Quote:
To posit intelligent design, you simply have to posit that the universe contains intelligence. You could use humans as the example, but something like dolphins would be more obvious - since the intelligence of humans is somewhat dubious.
After that, you state with supporting evidence that intelligence is an integral aspect of the universe and not an evolutionary end-product.
|
What is the testable fact that the claim 'intelligence is an integral aspect of the universe, and not an evolutionary end-product' produces?
I really can't see it.
Quote:
|
Good point Yakk, there could be an intelligent designer, just as there could be magical pixie dust, or unicorn farts, or a farsical big bang (how big could this bang be?), or a dancing ogre which would explain the beginning of the universe. But we know that we inhabit, and evolution takes place on, the corpse of the giant Ymir.
|
(
edit: Image is a link to the hosting website)
Quote:
|
I did explain the exact reason(s) for my "about face" on the validity of the subject and also the sense I have that those with religious views deserve the same respect we typically offer to other groups/philosophies in my post #26 in this thread.
|
My problem with ID is teaching non-science in the science curriculum. If those with religious views want to reduce science teaching in the classroom, and add in religious teaching, let them say it.
If they want to ridicule some of the stupid things that secularists do, let them do it.
Quote:
|
Reading my statement above out of context, it is possible to come to the conclusions Manx is responding to here. However, an in context reading of all my statements in this thread indicates I do not see ID as a "religious" philosophy but as a competing theory as potentially scientific as evolution. That has been my position here.
|
Quote:
|
1. IMO, ID is not a religious construction. It simply asserts intelligence is an integral aspect of the material universe.
|
ID is as scientific as Odinism. Odinism simply asserts that Odin is an integral part of the material universe.
Quote:
|
The comment(s) I make regarding religious views as deserving of the same respect we typically offer to other groups/philosophies has to do with my previous statements where I have made general observations that those who conflate ID and religious views are in error and also that the sort of respect shown those with religious views by many secularists in general and in this forum in particular is sorely lacking.
|
So, you are saying that secularists should give as much respect to people of religious views as they recieve from people of religious views?
Heh.
Quote:
|
1. It is absolutely religious at the heart as the entire tenet behind it requires a God power. That is religious. It is not being used correctly by those with religious beliefs because they fail at every turn to give it any substantiation. I called everyone out to provide me with anything that could be construed as material proof or a scientific method of testing the theory, as yet nothing. All ID can provide is faith, and faith is not science.
|
Actually, you can have scientific theories that rely on the existance of a God. So long as they are the 'simplest explaination' and provide falsifiable statements of fact to verify them. 'simplest explaination' is being used somewhat technically.