Capitol Hill Blue Forums Science and Technology Science and scientific thought Intelligent design shouldn't be dismissed

Granville Sewell
El Paso Times
December 15, 2013

More

Granville Sewell

well shoot ... if it is too complex, we can simply remain ignorant

ID is just a sham, when they claim that it is different from Creationism. If the only alternate to "God the Creator" is that some other intelligent mortal beings created our design, then who created that intelligent race? ID either just pushes the problem back another step or two, or it is indeed just window dressing on "God Did Everything" as in the cartoon.

And contrary to this article, every example the ID'ers have ever come up with to claim "too complex for random chance" actually has been found in simpler versions that evolved in multiple different descendant species. So Evolution still holds up quite well, and in fact is intimately intertwined with nearly every insight in Biology and Medicine of the last 100 years. That's not to say that nothing has been added to Darwin's basic concept over the years, but that is simply how the Scientific Method works NOT invalidation of dogma.

The only reasonable claim ID can make is that perhaps somebody selected the parameters of our universe, which we see in the physical constants such as the size of higher dimensions, the relative strength of the Weak Force to other forces, etc. Which only implies that there was a "Great Watchmaker" before time began, but is completely consistent with The Theory of Evolution! In effect: Evolution is just an example of understanding how God made the universe work.

Agreed.

For me, I wonder if they think there is a difference, or that no one will notice, or maybe the it is just a marketing gimmick. Or whatever. But when people play these sorts of games, I have a hard time respecting their integrity... Ethically speaking.

The dichotomy underlying this conundrum of "The Beginning" is that it is unknowable, and every position of "knowing", whether it be Creationism, Intelligent Design, or an expectation that Science will Explain It, cannot escape being a fantasy.

Evolution is not an explanation of The Beginning, it is a description of a theoretical process that occurs after The Beginning. Comparing Evolution and C. or I.D., as though they were competing about explaining the same thing, is a fallacy.

Living with not knowing is intellectually difficult for most people (all people), because it involves acceptance of a lack of control; believing a fantasy is a far more comfortable position in that it provides an illusion of control. Challenging folks' fantasies is challenging our fantasy based sense of stability and control.

Which reminds me - the allure and weirdness of libertarianism and the whole Ayn Randy fantasy is a function of the desire to be in control. It varies from conventional Right Wingery in that libertarians don't want to be controlled, but neither do they want to control anybody else.

Humm
As I see it the in the beginning part is not the critical issue.

Exceptionalism is the main point. Humans are exceptional because it is gods design. Exceptionalism makes no sense If mankind were just another animal emerging from a natural process of evolution.

Exceptionalism allows people to say normal laws and processes do not apply to us. Then they proceed to define the laws, and attribute them to god.

The exceptionalist view has almost infinite flexibility to support self justification. Exceptionalist was the basis for slavery. Euro colonization, and even nazi concepts of the übermensch.

Exceptionalism is the seductive conceit that we are special. The earth is the center of the universe. Humans are the most important thing about earth. And we are the most important humans.

America is a nation of choices....no? Some of us demand a greater number of choices than others....no?

Back in 2000 I sat through a large meeting of the Republican National Convention in Phoenix Arizona and had the new agenda (platform) handed out to all Arizona Republicans. I had to ask a pointed question to our State Senate member Robert Burns whether I had to be a Christian to be a member of the GOP? Yes! was his answer. I explained that I had never been baptized and he suggested I leave the convention.

In the last 13 years, I have seen my Republican Party dissolve back into the time of the Inquisition and under the complete control of the Vatican. Not even the new Pope can understand what has happened in America since Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell took over the Platform.

The threat of the end of times, has nearly destroyed those precious choices that so many of us have worked to maintain. Many of us have seen the disintegration of intelligence that has taken over our entertainment and academics. America is number 17 on the list of IQs and there is little hope that the next generation will be stimulated into doing something about it.

10 years ago I had great hope that Reader Rant might be able to organize some free thinking and new writers develop but it bombed out. Doug tried to develop some kind of organized thinking but it bombed. Apparently the internet has accomplished nothing in the way of free thought and is successful only in arguing about Ayn Rand.

History 2 has started some discussion groups trying to organize debates in what needs attention on this planet at this time. They agree on only one subject and that is religion tends to turn off individual discussions on all subjects.

Have we as a species reached the ultimate ability to think as individuals? Could there be life after the internet forums?

Hi, Sandy! Say, a quick question... do you assess yourself to be a part of the bombing out crowd and the lowered IQ of America, or do you see yourself as an exception to the devolution?

Human beings tend to anthropomorphize everything. To me that is an indication of a lack of imagination - an incapability of seeing things from another perspective. Intelligent design is, in my view, a reaction to the realization that one 'cannot understand' or, more accurately, cannot accept. Most particularly, cannot accept randomness. For if this truly is simply a creation of cumulative random interactions then how can life have meaning and purpose? Lack of purpose leads to despair. or, alternatively, one can accept randomness as the background against which we create, and strive to have an impact - hopefully toward some 'better' end. In the end, of course, we will all die. In the interim, we can provide our own purpose.