Uncle Martin Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 I'm troubled by the number of people that have been attributing some scientific basis to the intelligent design concept. This is pure religion, twisting science once again in a poor attempt to validate an unprovable hypothesis. The new age creationists have removed god from the equation and propose a conscious universe creating itself, among other beliefs. The "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics demands intelligent observership before matter comes into existence. Doesn't this conflict dramatically with Hiesenberg's uncertainty principal? QM is not my area of expertise, so more info on that and how it really applies to "intelligent design" would be appreciated. Does changing the name from creation to intelligent design mean it is grounded in science? I say absolutely not!! Opinions please.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 WEll depending on how you look at it, the universe 'could' be a form of intelligence unto itself. Not saying it would fit into our definition of intelligence, but with countless interactions taking place between gravity, matter, and energy, not to mention the 'infinate' scope, is it beyond all reason to speculate that an order might emerge from the chaos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Originally posted by: GAHDWEll depending on how you look at it, the universe 'could' be a form of intelligence unto itself. I think the basis for the intelligent design theory requires that there be an intelligence *before* the universe (ie, a God). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted July 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Originally posted by: GAHD..... is it beyond all reason to speculate that an order might emerge from the chaos? No, not beyond all reason. What I'm getting at is the creationists claiming the observed collapsible wave function as "proof" of intelligent design. The participatory universe. It seems as unfalsifiable as the rest of the creation drivel. "No matter exists independent of an intelligent observer",...this is counter-intuitive to me. According to this we are either living in the "Matrix", or there is some "supreme being". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 the universe could be a form of "intelligent" illusion in our brain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted July 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Prove it. And check your private messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Originally posted by: Uncle MartinI'm troubled by the number of people that have been attributing some scientific basis to the intelligent design concept. This is pure religion, twisting science once again in a poor attempt to validate an unprovable hypothesis. The new age creationists have removed god from the equation and propose a conscious universe creating itself, among other beliefs. Yes, ID is nothing more than another attempt by Christian fanatics to force Creation into public education. As we continually see, Christians, especially the more fundamentalist, have absolutely no compunction against outright lies. When their idiotic attempts to pretend Creationism has ANY sceintific standing fails miserably, they try desperately to hide their failure and instead try to find new ways to lie to people. ID is that latest lie. They have learned that having their invented god removed as a term from the Creationism nonsense stops the most obvious church/ state violations. But it's just the same non-science repackaged minus the word "god". As proof just how far these people are willing to lie about things, the premiere ID group REQUIRES their members (they actually have the balls to call "Scientists") to sign a CONTRACT which flatly states they CAN NOT follow ANY research which might disprove Creationism. Imagine claiming scientific evaluation can be done when you have to intentionally ignore any FACTS you don't like. Further, when it's adherents are shown their blantant lies, they repeat the same lies at a later date. When it is shown that they have now lied INTENTIONALLY, as their lies have been exposed previously in verified public venues, they lie and say it didn't happen. Unfortunately for the TRUTH, REAL science does not resort to lies and political force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolic Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 They have learned that having their invented god removed as a term from the Creationism nonsense stops the most obvious church/ state violations. But it's just the same non-science repackaged minus the word "god".Hi Freethinker,Have you heard of A. E. Wilder-Smith? He's a triple PhD and very knowledgeable in the field of biology. You can find his MP3's on the web if you Google him. You might enjoy listening to his talk on "Creation, Evolution, and Theistic Creation". He gives very good evidence for the opposing view of what you say. If you find fault in his science, I would love to hear it.Here is one location that has his material.take care,http://www.wildersmith.org/library.htmOne of his main points is the impossibility of the first life beginning by chance through natural means, and he gives the reasons why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wirth Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 I'm troubled by the number of people that have been attributing some scientific basis to the intelligent design concept. This is pure religion, twisting science once again in a poor attempt to validate an unprovable hypothesis. .... Well, if you say so. Your comment has placed the argument in the realm of "he said/she said". Intelligent design is closely related to information theory - so what's less 'scientific' about that compared to evolution? The only people calling ID pure religion are those who can't stomach the philosophical predisponsitions of it's adherants - which is a patently absurd reason. That would be no different than advocating the dismissal of evolution simply because many of its proponents are not religious in the slightest. Besides, plenty of scientists are on record acknowledging that Intelligent Design has merit. Are you going to dismiss them all as religious? Bad form. And besides, if anyone has 'twisted' science, it is the evolution camp. They have twisted science to the outer fringes of probability, extrapolation, and imagination - substituting them all for evidence and calling it MORE than adequate science. IDers by and large, believe it or not, are in favor of BETTER SCIENCE, not injecting religion into this debate. And, what's so great about a hypothesis that carries all the alleged trappings of science (evolution) but can't seem to get enough evidence together to convince 2/3 of the American Public ? What's your answer? That they are all crazy, unscientific illiterates? Or is it that perhaps there are some darn good, common sense, rational reasons for it? The new age creationists have removed god from the equation and propose a conscious universe creating itself, among other beliefs. The "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics demands intelligent observership before matter comes into existence. Doesn't this conflict dramatically with Hiesenberg's uncertainty principal? QM is not my area of expertise, so more info on that and how it really applies to "intelligent design" would be appreciated. Does changing the name from creation to intelligent design mean it is grounded in science? I say absolutely not!! Opinions please.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 And, what's so great about a hypothesis that carries all the alleged trappings of science (evolution) but can't seem to get enough evidence together to convince 2/3 of the American Public ? What's your answer? That they are all crazy, unscientific illiterates? well for the most part, yeah. i know, i will be attacked for saying that. but my #1 hobby and thing-to-do-on-a-daily-basis is talk to people about life, and from what i've learned, barely anybody knows a damn thing, but they think they have it all figured out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 this thread is really old. aren't there like 5 other ID threads? can't get enough of these things :cup: :hyper: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wirth Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Yes, ID is nothing more than another attempt by Christian fanatics to force Creation into public education. As we continually see, Christians, especially the more fundamentalist, have absolutely no compunction against outright lies. When their idiotic attempts to pretend Creationism has ANY sceintific standing fails miserably, they try desperately to hide their failure and instead try to find new ways to lie to people. ID is that latest lie. . I'll take offense at that. That's no different than saying all black men are drug addicts. I'm a Christian, and an IDer, and I definitely do not advocate lies. In fact, I'm on record for putting Duane Gish on the grill for his refusal to back up a claim with evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html So you can stop with the mindless diatribes at any time... Unfortunately for the TRUTH, REAL science does not resort to lies and political force. Puleeeze. And I thought only us IDers were ignorant! Ever read a book called BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH by William Broad and Nicholas Wade? The Subtitle is "Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science". Go read it and then come back and retract your comment. I can't believe you said this. It's pure unadulterated bunk! Another very interesting premise of the book is one that many advocates of evolution theory are so eager to dismiss: the power of Expectancy. "Expectancy leads to self-deception, and self-deception leads to the propensity to be deceived by others" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wirth Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Sure, but - no one responded to his blatantly ludicrous remarks. WHy not look at it this way. My comments might fire up the discussion again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 I believe that's what james putnam tried to do a couple weeks back, well, i'm looking forward to watching these discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Closing this thread. There is enough other ID threads going on right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts