Debates on "intelligent design" - rathouse forum

http://pub19.bravenet.com/forum/1573050381/


Subject:

Intelligent design
Name:

Hal Colebatch
Date Posted:

Apr 7, 05 - 6:23 AM
Email:

halcolebatch@hotmail.com
Message:

Some articles have recently attacked the Intelligent Design theory on the grounds that it is not disprovable and therefore cannot be scientific. I'd be interested to know what others think.


http://pub19.bravenet.com/forum/1573050381/fetch/430633


Subject:

Re: Intelligent design
Name:

John McCaffrey
Date Posted:

Apr 15, 05 - 4:15 PM
Email:

mrmccaffrey96@hotmail.com
Message:

Not disprovable...? Only if the goalposts keep getting moved....Where is this creator? -oh, he's invisibleWhat does he smell like?-oh, he doesn't smellHow big is he?-oh, he doesn't exist in the spatio-temporal domain....Right then. I'll not bother listening to you any more....you go investigate this non-perceivable entity if you want to waste some time....



Subject:

Re: Re: Intelligent design
Name:

Sailom
Date Posted:

Apr 21, 05 - 1:16 AM
Email:

tootankamon_2@yahoo.com
Message:

I agree with this reply. Proving God's existence is a waste of time. No empirical evidence can ever be collected to refute a statement such as "the universe and living organisms are so well designed, there must have been a creator". No possible refutation, no objective debate.Cheers,Sailom


Subject:

Re: Intelligent design
Name:

Alan Forrester
Date Posted:

Apr 18, 05 - 9:15 AM
Email:

alan_forrester2@yahoo.co.uk
Instant Messenger:

glasgowthinker
Message:

It is true to say that Intelligent Design is irrefutable. However, that's the least of its problems. The reason Intelligent Design is irrefutable is that it is a terrible explanation of the complexity of life on Earth. If the Intelligent Designer was God, then he could have created the world any way he liked and so Intelligent Design contributes nothing to any explanation of what the world actually is like. If the Designer wasn't god, the theory is still untestable in the absence of an explanation of what technology they had available to them. More pressing, however, is the fact that there is a vast amount of internally consistent evidence that can be explained in remarkable detail by evolution.


Subject:

Re: Re: Intelligent design
Name:

Hal Colebatch
Date Posted:

Apr 19, 05 - 11:24 AM
Email:

halcolebatch@hotmail.com
Message:

In raising this, I did not have any dogmatic opinions, just curiousity as to what others thought. But I wonder: COULD God have created the universe any way he liked? I have an idea that once you have a physical universe, then there are laws of physics that must be obeyed.


Subject:

Re: Re: Re: Intelligent design
Name:

Sailom
Date Posted:

Apr 21, 05 - 1:30 AM
Email:

tootankamon_2@yahoo.com
Message:

Yes, nature has its laws, they are discovered little by little with some giant steps thanks to Newton, Darwin and Eistein. Your comment seems to relate to the "God of the gap". "Laws of physics are so complex and so mysterious that there MUST be a divine will to shape it that way". This assumption is plainly speculative and has no solutions. There will never be an absolute and complete knowledge of the laws of the universe. Therefore, there will always be an opportunity to "step in the darkness of our ignorance" and behold God as the cure to our ignorance. All of these behaviors are not much scientific! We should rather stick to scientific progress and contribute to knowledge in a positive way.Cheers,Sailom


Subject:

Re: Intelligent design
Name:

Matthew Joseph Harrington
Date Posted:

Apr 19, 05 - 5:05 PM
Email:

mjhfinder@earthlink.net
Message:

If I remember rightly-- a sentiment open to doubt-- the view that the Universe was created and thereafter left alone was held by Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin. (I cannot speak for Adams; he was a Harvard man, and as such may have believed anything.)I've always felt that the traditional Chinese Bureaucracy of Gods had something plausible about it. Prayers are almost never answered immediately because they have to go through channels: the local authority checks with superiors, things get routed to different departments, and of course a file has to be kept on the request and how it is progressing.This is only partly a joke, btw. It goes a long way toward explaining some 86-year-old grandmother getting a pony for her birthday.I do believe in Something. I also believe that going out and talking people into believing likewise is no part of divine will-- it's simply sharp business practice for those who have heard a Voice say unto them, "Hey, it's indoor work with no heavy lifting."


Subject:

Re: Re: Intelligent design
Name:

Sailom
Date Posted:

Apr 21, 05 - 8:06 PM
Email:

tootankamon_2@yahoo.com
Message:

"the view that the Universe was created and thereafter left alone" was the dominant view among philosophers in the 18th century. It's the "deist" creed that rejects omnipotence and therefore most creeds of organized religions. The main problem remains that without evidence to prove it or refute it, a belief in God remains just that. And if we were talking about an economic theory, our conclusion would be that we should forget this theory and consider the ones with practical applications, the ones that seem to explain economic facts until one fact doesn't fit the theory and it is refuted for a better one. Nothing can be done for the existence of God in that sense. Even a "minimal" belief in a creator can not be discussed seriously by rational people.Never heard of the Chinese Bureaucracy of Gods. The traditional Chinese philosophies don't require any believes in God.Wether someone "hear voices" and think that his/her prayers are being answered, it all relates to the same problems... It's irrational because it cannot be discussed objectively.Aknowledging that people need to believe in something, this is another story.