With about 70 billion stars in our galaxy and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
thanks for giving such a pleasing information about the stars planets and galaxy and the universe.
hello, very good post really like it !! thanks for sharing !!
flip books
Frankly, there is no purpose in debating 99% of the ID crowd. Why? Because they are not familiar with the ideas to which they vehemently object. Therefore, the entire practice of confronting them involves a huge effort of first educating them enough to where they can have an informed opinion and be able to change it due to more information and argument. Everyone who understands evolution well and also the bit of logic and probability that goes along already absolutely understands ID. ID is a simple concept and basically boils down to "yeah, I know you have your theory that seems to work but I just think everything is too complex to have happened without a supervisory deity. I will go about "proving" this by pointing out what I feel are imperfections in your theory."
The ID crowd needs to read a basic introduction to evolution by natural theory in the form of a mainstream, college-level text and then read the many objections made to the mainstream conception of ID. Then they will begin to be worth trying to convince.
feiduwei
In recently years, the Japanese cartoon is very popular in Asia, in every Hong Kong Comics Festival,.many cartoom and cosplay fans and lover come together with naruto costumes and velvet cloak and sailor moon costume to show their passion to the cattoon and cosplay
walkthrough metal detector,and security products, Auto diagnostic tools GT1,MB star,,renault can clip diagnostic interface
At present, the Department purchases haoyinglighting Lamps Wholesale distributors drop of nearly 30 percent, and some large distributors, because they sell their products in different regions can be combined each other in order to “chain” form to purchases manufacturers
AVX Corporation is a leading international supplier of electronic passive components and interconnect solutions with 24 manufacturing and customer support facilities in 15 countries around the world. AVX offers a broad range of devices including tantalum capacitor, resistors, filters, timing and circuit protection devices and connectors.
????????36??!??????????!
Industrial thin client typically operate on embedded software systems such as Windows?
www.titaniumchina.com company is mainly engaged in the titanium plate, zirconium, nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, tantalum, niobium, beryllium and alloy materials, and other non-ferrous metal materials research and development, production and processing, domestic and international sales And so on. we are manufacturing all kinds of electric tools
In the hot day with burning sun, it is no wonder that the sunglasses wholesale would be the suitable tools for you to prevent you eyes, in addtion, the different style sunglasses can reflect your personality and character
As we all know, people also like to make them more beautiful and also wholesale jewelry from china market, they also want to show their nice and respect . so women wholesale cheap fashion jewelry from www.karrylady.compurses wholesale handbags wholesale clothing wholeslae replica handbags wholesale.
Wire hanger was also a featured prop in a central scene in the 1981 movie Mommie Dearest, in which Joan Crawford, played by Faye Dunaway, enters the room of her daughter, Christina, at night while the girl sleeps, to admire the beautiful clothes hanging nicely in her closet.
Sporty Jerseys provides maximum comfort whatever the cycling conditions.Choose from an impressive range of , They are the same as the official jerseys
We are the best soccer jersey supplier, all the soccer jerseys on jerseybbs.com are REPLICA SOCCER JERSEYS, but their quality are good, because many soccer jersey shopping websites are selling our discount soccer jerseys, espcially the thailand quality cheap soccer jerseys, They are the same as the official jerseys
Alpha Scale was established in 2007, and with all Alpha staff hard-working, now we have grown to be the No.1 manufacturer of pocket scale in China, we are proud to declare that we have made more than 1,800,000 pcs scales in 2010
feiduting
BrandDream, Top designer apparel supplier, FREE SHIPPING(for orders of 10pcs to US, UK, CA and AU), louboutin shoes, Cheap Ralph Lauren polo shirts, Cheap Ed Hardy Wholesale, juicy couture tracksuits, Cheap Christian Louboutin Shoes, Discount Sheepskin Boots, Wholesale Abercrombie, Christian Audigier Clothing and Shopping
wholesale designer clothing, accept Credit Card and PayPal, Quality Guarantee, Good Discounts and Trusty Business.
Do you know the different between the replica and fake watch? In fact the replica watches is made from the similar material and parts with the orginal one,the more important it is legal, however the fake is illegal.
A wide range of high quality and excellent perfermance wholesale Jerseys, wholesale nike shox, Cheap Nike airmax Shoes wholesale and Cheap Nike airmax Shoes in our shop welcome your visit.wholesale Jerseys, wholesale nike shox, Cheap Nike airmax Shoes, Cheap Nike airmax Shoes wholesale.
cheap soccer jerseys,replica soccer jerseys are very high sales volume, and many people liked to buy it replica soccer jerseyscheap soccer jerseys.
We mainly deal with handbags, shoes, garment, promotions and gifts. wholesale designer handbags, Wholesale shoes from china, wholesale fashion accessories, wholesale designer sunglasses, wholesale products from china. For many years' experience, our companies has been always complying with the contract and attaching great importance to good faith.
Newest styles and brands of hats & caps including baseball caps, new era cap, DC fitteds, fillipino flag hats and sports team caps.
We specialize in shower head andtowel rack of high quality and favorable price .The shower head that we provide has many advantages: 1. They quickly bring water; 2. The handles of environmental protection are in favour of our health;3.The color and style are wonderful. At the same time ,towel rack that we provide is durable and beautiful.We are sure that we will offer you satisfactory products and service
Anviz Biometric manufactures a complete range of biometric products including Fingerprint Time Attendance , fingerprint access control, fingerprint lock, USB fingerprint reader, OEM fingerprint module Fingerprint Access Control etc.
feiduting
We are the best soccer jersey supplier, all the soccer jerseys on jerseybbs.com are REPLICA SOCCER JERSEYS, but their quality are good, because many soccer jersey shopping websites are selling our discount soccer jerseys, espcially the thailand quality cheap soccer jerseys, They are the same as the official jerseys
According to a figure that most of the luxury brands consumer in China range frome 2os to 30s.
wholesale polo shirts are all young Women's love, wearing the designers will attract passerby glance, it make them be in good mood all the day.
With the increase in printing needs all over the world, manufacturers of Ink Cartridges are hard pressed to meet the ever-increasing demand. Consumer satisfaction ranks highest in the quest to fulfill company priorities. Buying printers is relatively cheap nowadays, but unfortunately, the Ecco Key West Mens same thing cannot be said about the CISS or cartridges that require to be replaced often.
The online store to buy replica Louis Vuitton bags, wallets and purse of top most designer
R4 Series,r4i Series,R4DS,R4i SDHC,R4i Gold,R4i Card for NDSi XL/NDSi/DSL/NDS - UseeGames.Com
cocogamer.com is one of most reliable sellers which engage in r4i gold and r4i sdhc , including all the most popular R4i and R4 3DS Cards at favorable price
Short term loans for unemployed arrange fast loans, short term loans, unemployment loans, no credit check loans, need a loan unemployed, loans for the unemployed and instant cash loans for unemployed. Apply now with us and get cash today.
Visit:- http://www.shorttermloansforunemployed.co.uk
feidujiang
We are the best soccer jersey supplier, all the soccer jerseys on jerseybbs.com are REPLICA SOCCER JERSEYS, but their quality are good, because many soccer jersey shopping websites are selling our discount soccer jerseys, espcially the thailand quality cheap soccer jerseys, They are the same as the official jerseys
As a pioneer in the field of automatic wine machines, iTasting has developed the full range of wine dispenserwine dispenser products with one aim: to get the best possible glass of wine regardless of how long the wine had been opened.
We specialize in shower head andtowel rack of high quality and favorable price .The shower head that we provide has many advantages: 1. They quickly bring water; 2. The handles of environmental protection are in favour of our health;3.The color and style are wonderful. At the same time ,towel rack that we provide is durable and beautiful.We are sure that we will offer you satisfactory products and service
From a religious point of view, ID does make sense to me. But it is entirely a matter of faith as opposed to science .
Faith means believing in whatever the fuck you want to, doesn't matter what it is and what the situation is. ID does not try to explain whatever the fuck you and your tiny brain can't comprehend or just simply put it as "God made it, deal with it." In fact, ID's approach to the topic is entirely different. ID simply suggests that a superior being, whom chose not to reveal itself to us because it chose to, created the universe at the beginning and guided the history of the whole fucking universe. Nowhere does it try to explain science because it doesn't need to, it's the opposite, science is trying to explain the daily and unnatural phenomenons of the world and the interactions between objects and such phenomenons.
It, is true that intelligent design the merit.There are so, many benefit for the company of that kind of employee.
Credit Cards
Religion's latest attempt at remaining relevant in light of its massive losses of faithful followers. I think they would have a better chance at making movies or something?
Even if you stretch your imagination to believe that all of this is part of a plan, is it work you or I would be proud of? The millions of innocents dying each year from neglect or abuse .
If this is it - the pinnacle of God's eternal plan, He needs a redesign.
Only by understanding the logical extremes of an argument can one claim to have reasoned perspective.
I realize my comment doesn't relate to the heart of the question, but the use of phrases like " intelligent design ", "Abortion", " pro-choice ", "gay" and all the other politically correct synonyms are really beginning to irritate me. Why not call things what they are? Abortion is the word used to insinuate the aborting of a pregnancy . It is Murder. Pro Choice means you believe a mother has the right to murder her baby. Intelligent design means you believe in a creator, i.e. "God". "Gay" means you are Homosexual, not necessarily gay and happy about it. These words are used to lessen the impact of what is happening around us, to make things vaguer in an already shadowy world. Who would benefit from that? The Father of all Lies perhaps?
Satan is sure behind all of these things. That's what the guy cares about.
If you guys in the ID world want to come out and admit "Yes, this is religion ", it would save us all a lot of time.
Abortion = Murder. Sure, I suppose we could call it that. And antibiotics are genocidal.
Pro - Choice = Right to murder . Fine. And Pro-Life = Destruction of a rights-based society .
Intelligent Design = God. Okay. Evolution = ..Evolution. That one's not a euphemism.
Gay = Homosexual. Fine. Stop using the word straight, then. Heterosexuals aren't necessarily "straight" by any stretch of the imagination.
I really wish you'd find someone else to stalk. Final response to your nonsense:
Yes Satan does encourage sin in our world.
If "you guys" in the atheist world would come out and admit that atheism is a religion , it'd save us some time too.
Abortion kills babies , antibiotics kill germs. They may be equal in your world, but not in mine.
You admit pro-choice is a right to murder . pro-life DOES take away your "so called right" to kill babies, but murdering babies is no more a right than murdering an 8 year old child. Do you believe in that "right" too?
You agree on Id= God..good
I agree heterosexuals are not "straight" either. That's just one I overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out.
That's classy.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of this site. Someone makes an assertion, someone responds to it. There is a debate. This occurs everywhere, from the main arguments to the comments.
Intelligent Design is a dishonest way for creationism to try to appear scientific. It's kind of silly when you think about it. Denying nature, the creationists attempt to replace evolution with biblical nonsense. They pretend that some bodiless ghost is the cause of everything in the universe and conceal their beliefs behind a psuedo-scientific cloak of "intelligent design."
If Intelligent Design is Creationism, why doesn't Intelligent Design claim everything Creationism claims?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq /#chptux
Just look around.
There is know bang that can do all.This is a no brainer!
`Guided by a larger force`. I can't be sure of course, but I believe that that is not the case. If that is true then it seems that it will turn out to be a religious matter, because humans will automatically consider that force as god.
Even if some force created us, humans shouldn't take for granted that it did it so that we worship it. He might did it for fun or more likely just because that`s what is does. Why do ants make colonies on the ground and gather in big teams? Because that`s what they do, to survive. Maybe the force needs to create things to survive and if that is the case by now it will probably have forgotten about this place a long long time ago since it will be far far away creating other things.
I do not believe in Jesus, nor I am a Christian. However organs like the snake venomous fangs, the wing, the eye and the flagelum are simply not possible to explain by natural selection, because all these need all their components to function properly. The true question to be asked is how these organs came about piece by piece, cell by cell until they were thoroughly operative?
The bizantine debate whether ID is or not science is to bark at the wrong tree. What about if Darwing was wrong and Monsieur Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck was right and there IS an inherent will that make species "intent" their organic changes? I have read scientific evidences that have recently sprung about living being's abilities to "intent" changes around them.
You are talking about irreducible complexity. That argument, with its main proponent being Behe, has been thoroughly refuted. It is a big argument from ignorance that excludes the possibility of indirect pathways in evolution and also different uses of a structure along the way. The famous example was always the flagellum until it was figured out what the flagellum did before it was the flagellum.
You are like most with your opinion, and that is uneducated on the matter.
The name Intelligent Design is itself a hoax. It's meant to sound scientific to obscure the belief that the universe was created by a bodiless consciousness.
Further, to argue that the universe was created by some consciousness outside of the universe avoids the untidy question: Where would that consciousness be? If nowhere, then it can't have existed to begin with. If somewhere, then existence was already there before the bodiless consciousness came on the scene. Hence it could not have created existence.
Intelligent Design has no merit because it rests on the very concepts it denies. For instance, it rests on the view that an "intelligence" created the universe---yet states that that thing is unknowable. If it's unknowable, then no one can declare it's intelligent---or that it exists.
It's odd to attribute an orgin to the universe outside itself simply because it's complex. Given the naure of the universe, were it not complex, THAT would require an explanation.
"The name Intelligent Design is itself a hoax. It's meant to sound scientific to obscure the belief that the universe was created by a bodiless consciousness."
So are your main criticisms of ID just superficial ones?
"Further, to argue that the universe was created by some consciousness outside of the universe.."
Who said anything about a supernatural entity?
"..avoids the untidy question: Where would that consciousness be?"
This question can easily remain unanswered if all we are trying to do is determine if certain features of the universe and in living systems are designed or not; we need not know what the location of a painter is for a cave painting to know that such a painter existed by inferring from the painting itself.
"If nowhere, then it can't have existed to begin with."
See the above point, a design inference can be made independently from knowledge of a designing force's location.
"If somewhere, then existence was already there before the bodiless consciousness came on the scene. Hence it could not have created existence."
Where in the entire doctrine of ID do they state that "existence" is what the designer(s)/designing force created? In what book or article does a DI fellow state that there was know existence until a designer of some sort created it? Or are you just building a straw man?
"Intelligent Design has no merit because it rests on the very concepts it denies."
And this merit rests on what concept in denial?
"For instance, it rests on the view that an "intelligence" created the universe---yet states that that thing is unknowable. If it's unknowable, then no one can declare it's intelligent---or that it exists."
See the above point. We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself.
"It's odd to attribute an orgin to the universe outside itself simply because it's complex. Given the naure of the universe, were it not complex, THAT would require an explanation."
How so? And of course the origins of the Universe (even if it was from unintelligent causes) would be from outside itself, something would've had to have caused the big bang from the point of singularity.
The response to my comment ID Contradicts Itself is a series of peculiarly unclear assertions. For example, the responder declares: --- "We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself."---
Such an assertion presupposes that (1) the "features" exists separate from the entity, and that (2) the features are expressions of some intelligence one supposes exists. This is a logical fallacy. It assumes the prior existence of a thing whose features one is allegedly studying while declaring one is "tracing" them to some intelligence, which one denies one knows.
The responder is dealing in word salads, i.e., formulating arguments that float without reference to reality. This approach permeates the responder's entire post. As such, it's not worth rebutting.
"The response to my comment ID Contradicts Itself is a series of peculiarly unclear assertions. For example, the responder declares: --- "We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself."---"
Is the fact that we don't need to know the exact source of a design to know such a source exists just an unclear assertion? If so, explain. Oh wait...
"Such an assertion presupposes that (1) the "features" exists separate from the entity, and that (2) the features are expressions of some intelligence one supposes exists."
1. What do you mean by "separate?" 2. Agree, that's the whole point about design vs. the designer itself.
"This is a logical fallacy. It assumes the prior existence of a thing whose features one is allegedly studying while declaring one is "tracing" them to some intelligence, which one denies one knows."
How is it a logical fallacy to say that we don't need to know in person the author of a book to know that the book had an author? And what do you mean by the "prior existence" of a feature? Are you claiming that I'm bent on the assuming that the designed feature existed before the designer? Elaborate please.
"The responder is dealing in word salads, i.e., formulating arguments that float without reference to reality. This approach permeates the responder's entire post."
How on earth is the fact that we need not know the designer to identify design an argument that floats without reference to reality?
"As such, it's not worth rebutting."
Yet you felt compelled to do so.
I really have to give the anti-IDer's credit, you have a lot of faith. More than I do actually. Some say that God does not exist and that there is no way in this universe that he created everything, yet what doesn't make sense to me is that there is less of a chance that The Big Bang happened then God actually creating the universe. Do the math: The Big Bang is really impossible. I heard a statistic that said the possibility of The Big Bang happening is like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling A WORKING BOEING 747.
Look around you. Look away from your computer screen for a moment and glance out your window. Really ask yourself, "Did all this happen by chance?" The trees, water, mountains, birds, cats, dogs; I'm not sure how people can believe that this was all a freak accident. Was it really a concidence that the planet we call Earth just happened to be the IDEAL place for life? Any closer to the sun, we'd fry. Any farther, we'd freeze. We're perfectly placed in the universe and thrive because of it. Coincidence? I think not.
Most of all, look at yourself. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that the human body is a remarkable machine. Well lubricated, efficient, intelligent; what are the chances of the body that you are in now coming from a pile of goo struck by lightning (or however you believe we came to existance). For those of you who believe that we were not created and came into existance randomly, I give you props for believing in something that mathmatically probably never happened.
Also, if there is no God, then we have no purpose; we are useless beings that try to make the most of of what we have been dealt. Is that what you want to believe? If you do, then you have more faith than most people.
I've found purpose. I've found happiness. Have you?
My other comment focused more on my atheist background, but I wanted to respond to your scientific misconceptions.
Nobody thinks lightning struck goo and humans popped out. Saying such constitutes a straw man and betrays your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory. Before bashing what you've heard evolutionists "believe," you should check for yourself. There are several excellent books, some by Christians, that introduce the basic concepts behind the modern formulation of Darwin's theory (Darwin was wrong on most of the details) and explain why we accept them. I would personally suggest any of the books by Kenneth Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias %3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=kenneth+miller
Your argument is compelling until we expand the question of "How did we get here?" to encompass the divine. I understand the Christian god had no beginning. I'm not asking, "Who created god?" but rather, "Why should there be a god at all?" What are the mathematical odds that your god would be the way he is? In light of that question, suddenly the big bang doesn't seem like such an outlandish problem in comparison.
We know the big bang happened, for whatever reason. The existence of a divine creator (conveniently) makes no difference in the observable predictions of the big bang, so why does it require faith to eliminate the assumption of a god?
I've found purpose and happiness too. Meaning doesn't need to be handed down from above; it comes from within too. That isn't faith; it's the courage to face reality.
With belief. facing reality doesn't require 'courage'.. but facing a world with no purpose behind it. with no reason except cause and effect, electrons and neutrons, yes - that world requires courage for sure.
Keep in mind that I did not find God out of some need to have an explanation.though I admit even as an atheist the concept sounded 'nice'. Nor was it a need to have this innate courage that comes from a world with reason, it was instead just a bonus. It's a typical atheistic viewpoint that because the believer lacked the courage to live in a world without some form of security blanket. that they invent God.on the contrary I came to the conclusion from looking at the evidence and from personal experiences. The realization was unavoidable.
I was a happy person as an atheist. -- though I can't describe the happiness that comes from knowing this isn't just a cosmic accident.
As far as you question of 'what are the odds your God would be the way he is?'.. I truly don't get the question.. I'd say 1:1.. but that would mean I knew what that meant in the first place? It's awfully esoteric.. Do you mean what are the odds. that if there were a God that he would want to have a creation? I'd figure 1:1.. though it's rather hard for an imperfect being to imagine the wants of God - but it would seem any God by necessity would 'do' something.. not simply be content as an all encompassing complete and perfect whole.. it would most likely 'create' in some form. and what are the chances that this creation would likely be a reflection of himself in some form. I'd say 1:1.. when you create your creation reflects your character.. does it not? Now the next step becomes more conjectural.. if you were to create this 'creation' would it be proper to force upon it absolute obedience? I'd say that wouldn't be right. I'd say you'd have to give it a right to dissent.. matter of fact I'd give it a 1:1 chance that the only path would be free will. and thus an imperfect creation - since you cannot have the option to do wrong without it. so free will is another 1:1 chance. Now we have a creation. and it's flawed and yet shows similarities to it's creator. we need to give this creation some purpose. some form of reason to exist of sorts. well I figure the obvious choice would be that the very purpose the creator would devise is a great mystery of 'where did I come from?' . in other words. a beautiful mystery would be 'am I an accident. or did I come from a creator?'.. now THAT would be an ingenious idea.. it would be like a game of hide and seek with my creation.. It would be the ultimate question and the ultimate purpose.. yes, I would give a 1:1 chance that this would be the perfect concept for my creation's 'fulfilling purpose'. Now another problem.. considering I am a perfect creator. but have made an imperfect being.. doomed to mistakes - and suffering. and now he has a reason for life. the search for the truth of me. the creator. I need to instill a reason for this search..a reward of sorts - since simply knowing I exist is not going to really provide meaning or even reason to search.. I have it! the ultimate reward. to return to me. their perfect creator - ahhh.. but there's a problem. any reward means a punishment. and that doesn't sound very benevolent of a perfect creator..hmm. well then I will come to earth and live as them - in earthly form - yes! perfect idea.. and even allow myself to die at their hands to show that I have suffered as they have! . and I will make the rule that due to my own sacrifice.. all that is necessary to return to me - the perfect creator is simply a heartfelt belief. and an apology!! ingenious . and perfectly simple!..
in conclusion.. I'd say if there were a God.. which there is.. there's a 1:1 chance he would be precisely as we perceive him.
First of all, science does not make a claim that every feature of the universe can be explained without God.
Instead, it makes a host of positive claims that a particular feature of the universe can be explained by some particular mechanism.
So, belief in the efficacy and scope of evolution does not equate to a belief in a universe with no metaphysical purpose, or a universe with no creator.
Furthermore, you conflate cosmology with biology. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe. The theory of evolution only explains why living beings posses complex structures which aid in the propagation of life.
Finally: "Did all this happen by chance?"
Scientists do not believe that life is the result of "chance." Instead, we believe that life the result of the uniform operation of natural laws.
During pregnancy a new organism is formed entirely by the operation of natural laws. This is not the result of chance, and does not make life purposeless.
You're right, science is not atheism, but not that's what most people make it out to be. They take God totally out of the equation and most deny that He even exists. Some are even more open to the fact that aliens created us, which takes a lot of faith to believe.
I am not just addressing cosmology or biology, I'm addressing the whole concept that God was not involved in creating the universe. Whether your talking about either one of those particular topics is irrelevant, the real issue is that some people (maybe not yourself) make God absent in creating the universe, you, me, my dog, that that tree outside, and so on. I do appreciate that you state that "science is not atheism" and there are reason's the universe functions as it does (cosmology or biology), but what other explanation is there to..life..or the universe? Do you have a hypothesis on how we came to be? I would love to hear it.
I think you missed my point about the whole issue of "chance". When I said that, I meant that some believe the universe (cosmology) spontaniously came together by a giant expolsion, and later, just happened to create life as we know it (biology). "Chance" was just a point to illustrate the randomness of our whole universe and ourselves coming together. I still fail to grasp the amount of faith it takes to believe this.
Yes, a baby being formed is natural, but the fact that we as humans are able to reproduce is a miracle all in itself; just look at all the things that it takes to make it all happen. I just can't understand how some people can think this all came together by "chance". The belief in something other than intelligent design takes much more faith than what I believe.
You also missed the point about purpose. As a Christian, I know that the God who created me has a one-of-a-kind plan for my life. If God didn't create us (which is highly, highly unlikely) and there is no plan for each of us, then what's the point of living? If I'm here just to live and die, no wonder the suicide rate is as high as it is!
I'll say it again: I've found purpose. I've found happiness. HAVE YOU?
While in science you cannot prove or falsify the existence of God (and ID doesn't change that), I agree that when it comes to blind faith Dawkins and PZ Myers are guilty of the same thing.
I considered atheism for a while after having a growing distaste for what seemed to be an elitist mentality among Christians, but then I realized that this new atheist movement is basically guilty of the same thing.
My mind was made up when I a couple people on youtube posted videos saying atheism offered nothing, and after viewing some of the attempts to prove atheism DID have something to offer, I realized that even if religion WAS false, it at least serves as a catalyst for a happier life.
Atheism is merely the lack of theistic belief, and it offers nothing beyond that. It exists as a social movement only because arrogant and self-righteous theism is so rampant in this country. If most everyone accepted the lack of religion as readily as they accepted red hair or tattoos, atheism as a movement would cease to exist.
If you're looking for a catalyst for a happier life, you'd need to look elsewhere. There are atheistic philosophies that can fill such a gap. Secular humanism is my favorite, but there are atheistic spiritual traditions, including subsets of Taoism and Confucianism.
Theism is a belief in god/s. Atheism is a *lack* of belief in god/s. Atheists do not claim to have proof that there is no God, but rather are confident to work on the assumption that none exists. The person who makes an outlandish claim has to provide the proof; it doesn't work the other way around. Saying, "I'm waiting for evidence that God exists, and if that happens I'll reconsider my position, but until then I won't believe" -- that's atheism, and there's no faith involved there.
Forgot that atheism ISN'T a religion, and if I say otherwise, people will apologetically insist I'm wrong.
Just as advances in genetic and protein research and mathematics are enabling us to understand and explain how evolution works, a growing number of our society are rejecting science in favor of myth and fake science.
Is it that people are losing touch with science because of its complexity; our education system is letting us down; the quality of our news sources is deteriorating; or informative (and could have been enlightening) books like “A New Kind of Science” are so poorly written?
There are only two choices. Either the complexity of living systems is intelligently organized or complex biological organization is the result of a series of lucky accidents. Darwinism claims “natural selection” somehow turned all those lucky accidents into purposefully interacting systems. Exactly how such a feat is performed is not stated. ID claims the complexity of living systems is not accidental. Whether the organizing intelligence of living systems is an innate aspect of living matter, or whether it emanates from some deity can not be determined. The present argument between theists and evangelical atheists can never be resolved. However if intelligence of any form is involved in living systems, either an internal organizing force or direction from a deity -- life is intelligently designed.
"There are only two choices. Either the complexity of living systems is intelligently organized or complex biological organization is the result of a series of lucky accidents."
I'm sorry but this is totally wrong. You actually feel you can set forth the only two possibilities here? How arrogant of you. You then go on to straw man the theory of evolution. Either you do so purposefully or because you don't truly understand it. Typically I find that ID folks think they understand evolution because they have read work by people who dispute it (which is hardly the best source) and then perhaps they skimmed a few actual credible sources. IDers come in with a preconception and therefore it is natural that they would not spend the time needed to understand something they feel is false. That is why these conversations never go anywhere.
A common trait I've noticed in every debunker of Intelligent Design, Creationism, God, etc. is an ardent desire to believe there is no higher reasoning power than the human mind. Which means he thinks HIS mind is the smartest thing in the Universe. His mind is closed on that certainty and he derives smug pleasure from sneering at those who don't agree with him.
A good word for that attitude is "fanaticism."
A religious fanatic says: "I know I'm right because God told me so." A secular fanatic says: "I know I'm right because I am God in my own little Cosmos."
Such self-worshipers are insufferable bores who could be ignored if they didn't use government power to force their beliefs on others. By lying about "separation of church and state" and other nonsense, they urge judges to pass laws against teaching anything but their own views of science in public schools. That such actions are the exact opposite of tolerance of dissent and objective scientific inquiry doesn't bother their snobbish feelings of superiority.
It is, of course, futile to argue with closed minds. So I'll just try to retain my own skepticism and study all sides of a controversy.
Even if you stretch your imagination to believe that all of this is part of a plan, is it work you or I would be proud of? The millions of innocents dying each year from neglect or abuse .
If this is it - the pinnacle of God's eternal plan, He needs a redesign.
_______
Name: tashinalogue
Website:lissage bresilien
very well said. The arrogance factor is always obvious. The entire act of presuming you know anything for sure is not scientific.. Their bias reveals them - and admittedly that happens on both sides. I don't believe a true 'scientist' exists.. because no matter who you are, you are inevitably proving nothing but your world view.
that reply was to allogic.. I clearly should have clarified.
And I was just the reverse.. I believed in nothing for 25 years. and now I believe wholeheartedly in God.
You should never judge a religion by it's followers for one -- people are sinful, perverse, bigoted beings and are not the ruler to go by. No matter what denomination. Though I do think I find much more animosity spouted by the atheist.. and for balance I do usually find more ignorance from christians..not all - just on the average. Yet, that is my point - you should never use them as a guide to what is true.
"I find much more animosity spouted by the atheist.. "
The animosity is much higher on the religious side.. the people who consider atheists immoral and even criminal.
What I desire to beleive is totally irrelevant. If desire guided my beliefs, I would be not only a supporter of Intelligent Design, but a young Earth Creationist and a fundamentalist Christian. But I'm not because my eyes were opened to the falsehood of those positions and that realization plunged me into a deep sense of grief at having been lied to and manipulated by promoters of bigoted dogmas. I think is it absolutly shameful for anyone to imply that my position is fanatical because I WANT to be the supreme intelligence in my universe. That is such a blatantly dishonest and ignorant strawman that I am amazed that it was even put out here.
In short, not one word of Allogic's statement rings true to me.
ID has no merit except as a religious idea. For ID to be even minimally logical, the IDer must be God. Positing any other possible Designer is illogical because the question can be fairly asked: where did they come from? If they are naturally occuring, then we can be too. If they are not, then ID just posits God at some degree of separation.
ID is, in fact, just a version of creationism. Actually, ID is one of the oldest forms of scientific creationism; a version of it was proposed by William Paley around 1802; about seven (7) years BEFORE CHARLES DARWIN WAS BORN. The modern version of ID is differnt from Paley's watchmaker, but only because 206 years have passed. At least Paley was honest enough to not obscure the religious nature of his idea.
As much as I might believe that there is some sort of creator and that a creation occurred, you cannot justifiably intermingle science and religion. ID is just "creation science" (which is not science at all) in disguise!
Teach science, not religion, in the science classroom, and creationism/ID in church. Bottom line, end of story.
On Pandasthumb, Nick Matzke, whose contributions to Dover v Kitzmiller were instrumental in the stunning defeat of Intelligent Design and whose contributions to exposing the fallacies in Behe''s arguments as well as the extent of ignorance of science amongst ID proponents has caused much concern amongst ID proponents, so much that in general they have chosen to pretend, in a typical creationist fashion, that Matzke's arguments do not exist. In this example, Matzke shows how Luskin's attempts to rebut the Kitzmiller decision by exposing the scientific vacuity of ID, once again backfire in light of the current state of scientific knowledge.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/luskin-and-the-2.html
Nick Matzke:
Over on the opposingviews.com website, Casey Luskin of the DI tries to rebut the Kitzmiller decision by re-fighting Behe’s spectacular implosion on the issue of the evolution of the vertebrate immune system. To review, in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe claimed that:
--Behe
“As scientists we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustruation.” (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 139)
“We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.” (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 138)
--
(PvM: Note how these are the typical ID arguments against science, we do not know, thus designed)
As the debate over “irreducible complexity” developed in the next decade, the most detailed arguments would go basically like this:
--
ID: Gradual evolution by natural selection can’t produce IC structures because any structure missing a part would be nonfunctional
Evo: You are ignoring cooption of structures with different functions, which has a been a major feature of the evolutionary explanation of complex structures ever since the Origin of Species.
ID: Cooption explanations are too improbable.
Evo: Why?
ID: Because we say so.
Evo: But homology evidence shows that “IC systems” lacking parts can still have other functions, and therefore your claim that structures missing parts would be nonfunctional is wrong
ID: OK well I don’t have a comeback on that point, so instead I will claim that evolutionary cooption explanations aren’t detailed & tested enough to satisfy me.
Evo: Here’s a bunch of detailed & tested research papers on the evolution of system X.
ID: Not detailed enough. I need every single mutation & selection pressure before I admit that evolution produced this IC system rather than ID.
--
At this point the ID proponent has abandoned the original argument and therefore lost, even though he won’t admit it. Knowing all of this before the Kitzmiller trial, we devised ways to bring this point to the attention of the judge. The most famous example was the fabled “immune system cross”. A large amount of evidence was submitted that showed how the key feature of the vertebrate adaptive immune system, rearranging immune receptors (antibodies), evolved.
Read the rest at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/luskin-and-the-2.html and educate yourself on the current status of science regarding the immune system and its evolution, and compare it with how ID 'explains' said immune system ('poof').