Intelligent design is religion in disguise

gotta love that scholarly confidence (meh) ...from "it's a desecration of science" (such prejudice) to "if you wanna believe that [God can create in any manner He would choose as a matter of faith] *shrug* it's fine" (such "tolerance") wow. I just never knew the theory of "creation science" (meaning even evolution could simply be a function of a creative God) was so easily debunked on the basis of evolution's "scientifically accepted" longevity. I personally think evolution does have scientific merit to it, but I wonder if the scientific community isn't just too smugly comfortable with their self-subscribed status quo that they fail to see they may be experiencing, not so much a failure of intelligence, as imagination? It's almost as if we're to take it that evolution actually disproves faith somehow. well whatever... I do take simpler things on faith anyway. Like the fact that you have a brain (a scientific fact) but moreover that you have a mind that is uniquely you. Do I need to prove or disprove that? (I edited this for deletion of needless attitude here...sorry guys)

LOL!
Yeah! I think scientists have become too smug with their whole "Earth is not flat" theory! Those scientists just lack imagination!

Science is composed of objective facts supported by evidence. Religion (in this case in the guise of "Intelligent Design") is composed of subjective UNTESTABLE ideas. Untestable ideas (faith) cannot be proved or disproved (which IMHO is what makes them useless) and have no place in science.

If you are really interested in the science of evolution (which I somehow doubt given your dismissive "whatever"s and "meh"s), I urge you to read "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

If you are interested in "Intelligent Design", read Judge Jones ruling on the Dover lawsuit and understand that "Intelligent Design" belongs in church! NOT in our public school's science curriculum!

science almighty...I say it again, such prejudice. (sigh) hey i generally agree with you, but what i dismiss is your general pessimism that people of faith may have no genuine interest, care or place in science at all...as in your assumption with me ("If you are really interested...which I doubt") as though there must inherently be some great divide (obviously to your own "objective" thinking). that comes through as some veiled argument for your larger idea of the integrity of science. you might lead one to conveniently ignore the fact that some of the greatest scientists have actually been people of some faith attributing some of their greatest discoveries (and failures) in some respects to a personal belief in God...people who probably knew the actual science much better than you might otherwise pretend. talk about a flat earth, huh? even less palatable to you is probably the very real fact that none of us would even know about the wonder of gravity had it not been for the inspiration and wonder of God's creation that kept Newton going personally. (and there are still dividing theories as to what gravity actual is though we generally accept the science of how it acts.) Einstein also...though he went down saying "God doesn't throw dice" was also one to generally buck institutionalized thinking for his own to discover that e, does in fact, equal mc^2. think what you want, but I personally don't think science is so far removed or quarantined from the actual practice of it that you'd personally like everyone to believe. moreover, dangerously, what often gets conveniently ignored is that there are important moral responsibilities and consequences for knowing and using those "objective" facts, sometimes expressed even by the men who first discovered them.
but thank you for your vote of confidence in my intelligence to comprehend your own apparently higher objectivity and, more genuinely, for your supportive references, but; have you ever heard "Virtual Insanity" by Jamiroquai? might just have a listen...though you might not agree with the meaning of the song, you might more simply "just like the music," as might be the more common (exclusive) tact for you. i leave it to your prerogative (or prejudice)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJmX1z1NY2c

My pessimism for "people of faith" 's interest in science is justified by the fact that they would dismiss evidence that conflicts with what is written in the "holy book". Science has no holy book. If new evidence were to arise that contradicts the currently accepted view of evolution, then the currently accepted view would be changed to reflect this new evidence. That's how science works. Religion (on the other hand) is dramatically different. Nobody is going back and making changes to the bible. Religious people cannot be objective when it comes to their subjective beliefs.

I take issue with the fact that you only partially quoted me. I wrote that "If you are really interested in the science of evolution which I somehow doubt given your dismissive "whatever"s and "meh"s" You chose to remove the justification for my comment and quoted only "If you are really interested...which I doubt". This makes me appear cynical when in fact I wrote those words BECAUSE you peppered your text with dismissive terms ("meh" & "whatever").

I reject your argument that "some of the greatest scientists have actually been people of some faith attributing some of their greatest discoveries (and failures) in some respects to a personal belief in God".
Who cares what the scientists' inspiration was? The only thing that matters is whether the scientific theory is supported by evidence! The fact that some people are motivated by belief in Jesus or Mohamed or Santa Claus is ultimately meaningless. What about the Nazi doctors? I'm sure that some interesting discoveries were made in the horrific atrocities perpetrated on Jews by warped doctors who were inspired by Hitler's racist theories. This (of course) does not give any validity to the racist theories themselves despite the fact that some sick people can be inspired by them.

Einstein (who was not religious but did frequently invoke god as a synonym for the workings of the natural world) was an iconoclast but was absolutely dedicated to the practice of science and its reliance on evidence. Unfortunately for him, his theories were ahead of his time and we had to wait to see whether or not he was right once technology caught up. Have NO DOUBT that if experiment indicated he was wrong about something... he would be declared wrong & that would be that. There is no "religion of Einstein".

With regard to your statement that "there are important moral responsibilities and consequences for knowing and using those "objective" facts" : I agree with you. What one does with one's discoveries is very important.... but I think it's MORE important to FIRST make sure we understand reality and THEN decide what to do.

I did listen to "Virtual Insanity" by Jamiroquai". It's a catchy tune. I don't understand why you would include a reference to a song or poetry although I think this hints at the problem. I DON'T CARE how beautiful a song or poem is when it comes to science. The issue is NOT how beautiful a theory or philosophy is! To quote Richard Feynman when he was describing quantum electrodynamics : "I'm going to describe to you how Nature is and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment."

I think you are overly influenced by emotion and the aesthetic appeal of the beauty of theories as expressed in music or philosophy.

I urge you (once again) to learn the distinction between science and philosophy/religion/belief.

as far as the strict practice of science, again I say, I agree with you. you are absolutely correct, and I've made no beef about it. but you're so prejudiced against people of faith being able to even grasp text book science, it borders on absurdity. "My pessimism for "people of faith" 's interest in science is justified by the fact that they would dismiss evidence that conflicts with what is written in the "holy book"."

it's quite presumptuous to say the least; further, I frankly rather dislike the implication you make that holding any serious faith necessarily precludes you from any serious study of science. what a stereotype if I've ever heard one.

I dare you to consider at least the possibility that there are (at least potentially) scientists who may consider evolution in some harmony with the abilities of a Supreme Being, in a way that needn't affect respectable science; that is in indeed a possibility.

your message that one "leave his faith at the door of the classroom/lab" is frankly, imho total bs. my assertion is still simply that faith needn't necessarily exclude one from the practice of any science.

as far as Jamiroquai's "Virtual Insanity," I told you, you might rather care to miss the meaning for the music. and you do sound patronizing when you speak of the horrors done by nazi scientists. I contend it may rather have been an absence of any kind of decent faith that allowed those kinds of atrocities. but you only want empirical data, don't you...an understanding of "reality" as you say before deciding what to do...(sigh)

for anyone who's interested...
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jamiroquai/virtualinsani...

I am saying that a scientist should have an open mind. That he or she should not embark on a line of research with prejudices that cannot be overturned if contravening evidence is discovered. For example: A person who believes LITERALLY that the words of the bible are true and that (for example) the world is actually approximately 6000 years old cannot study geology. Once again you misunderstand me. I never said that (to quote you) people of faith are not "able to even grasp text book science". I wrote that they would "dismiss evidence that conflicts with what is written in the "holy book".

As far as your "dare".... I know there are scientists who are believers but I hope that they realize that their beliefs are not part of the scientific endeavor. Otherwise we could just publish research based on who believes a proposition most strongly (which is tricky! ;-) ).

You keep writing the same things and I don't think I'm getting through to you. Are you suggesting that religious have a place within the context of scientific research? This seems ludicrous.

With regard to "Virtual Insanity". I think you are doing a classic (albeit infantile) maneuver of bringing up a topic and alleging that my objections to it are indicative of some "special knowledge" to which only you are privy rather than dealing with the substance of my argument. Once again, let me say that I think your affection for music & poetry (inspiring as these may be) is MEANINGLESS if we are talking about objectivity.

With regard to my analogy of Nazi scientists... once again... you missed the point. I was responding to YOUR argument! You were arguing that scientific discoveries inspired by a religious doctrine imbued the doctrine with legitimacy. The vacuous nature of this argument is elucidated by my (admittedly provocative) example of how scientific discoveries inspired by a racist doctrine obviously DO NOT imbued the racist doctrine with legitimacy. Instead of addressing the argument, you choose to feel "patronized". I don't care. The legitimacy of an argument is not swayed by feelings. Your contention that Nazi atrocities can be ascribed to a lack of "decent" faith is debatable (especially given the number of wars and death made in the name of religion). The difficulty of determining what "decent faith" is also difficult. Have you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins?

So you can sigh all you want.
Ultimately your arguments (if you want to call them that) are based on feelings, hope, and inspired by song.

Stick to poetry. Leave science to the rationalists.

your real problem is that you somehow do actually think you totally understand what every person of faith believes; almost as if every person of faith can only be a cookie-cutter version of *your* estimation of faith and whatever "good book." you may not pretend to objectively speak for everyone merely to justify your blanket criticism of faith. You would dismiss good science solely for what you personally and presumptously think people of faith to believe....omnisciently somehow I guess. truly it is rather what you believe about literal interpretations of faith as binding that is your problem here. I believe your arguments have much less to do with credible science and more to do with a very real personal prejudice. I only reasonably contend that people of faith can study any branch of science they want to and yet still practice very good, respectable science.

you purport that even geology should be off-limits to people of faith only because you yourself make literal interpretations of the bible. (tsk) Yet certainly, without a doubt, some may indeed have faith to believe, as scripture also says, that "a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years to the Lord" ...people of faith can easily embrace carbon dating despite your narrow conjecture.

i sense you are an intelligent and respectable person...but you're also not very flexible, clinging to your "literalisms" as though they are infallibilities, and further foolishly coloring everyone that holds a faith with them. ironically, you probably have more faith in what the bible literally says than most/many self-professed believers! ...but the truth is, you do not, cannot, reasonably speak for everyone of faith. not today...not tomorrow...not ever, unless we should all bow down and worship your infallible intelligence.

not all people of faith are of any scientific necessity subject to *your* capricious interpretations and literalisms. And yet again...I'll say it again, and again, faith needn't necessarily preclude one from the respectable practice and study of science.

And really, come now, you shouldn't pretend to know as much as you think you do.

Echoz, I'll just settle for your explanation as to why Noah didn't put wooly mammoths, saber-toothed tigers and dinosaurs on the Ark.

Oh, and then there is that pesky question about carbon-dating.

It is a crying shame we don't have those dinosaurs to put on feed lots in the Midwest. We could render their giant carcasses for oil and solve the energy crisis!

And, gosh, if lizard meat were low in cholesterol, just think of the health benefits.

Did Noah have Alzheimer's or did he just disobey God about putting two of everything on board the Ark?

BTW, I'm voting for McCain if Huckabee doesn't win the nomination because he said the Great Flood caused the Grand Canyon. After all, he IS from Arizona and ought to know! Amen?

I really think fundies PROVE creationism is right. They HAVE to pre-date the rest of mankind based on their own scientifically-challenged shortcomings.

Echoz,

You continue to misquote and mis-characterize my writings to suit your arguments. I went out of my way NOT to make blanket statements about ALL "people of faith" when I prefaced my arguments with (to quote myself) "For example: A person who believes LITERALLY that the words of the bible are true". I know full well that there are religious people who interpret the bible and do not take it literally. You chose to ignore this detail and attack me on this topic (presumably because you can't address my actual arguments).

But it sounds like you agree with me that you also feel that people who believe that the earth is 6000 years old cannot reconcile this belief with the overwhelming evidence that it's much much older.

On the other hand, I must say that I find the whole topic of "reconciling" reality with the bible by re-interpreting passages to be just childish. In fact, in some respects the literalists are actually more consistent! They say: The bible is the absolute truth and that's it. The "interpreters" say : "Uh-Oh Look! Here is a passage of the bible which is clearly wrong... but since we know it CAN'T be absolutely wrong, let's try and find some other place in the bible that might be say something vague which we can use to justify the troubling passage".

Can you imagine the same exchange in science? One scientist says the Earth is 6000 years old. A second scientist says it's billions of years old. The first scientist says "I wasn't wrong! In another of my papers I say that sometimes one of "my" years might be actually be 20,000 years!

It's idiotic.

I just LOVE your comment that I shouldn't "pretend to know as much as you think you do..." since this is coming from a man who KNOW THAT GOD WROTE A BOOK!

I don't think this discussion has any point and I'm frankly getting tired of it.

I apologize if I haven't completely understood you, but what I've disagreed with is that your suppositions were generally, if liberally (and cautionarily) leveled at people of faith as if there was only the irresistible temptation to take science to justify at some point a literal interpretation, in your view, of the bible.

I've believed that to be a limited and narrow way to look at things, that results in an unnecessary, and not entirely warranted, discouragement of the serious study of science by people of faith in particular; perhaps just stopping short of purporting or suggesting that they may indeed be incapable of it.

perhaps you too do actually believe people of personal faith need not argue that faith in light of science, nor make any science in the light of some scripture. For many people I would think, they are actually viewed as two entirely different things...a distinction I've feared you only make as a disqualifying feature, perhaps bent on the insistence of some sordid marriage of the two, while betting on sure divorce.

All I continue to say, and wholly believe, is that people of faith can practice good and respectable science. Further, having faith needn't necessarily disqualify them.

I do appreciate your patience dansam. Thanks...

surprisingly? reading some of inofuilweil's (spelling?) facetious remarks, with a not so 'hot head' =D I find his humor actually succeeds =D (heh!) =D

i know along with some of the humor it's also strictly off topic here, but I don't agree with bush or mcCain or any of 'em really...heard bill clinton say on heckling that 9/11 was the result of 19 hijackers etc. "you people need to go away!" (or something to that effect)

I'd absolutely *love* to see you guys argue THAT science with all those lying bastages!!! =D

I think Popular Mechanics and Skeptic magazine both did a pretty good job of refuting the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

lol =D can't reason with a preening self-assured rationalist LMAO

I'm not so convinced of anything yet...but, conspiracy "nuts" huh? and a "pretty good job"...oh really? you've *entirely* put that one to bed, have you? strictly rational, no deprecation with you is there! ;D I'm so glad you make strictly "objective" analyses before drawing your conclusions! =D

LMAO...Y'know maybe somehow I was wrong about you being smug, and you've exceeded even my own generous estimations, but now honestly I really am curious.

hmmm...

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

consider the 2nd and 3rd parts...
(the 1st, if you like, although it's relevant to religion which I know you probably don't personally practice, aside from your higher-minded secularism; but personally you might discover it edifies that prettier smug side of you ;)

or maybe watching it, you could decided like most at least wonder, that 9/11/01 may indeed NOT be quite the tight slam-dunk case even some quite reputable scientists shown in the film disbelieve that it is...(they are not alone, demolition experts in the field as well among several others.) I think one or two of them even continue to work at Los Alamos National Labs (where the first nukes Fat Man and Little Boy were initially developed) and continue to carry on truly leading cutting edge SCIENCE for the government, etc.). =D thought you'd be happy to know that, aren't you?

Oh but where do you profess your convincing science so far as to speciously call some dissenters "nuts"? (Better not dare say the earth is round after all, huh?! LOL) Oh yeah...almost forgot...YOU'RE getting it out of a popular syndicated MAGAZINE or two! LMAO I almost forgot ...gee whiz. alright. (I bet the LANL scientists all have their own invaluable personal subscriptions too!!! LOL (yeah right!)

funny =D maybe there's some trouble on the "science" scene after all, huh? "trouble in paradise" so to speak? finding a consensus when...how did you so passionately and authoritatively put it to me...when "contravening evidence" presents itself? Science changes? "nuts" isn't it! =D~ "...interpretists" even you'd labeled some to be! LOL maybe you could look no further than in your own ranks, huh? oh thou infallible "Rationalist" LOL

ah, such is the character of life...in so many areas, where neither is anything so black and white as grey; where truth is not so easily, immediately, definitively grasped for the mere desire to rationalize it. brings to mind my new favorite quote: "They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." –Gerald Massey

Thanks for the really good laugh...I needed it. I think I've said all I need to in this column..."frankly" (YOU might take some of your own advice n try n brush up on some poetry too! LMAO) =D

I know you won't resist replying purely because this discussion HAS NO point for you and you've tired, but, alas, in the event you do, personally...I'd rather just wait to hear about it in the next "half life" =D LMAO...(relax!! I meant the pun in gaming terms not religious! LOL it's no wonder Inofuilwel has so much fun!!!)

thanks again for the good laugh. have a good life.

Run for the hills, dansam! It's Larry (Lush Rimbaugh's irrefutable Arkansas State Trooper) that was on his show all during the 90's and who actually saw the cocaine going into the nose cones of those Clinton planes in Mena, Arkansas!

Hey Larry! Long time no hear from. Tell me why, if you are such a scientific American who links us to the Ron Paul people's favorite video, the zeitgeist movie and a graduate of State Trooper School that you (1) didn't reply to my carbon dating reference, the saber-toothed tigers, wooly mammoths or the dinosaurs or (2) profess your support for Ron Paul.

I really would like to know why Noah forgot them and how Ron Paul is going to change America with LESS government to control the onslaught of corporate fascism. They write ALL the laws now and Ron Paul will be powerless without a congress that can say no to K Street. But let's see if we can waste more time delving in to the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group and how Russ Feingold suddenly withdrew his impeachment initiative for no good reason.

Sometimes I do come to the conclusion that I am the only real human being left on Earth (except for those who attend the Bilderberg conference) and I realize the whole world was created and stocked with robots who are all "in on the fix" just to make life seem real to me. Damn those Bilderberg people. I wish I could have invented those robots and taken over THEIR world before they took over mine. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is one of their robots, too. He is only fighting them to make things seem more realistic to me.

God Bless Lush Rimbaugh and Oxycontin.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe that I'm getting through to you and this conversation is a waste of my time. However, I do hope that perhaps readers of this thread might learn something from what I've written.

dansam ;P it's not that you failed to "get through"...it's just I DISAGREE.

...same here, as regards future readers of this thread. I'm sorry I couldn't resist my playful teasing, though I quite enjoyed the fun of it =D

Inofuilwell, you stoner ager you, come back to us! ;) it's a new day and age...and we can READ now. LOL

*****"it's a new day and age...and we can READ now."*****

So if you can read, why are you dodging my saber-toothed tiger, wooly mammoth and dinosaur questions about why Noah didn't put them on the Ark?

http://current.com/items/88863848_maybe