Strangetalk

by X » Oct 14 2004 04:30:08 pm

Intelligent Design: Is it Science or Religion?
Date: Thursday, October 14, 2004
Time: 6:30 pm
Location: Ross 124
Topic: "Intelligent Design: Is it Science or Religion?"
Lecturers: Dr. John Patterson and Dr. Hector Avalos

Intelligent Design has attracted some recent attention in our
nation. Its main proponent, William Dembski, author of Intelligent
Design (1999), and his followers believe that there is scientific
evidence that our universe was designed. More recently, Dr. Guillermo
Gonzalez of Iowa State University has published The Privileged Planet
(2004), which claims that the very position of our third planet seems to
be intelligently purposed. Dr. Patterson will examine these claims from
the scientific side, and Dr. Avalos will examine the claim from the
viewpoint of religious studies and philosophy.

by **gsys** » Oct 14 2004 10:05:38 pm

The correct answer is "neither".

by **Operations** » Oct 14 2004 10:17:20 pm

gsys wrote:The correct answer is "neither".

Your thoughts are revolutionary. Please sign me up for your newsletter and/or periodical.

by **asheron** » Oct 14 2004 10:52:38 pm

gsys wrote:The correct answer is "neither".

Actually it is hard to say if there are not people who have religious beliefs that this is real. However, this theory lacks all scientific support.

by **Persona** » Oct 15 2004 12:00:31 am

it really isn't much of a "theory," at least in the scientific sense.

by **Dr. Faustus** » Oct 15 2004 12:03:34 am

Persona wrote:it really isn't much of a "theory," at least in the scientific sense.

by **Governor General** » Oct 15 2004 03:05:27 am

it's science according to Origins....

by **asheron** » Oct 15 2004 03:59:52 am

[C]r3\X/ wrote:it's science according to Origins....

I don't care who says it is a science. I want to know why.

by **ape** » Oct 15 2004 12:02:51 pm

I don't buy the story of intelligent design. It took as 1 billion years to evolve to who we are, while it would, my best estimate, take 200 years to develop an AI that would excel humans in all respects. Why would god do it over billion of years if humans can do better? Here is why. He does not exist.

by **servotron** » Oct 15 2004 02:41:27 pm

Anyone who thinks that things were "designed" just doesn't understand the concept of evolution. As far as the whole "third planet" thing.. can't he accept that it just happened? He's probably the kind of idiot that says "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"!

The guy needs to live with the fact that he's never going to know the answer.

by **daoist** » Oct 16 2004 05:34:22 am

gsys wrote:The correct answer is "neither".

fancy that, an assertion with nothing to back it up. How refreshing.

by **daoist** » Oct 16 2004 05:34:49 am

[C]r3\X/ wrote:it's science according to Origins....

According to what, now?

by **Rusty Shackleford** » Oct 16 2004 01:38:58 pm

Intelligent Design is currently a political movement that has religious motivation that could become science if its supporters would back it up with scientific research.

by **C-Gir** » Oct 16 2004 01:48:02 pm

which claims that the very position of our third planet seems to
be intelligently purposed

The salt company used this on one of their flyers once, it's just a mediocre rehashing of Aquinas' design argument, which is easilly refuted by saying that in a near infinite or infinite universe a setup as perfect as this is extremely likely or required. (respectively)

As for the intellegent design, there are plenty of facts around that refute that. It has been disproven a billion times.

by **daoist** » Oct 16 2004 03:30:34 pm

fact #1:

If we were intelligently designed, then, based on our design, we'd have to infer that the designer was mentally handicapped.

by **Shuft** » Oct 16 2004 05:30:59 pm

I would call it philosophy, but I just want to be different.

by **kazan** » Oct 18 2004 12:36:08 pm

ID never was, and never will be science - it has presuppositions

by **asheron** » Oct 18 2004 12:39:02 pm

It is a lovely theory and could become science if there was once scrap of experimental or observed data to prove it correct. However, all those who support this form of creationism tend to just attack evolution. The main problem they will run into is how do you run an experiment to prove there is a God?

by **servotron** » Oct 18 2004 01:00:42 pm

Simple, you just need to create some sort of placebo God and test it against the real thing.

by **kazan** » Oct 18 2004 01:51:56 pm

can i be the placebo god? and require all attractive young females submit to intercourse?

by **Shuft** » Oct 18 2004 02:10:06 pm

Religion creates a placebo god. People see visions, people act morally, and society makes decisions based on what this god supposedly says and does.

What we really need are 2 other universes, one where we know there is really a god and one where we know there isn't. Then all we have to do is observe them and decide if our god is all just collectively psychosomatic, or is real.

by **ape** » Oct 18 2004 02:40:55 pm

Shuft wrote:Religion creates a placebo god. People see visions, people act morally, and society makes decisions based on what this god supposedly says and does.

What we really need are 2 other universes, one where we know there is really a god and one where we know there isn't. Then all we have to do is observe them and decide if our god is all just collectively psychosomatic, or is real.

If we create different universes then we would probably qualify as gods. No further testing would be necessary.

by **Shuft** » Oct 18 2004 03:27:18 pm

We wouldn't need to create them, we could just find them, like they always do in sci-fi.

by **Persona** » Oct 18 2004 04:42:42 pm

there was a god-awful article in the daily about the "debate". http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/dis ... 3377ded477

this article makes some absurd claims, such as, science wouldn't exist without belief in god, darwin didn't think eye evolution was possible, and id is a secular science whose work is being censored by the mainstream. many id'ers are after more than just darwinism, but materialism, atheism, relativism, etc. just read anything by phillip johnson or go to http://www.discovery.org .

by **gsys** » Oct 18 2004 04:45:40 pm

Who put that guy in charge of the opinion section? Is he the reason for all the shittiness?

by **daoist** » Oct 18 2004 05:45:10 pm

It's clear that he either wasn't there or wasn't paying a damn bit of attention.

He claims that Patterson doesn't understand that early scientists believed in god. Quite the opposite; Patterson used that as a cornerstone of his argument.

ALL of the intellectual heavyweights from the time of the renaissance have believed in god, and yet they have all abandoned theological theories in favor of secular ones.

by **Boozer** » Oct 19 2004 09:43:37 am

Persona wrote:there was a god-awful article in the daily about the "debate". http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/dis ... 3377ded477

this article makes some absurd claims, such as, science wouldn't exist without belief in god, darwin didn't think eye evolution was possible, and id is a secular science whose work is being censored by the mainstream. many id'ers are after more than just darwinism, but materialism, atheism, relativism, etc. just read anything by phillip johnson or go to http://www.discovery.org .

Scott Rank is a retard. My guess is that he was there, but his stubborn opposition to attacks on his religous world-view fantasy momentarily prevented him from understanding English and basic logic.

by **cease-n-desist** » Oct 19 2004 10:53:43 am

I'm open to the possibilities of any theory being falsified. I don't cling to evolutionary thought like a drowning man.

Give me a fucking break. This ID shit is a cognitive thinking error to the max. A fanatic is a fucking fanatic no matter what their credentials are.

I liked Justin Wodstrchill's letter in the Oct 19 2004 Daily, particularly the closing remarks on the benefits of faith.

One more reason to sponsor a world religion day. Yes Jedi Order and catholics would be welcome.

by **asheron** » Oct 19 2004 05:30:23 pm

Without scientific evidence towards an intelligent being, intelligent design can be elimited by Occum's Razor.

by **Persona** » Oct 19 2004 06:40:21 pm

Boozers R Losers wrote:Scott Rank is a retard. My guess is that he was there, but his stubborn opposition to attacks on his religous world-view fantasy momentarily prevented him from understanding English and basic logic.

Looking at the replies, Jason Funk makes Scott Rank look like a Nobel Prize winner.

by **Persona** » Oct 19 2004 09:07:27 pm

I love this one, though.

Christopher R. Olson wrote:Finally, Mr. Rank attempts to use the Far Side cartoon to cast ridicule on Darwin's Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection. However, it is clear to me that Gary Larson understands far more about evolution, and science, than Mr. Rank does. Therefore I call on all evolutionary biologists to post their favorite Far Side cartoons on their office doors with pride- the Far Side is, afterall, one of the few true rewards we as scientists have gotten back from society.

by **servotron** » Oct 20 2004 10:06:19 am

Persona wrote:
Boozers R Losers wrote:Scott Rank is a retard. My guess is that he was there, but his stubborn opposition to attacks on his religous world-view fantasy momentarily prevented him from understanding English and basic logic.
Looking at the replies, Jason Funk makes Scott Rank look like a Nobel Prize winner.

Jason Funk? Scott Rank? Am I the only one noticing a potentially fake name parade here?

Who gets published next, Amy Smellsbad, Alan Pitstain, or Bill Understank?

by **kazan** » Oct 20 2004 12:33:54 pm

yeah i've been detecting numerous trolls taking the fundie position on the daily for a while

by **Persona** » Oct 20 2004 12:40:18 pm

all the more reason not to read the daily or visit the website.

by **cease-n-desist** » Oct 20 2004 01:07:15 pm

Kazan wrote:yeah i've been detecting numerous trolls taking the fundie position on the daily for a while

they gather and strategize techniques for winning converts...pathetic brain freezing techniques I might add. Like in the 90s taking control of local school boards, they have discovered that the university press is a vulnerable and weak avenue for them to infiltrate. Free thinker…take back the campus newspaper!!!

by **ape** » Oct 21 2004 11:29:27 am

So far the only way to back up the idea of ID is to assume that god intelligently created the universe and its laws so that eventually all things combine in a way that he wanted in the first place. That would include formation of solar system-> aminoacids -> humans. This would be similar to pouring water into a pool. Eventually the pool would be fulll and water would assume the shape of the pool, as one wanted in the first place.

Another thing that bothers me is the use of the word "intelligent" with respect to god. Intelligence is " the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations", but since god is triple omni he has nothing to learn, understand, deal with, etc. He would function more like a memory card, and we do not call memory chips intelligent. Can we still call god intelligent?

May be under the word intelligent they mean purposeful. Yet I see no grande purpose in my existence. Concept of god is too messy and contradictory.

by **cease-n-desist** » Oct 21 2004 06:02:48 pm

this is in regard to jason anderson's letter in the Oct 21, 2004 Daily

A search of his name turned up this.

[url=http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/07/20/40fca2c95bdbd?in_archive=1]July 14
Jacob Niederhauser, 20, 2122 Lincoln Way, was cited for underage possession of alcohol in the area of Blankenburg Drive and Stange Road. [/url]

Naughty, naughty, naughty man

Moral weaknesses aside, I object to his letter for the following reasons

Life may have started in some other way than in a geothermically warmed, primordial clay pit, but to suggest that your christian god was a part of it is lunacy to the n-th degree.

Your comment about the elegance of DNA is also suspect as there is mounting evidence that most of the DNA in any organism is junk and only a fraction is used for replicating.

I also object to the generalized use of the phrase natural selection as though it is dogma and doctrine. I would be more than willing to see the many, many updates to the theory falsified if an all-new theory could hold a candle to it.

In general, I object to the attacks on natural selection by my fanatical christian friends because it is the weakest of all the theories that statistically-based empirical science has presented thus far in our brief civilized history on this infinitesimal planet. Give Darwin a break. Why not attack Einstein or Newton?

edit: in 2004 EM Rubin presented a human-mouse comparitive genomics paper examining large knockout regions of dna sequences that had no statistically significant effect on the reproduction of mice. Conclusion: DNA is imperfect, so a christian god played no part in its creation

by **daoist** » Oct 21 2004 06:42:25 pm

so why are you replying here? send it into the daily. I'd leave the underage drinking part out, it makes you look (rightly so) like a total ass.

by **Persona** » Oct 21 2004 07:18:05 pm

who hasn't had alcohol underage?

by **cease-n-desist** » Oct 21 2004 09:49:01 pm

daoist wrote:so why are you replying here? send it into the daily. I'd leave the underage drinking part out, it makes you look (rightly so) like a total ass.

the drinking thing was a joke...shit it's part of the public record...YOU need a drink...loosen up.

Why do I need the anxiety of sending shit to the Daily? What's the prob w/ posting here?

by **cease-n-desist** » Oct 22 2004 12:57:30 pm

hector had a nice response in the Oct. 22, 2004 Daily

by **Persona** » Oct 22 2004 01:44:02 pm

Is George Kimball insane, or just a troll?

by **joey_knisch** » Oct 23 2004 03:10:46 pm

Kazan wrote:yeah i've been detecting numerous trolls taking the fundie position on the daily for a while

rank is not a troll unless he has committed his life to trolling.

he tried to save me once. it was a good laugh.

by **daoist** » Oct 23 2004 06:03:20 pm

stained sheets wrote:
daoist wrote:so why are you replying here? send it into the daily. I'd leave the underage drinking part out, it makes you look (rightly so) like a total ass.
the drinking thing was a joke...shit it's part of the public record...YOU need a drink...loosen up.

Why do I need the anxiety of sending shit to the Daily? What's the prob w/ posting here?

anxiety?

I don't understand your point. If you want to truly have a discussion with this guy, send it to the daily. letters@www.iowastatedaily.com It takes just about as much effort as posting to strangetalk.

Now, if you just post it to strangetalk where the guy probably can't respond, that's not very constructive of you at all.

by **Rusty Shackleford** » Oct 27 2004 12:07:56 am

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000580.html

by **Boozer** » Oct 27 2004 12:32:04 am

How did you end up at that site?

by **daoist** » Oct 27 2004 02:21:53 am

we should get rank fired.

Website · by **G_RAM** » Oct 27 2004 03:00:18 am

I am in. What do we have to do?

Website · by **G_RAM** » Oct 27 2004 03:07:49 am

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000581.html#more

this one too.

by **Rusty Shackleford** » Oct 27 2004 08:23:54 am

Boozers R Losers wrote:How did you end up at that site?

Ummm, I read it pretty regularly.

by **Beef Supreme** » Oct 27 2004 10:09:36 am

stained sheets wrote:
Kazan wrote:yeah i've been detecting numerous trolls taking the fundie position on the daily for a while
they gather and strategize techniques for winning converts...pathetic brain freezing techniques I might add. Like in the 90s taking control of local school boards, they have discovered that the university press is a vulnerable and weak avenue for them to infiltrate. Free thinker…take back the campus newspaper!!!

That's a generalization, seeing as how there are only two fundies that write for the opinion section. The only complaint I've had lately is the pro-republican headlines, but that could also just be poor editing.

Strangetalk

Intelligent Design: Is it Science or Religion?

Intelligent Design: Is it Science or Religion?

Who is online