught in schools the book was edited, changing "creationism" to "Intelligent design" and changing some of the focus of the book. The early edition of the book and the later edition give virtually the same definition for creationism and Intelligent Design.

Lie: A school board member told the court he did not know where the money came from to donate the ID books.

Truth: That same board member had raised the money in a Church and then funneled the money through his father so it could be donated anonymously to avoid the appearance of a church buying the books.

These are two off the top of my head.

Whether the heads of ID are lying or just mistaken is still up for grabs, however the fact they have stated their goal is to introduce religion and have ignored evidence against their claims doesn't bode well for them either.

i concede. well met.