Automotive Deals BOTYSFKT Shop Women's Clothing Learn more Discover it Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Water Sports

Intelligent Design as Scientific Theory


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 86 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 4, 2007 12:33:48 PM PST
Dear Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID),

I would appreciate if you could help a layman better understand the concept. I am not interested in hearing what conventional scientists have to say in support of Darwin’s views. I want to learn whether ID is science or not. Here are my questions:

1) Newton’s law of gravity predicts that an apple will fall from a tree, not rise into the heavens.
a. What does Intelligent Design (ID) predict?
b. Would you please name some major scientific breakthroughs that resulted from the application of ID theory?

2) If a scientific experiment showed that an apple would rise into the heavens in defiance of earthly gravity due to some unknown force, the law of gravity would come under scrutiny. Legions of scientists would repeat the experiment, and then begin trying to figure the puzzle of this unexplained phenomenon. Are there any experiments (or ascending apple tests) that can test whether ID is false or suspect?

3) Darwin’s evolution theory describes a passive mechanism for change. It does not explain origins of life. There are volumes of scientific literature, including replicable tests that support Darwin’s theory. Why is ID more effective in explaining evolutionary change?

4) Will you lease list the names of any leading scientific journals that publish experimental results that support the theory of ID?
(Just t clarify, I mean scientific experiments, not philosophical rebuttals against Darwin’s theory. I have read the literature on www.discovery.org)

5) Karl Poppler proposed a principle of falsifiability for evaluating scientific theories. Essentially, the principle states that all "scientific laws," such as Newton's Law of Gravity, are simply hypotheses because they cannot be proved, but merely supported. It only takes one single experiment (that is replicable one) to disprove such a theory. One counterexample can potential demolish a theory.
a. Adversaries of ID say that it is impossible to disprove ID because it merely describes an outcome as opposed to a process, such as Darwin’s adaptive selection. Will you please explain why they are wrong?
b. What process does ID explain?

Thank you for your assistance in understanding the merits of your approach.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2007 3:07:36 PM PDT
Lufer says:
ID is untestable and makes no predictions.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2007 4:37:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 18, 2007 11:58:50 AM PDT
General Reader,

If there is a God, there must be an Intelligent Design because God is "infinite qua infinite." An infinite God makes a finite universe possible and actual. I prove that God exists. (See, The First Scientific Proof of God). Overlook the first five reviewers because they are atheists who are trying to stop the propagation of my book.

The Intelligent Design is the design of God who actually created a universe. We have a problem of knowing God's Intelligent Design becuse we can know it only by conceiving and proving what we are conceiving.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 15, 2007 11:45:22 PM PDT
As a layman I have to say that there are three things which really muddy the water for me in this debate.

The first is the use of the word "God". The word means so many things to so many people that it is effectively meaningless, and only serves to blur the arguments being presented on both sides. To me it is enough to say that there might be some form of non-human intelligence in the universe that directs and organizes natural phenomena. Seeing as science has such a poor grasp of how human intelligence exists and functions, and the incredible weirdness being uncovered by quantum physics, I am willing to entertain that there might be something to the idea of intelligent design, but only if evidence can be provided to support the notion.

The second thing which turns me off is the deep, personal and obvious hatred of the scientific community for proponents of intelligent design. Nasty attacks only make such scientists look like intolerant petty zealots (which, quite frankly, some of them are), and doesn't aid their cause with laypeople like myself. All it does is turn debate into politically polarized trench warfare.

The third thing which bugs me is the interjection of theology into this arena. Here's a newsflash to fundamentalist Christians: even if the theory of evolution turns out to be partially wrong thats not going to make me believe in fables like the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, etc. The Bible is a powerful and extremely influential piece of litrature, but it is not a historical, let alone scientific, text. To me ID has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion, and I have zero interest in what the Bible has to say on the subject.

The bottom line is that I doubt this argument is going to be settled any time in the near future, as there are people making lots of money as cheerleaders for both sides. Perhaps what we could all use (and that includes the public at large) is a good dose of humility. The universe is a vast and complex place, and humanity has only just begun to scratch the surface of true understanding. To say "I'm right and you're just stupid" on issues like this is only arrogance. The fact is that nobody understands much of anything, and only by keeping our minds open can we ever hope to escape the ignorance in which we - yes, that means all of us - exist.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2007 3:21:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 17, 2007 3:23:03 PM PDT
dvimus says:
Intelligent Design is complete and utter rubbish from start to finish. It starts from the conclusion that the universe was designed by God and fashions all its writing from that standpoint. There has never been a single bit of verifiable evidence in support of ID, only the claims of its proponents. ID has not the least basis in science despite all the inane ravings of those who would have you believe that it has.

The author of the book at the centre of this forum is Michael Behe. Behe's colleagues at Lehigh University have disowned him. The Department of Biological Sciences has posted the following statement on their website.

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others."

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of 'intelligent design.' While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2007 11:02:30 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2007 11:56:55 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2007 11:18:48 AM PDT
dvimus says:
George

Your comments are amongst the funniest things I have read in years. Facts are not enough, ho ho!! Darwinism is nothing but a cult, ha ha. I challenge you in you in my book...I must dry my eyes!!!!

You are a genius. You have transformed a woeful lack of understanding and knowledge on your part into a comic stand-up routine and further you have managed to elevate a movement which has no existence outside of the confines of ID to the level of a cult. Darwinism does not exist in the real world. It is used by ID as a term of abuse for what it regards as godless materialism, that is unless you lot have rewritten your guidebook again.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to your next informative installement.

P.S. Do you want any ammunition to have a go at or will you provide your own?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 22, 2007 9:57:17 AM PDT
REJN says:
GeneralReader says "One counterexample can potential demolish a theory." Here is your counter example of evolution. Dr. J. William Schopf of the University of California has found 3 1/2 billion year old multi celled fossil organisms. (Look up Dr. Schopf's credentials. They are rather impressive in this field.) These fossil cells show signs of having a nucleus. Keep up with the current research and you will have your counter example unfold before your eyes. By the way, 3.5 billion years ago was shortly after Earth was bombarded by enormous devastating meteorites. Oceans were turned to steam, rocks melted, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 22, 2007 1:16:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 23, 2007 12:35:44 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2007 1:48:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 23, 2007 8:00:24 AM PDT
dvimus says:
Dialectical thinking is at best pointless, semantic, navel-gazing twaddle. At worst it is a system of thought designed to imprison mankind in political systems that place their emphasis on a dictator or absolute monarch. Shame on you for using the crap employed by the likes of Hegel and Marx to snuff out reason and limit human freedom. Dialectical thinking is not in the least scientific for using dialectics it is possible to obtain any result you wish to obtain. Read Popper's What is Dialectics? for a thorough analysis of this. He provided a history of it and explains why dialectic is a very weak method. It is available on the web.

Perhaps if your grasp of history was better than it is you would not have made such a ridiculous statement as,

"Today, many US mathematicians and scientists state that they can do their work without considering God. However, they haven't proven their statement. So, for a long time, they have been making an assumption that God does not exist. This assumption has been challenged by religions."

Whilst atheism might have it roots in Greece in the 5th century BC, (to use the christian calender) it had little regular meaning until the early eighteenth century. Jean Meslier's book Common Sense whilst relevant should be seen as a one-off for the seventeenth century. Further this was written in secret and only found after Meslier's death. Not that there was an instantaneous takeup of atheism. It was largely restricted to those with an education developed enough to shake off the superstitious mubo-jumbo. Apart from this religions everywhere have been around far longer and have shown universal hostility to anyone or anything that has said belief in a devine being is garbage. The challenge which is mainly a twentieth century one has come from from those who hold religion has got it wrong and has got it wrong throughout.

History has no meaning. It has no purpose. That is not to say we cannot learn from historical events but that is entirely different to historicism which is bunk. Russia and communist eastern europe was run on the belief that history had an end purpose and look at the hideous mess that resulted as a succession of terrible leaders tried to impose their will on the rest in a futile attempt to make this dribble work. I find it utterly amazing that such failed rubbish is still being peddled out in the twenty-first century.

Darwinism does not exist. It is not a belief system. Darwin (and Wallace as well on the other side of the planet 5 years before Darwin) supported their ideas with evidence and laid it open for ANYONE at anytime to challenge and falsify. This is the process of science. ID by contrast states it conclusion first and then tries to hammer the facts into strange shapes in a misbegotten attempt to make itself look credible. ID is not credible. It's decitful.

You say that Darwin's theory has never been proven. Oh yes it has, time and time and time again over the last 140 years by countless thousands of independently minded scientists. However since you insist on not accepting what has been verified, such work might just as well not exist, which doubtless would suit you down to the ground. Sadly for you and good for the rest of us, it does exist.

The Catholic Church has the most dreadful record when it comes to science and to see you cite them has given me another good laugh. You think the Pope apologising about its treatment of Galileo nearly four centuries after the event is evidence it is changing its attitude. Get real. The bigots that run the Catholic Church have worked within a fifth century mindset since the fall of Rome and any little developments that they have belatedly accepted have come in the face of colossol opposition. Perhaps it might also interest you to note that the late and definitely not missed JP2 beattified more mortals into 'saints' than his predecessors combined thus swelling one of the world's leading publications of fiction. If you are so convinced about the Catholic Church and the current incumbant have a renewed attitude to science treat yourself to reading some of Pope Foot-in-mouth's current notions.

"So, all created things by God are imperfect."

Now doesn't that get you off the hook? God isn't perfect - its official. So just how intelligent is your intelligent designer? So intelligent he, she, it, screws everything up? I got the impression not so long ago that God was perfect, particularly the way the religious banged on about it, unless of course I and millions of others have remembered that bit wrong. That you use this pathetic bit of reasoning as a means of trying to justify human intervention shows just how empty your argument is in the first place. Your proof is nothing of the kind. It is vacuous, empty rhetoric.

The rest of your site is similarly focused. Very sad. Unfortunately from what I read on your site your head is so full of theological rubbish it is quite incapable of seeing any other point of view. You're welcome to your narrow, God-induced world. Just keep it to yourself. Alternatively, you can start to open your mind up and realise that a world without a devine being and the associated dogma is infinitley preferable because then you might see that all humans are entirely responsible for their actions and that it is humankind alone that gives purpose to life.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2007 1:02:40 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2007 4:40:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 23, 2007 4:44:31 PM PDT
dvimus says:
Try harder George. This last post of yours is pathetic.

Biology is not a field of thought. It is a science. Biology is concerned with naturalistic materialism. and as a science advances through testing and falsification of presented evidence. If that same evidence stands up to independent critical analysis and scrutiny it becomes accepted as a theory which is entirely based on observed and tested facts. Not opinion, not heresay, not superstition, not magic, JUST FACTS.

Religion on the other hand is only a field of dogma and pointless ritual. It most certainly is not a science. Facts in religion are normally a major headache because they get in the way of the bs. All religion exists on the basis it is a cult of thought. Some religious cults are larger than others. Not one of them is right. However, belonging to a cult that does not have you as a member would seem to be adequate compensation.

Given your take on drugs, movies, porn, child molesters, gays etc., perhaps you should enlist in a general basic history course, and that should include a history of the christian church. In it you will learn of endorsement of slavery, the usurping by the Catholic church of civil power over any country, judicially sanctioned murder and torture, the Inquisition, the ending of civil law and its replacement by cannon law, witch hunts, the charges of heresy against the dead, the suppression of education, the enforced payments to the church under the tithe system, the trashing of public health (admitted this was not great in Roman times but a great deal better than what followed in centuries 5-17) the destruction of libraries, the crusades, the perversion of hetro-sexual activity by tainting it as sinful, popes having sex with their own children, (Pope Sergio III and his 13-year-old daughter Marozie for one) the church opening and operating its own brothels, (John the 12th (955-964) turning the Lateran into a brothel in case you're curious), the Borgias - heard about them? Pope Joan? Heard of her? She died in childbirth during the swearing-in ceremony, the hushing up of the activities child molester priests, still going on today - how much is the California payout? $660m wasn't it? And that followed payouts in Boston $85m, Dallas $31m, Orange County $100m, Louisville $25.7, etc. ad nauseam. Archdiocese of Portland even filed for bankruptcy. Perhaps I should cite those who filed for Chapter 11 protection as a temporary means of avoiding embarrassing revelations? And I've only just started. It would take a whole library just to catalogue the abuses perpetrated by the Catholic Church let alone the rest of the christian denominations and every other religion. To it we can add Sharia Law, so-called honour killings, the suppression and denigration of women, the Taliban and much, much more. That's what a world ruled by God and religion has given us. I look forward to your justification for keeping it.

You might have spent 26 years in the US dept of justice but on the face of your writings, it has done little good. You appear to have a code closer to that of Theodosius II than modern day America which I do recall in the constitution separated church and state. For your information, Theodosius united church and state into a law code that enslaved almost everyone and caused an incalcuable number of deaths. Nice man.

Death is no problem for me. There is no afterlife. It is all religious fantasy. Wishful thinking at its most perverse. It will happen when it does and that will be it. The same for you as well. You will rot just like everyone else. Better get on and write another book so there might just be something that survives you. You never know it might win the Templeton Prize. Keep the laughs coming though.

P.S. Your blog on Hegel is hilarious. It is just so completely wrong and irrelevant. Fantastic stuff. I note how modestly you take yourself as well.

P.P.S. Behe is a charlaton.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2007 7:53:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 23, 2007 7:54:22 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2007 2:13:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 24, 2007 6:32:13 AM PDT
dvimus says:
You don't want to comment because you can't really answer the points put to you without entailing a massive climb down on your part, you mean. To be honest, on the face of your writings you wouldn't recognise science if you tripped over it and it yelled back at you "SCIENCE". Never mind. You continue to peddle out your nonsense on Hegel, God and crime. There will be plenty of others who will criticise you.

I have to agree with you however that I also pity at least some of those who will go to Lehigh, particularly those who have to put with Behe. Me, I don't work there.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2007 6:58:20 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2007 1:43:27 PM PST
george,

For the last 2000 years, can you please remember how many wars were fought in name of religion? It is sad to see that a man presumably educated ("I spent 26 years in the US Dept. of Justice") makes statements like "A godless-driven world has brought us drugs, ignorant movies, pornography, child molesters, gays, etc" that simply defy any rational thought

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2007 3:37:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2007 3:40:22 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2007 12:57:07 PM PST
dvimus says:
Hello Alex

I have found George unfortunately is something of a lost cause and I do agree with you it is sad to see a man presumably educated having even less worth saying than Adams Electric Monk. What he terms science is what virtually everyone else would term drivel. He proposes dialectics as a foundation for science despite dialectics being a terribly discredited method of thought. He cites himself as the world authority on every subject he writes about and assumes everyone has to agree with him irregardless of whatever sensible objections are raised. The above exchanges give a perfectly good example of what he comes out with. Then on top of that he attempts every time to throw it back at the objecter by suggesting or implying that there is something wrong with them, like he has with you with his daft question about the health of your mind. Since George speaks from cloud-cuckoo-land he is the last one who should put questions about the health of other peoples' mental faculties.

Enjoy it for the bizarre humour content that might emerge but a discussion is sadly a forlorn hope.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2007 2:53:32 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2007 11:27:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2007 11:28:34 AM PST
dvimus says:
George

From your writings it is clear 26 thousand years with the Dept of Justice wouldn't have made the slightest difference. It has not made you albe to see the massive holes and shortcomings in every position you have adopted. Your take on science is your own personal make-believe and nothing else. Unfortunately you are the one who knows nothing about science or religious background for that matter and all your protestations to the contrary and statements that you and the likes of Behe are right will not hide this fact.

It perhaps will not surprise you to learn I have not the least intention of remaining silent. Those whose peddle garbage and misinformation will just have to run the risk of being challenged by me or someone else and show their claims have validity. Like it nor not George this is how a free society works. It is also how science progresses.

In conclusion is the following: I fully endorse a free society along with free speech and free enquiry. To this end I will defend your rights to say what you wish no matter how ridiculous or wrong it may be against those who would prefer that any voice was silenced just because they didn't agree with it. On the side of freedom is hope and life that is worth living. Without our freedom lies hopelessness, and life shorn of its worth. Perhaps you should reappraise your ideas George.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2007 1:41:12 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2007 7:59:23 PM PST
I'm sorry. There is no scientific proof of God. The first sentence has no logic -- saying if and because does not logic make. It's interesting that people of faith insist you must accept what cannot be proved on faith and then try to provie it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 16, 2007 9:38:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2007 9:39:43 AM PST
response to Gary Nickerson.

You are not considering 'things in themselves. You are also stuck with finite excluded middle opposites. If you open your mind and let reason go to higher levels of thought, you will find a determinate infinity, which is the true opposite of the concept 'finite.' This higher infinity is an attribute of God, who is the only thing in itself that can cause the existence of finite things.

God can be proven. You merely have not raised your mind above finite logic. You must stop believing that nature lifts your mind up to higher levels of reason.
See my work of things at in the "Moving On" series http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/

George

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 7, 2008 1:04:24 AM PST
Panglos says:
From the web site that Herr Schollenberger keeps boasting about:
"I argue that the use of logic can cause mental problems."

So George...what logic did you use to come up with that argument?

We love you, George. Haven't been entertained this way for quite some time.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  17
Total posts:  86
Initial post:  Feb 4, 2007
Latest post:  Apr 13, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about