Intelligent Design
Does anyone know of any good links to this topic while it's hot again in the news today. I'm crazy busy today.
I personally believe in intelligent design.
Vinnissimo
posted by Teodoro Callate @ 11:10 AM
49 comments
49 Comments:
uh oh! With all due respect, I don't have much information For ID, I do have a lot Against ID.
First, Check out National Geographic's 11/2004 cover article titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" for just about as much information about this subject as a layman can handle and just enough information for a more technologically oriented person to head off and do more research of their own.
I guess the issue is:
Is there a problem teaching both of them in schools since neither one is perceived provable.
I personally love how they challenge and humble eachother by being offered up together.
Thoughts?
the scientific method by its very nature humbles itself. No scientist in any field worth their diplomas would claim that all is known or even knowable about a particular branch of science-molecular biology, astronomy etc. Each of these theories-evolution, relativity, atomic, even electricity is formally a theory, is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. But just as knowing that the earth revolves around the sun does not imeadiately clarify why sun spots cause magnetic shorts in the earth's magnetic field, science strives to learn more. ID was first posited in the nineteenth century, it was discredited then as I would now as it attempts to explain and research only so far, then faith takes over. Evolution is a beautiful concept, more crucial nowdays to human welfare, to medical scinece, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. much brought against it comes through honest confusion, I believe.
check out the NG article if you can, it is very clearly written and enjoyable.
I will read it. Gracias :)
Do you feel that they can both be offered together in schools?
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. this man I hate with ever fiber of my being but for the first and probably last time, my dear Sen. Santorum and I come out on the same side on this subject.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=9278316&src=rss/ElectionCoverage
I personally believe in evolution.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Vinnissimo said...
My point is this:
Evolution happens. It does exist. It’s amazingly interesting and vital to teach in schools. I love learning about it.
Creation happens. It does exist. It’s amazingly interesting and vital to teach in schools. I love learning about it.
I also believe that evolution happens to creations - after creation happens.
It is fool who alters the truth to fit his/her beliefs. It is wise person who alters his/her beliefs after the truth.
8/04/2005 4:12 PM
what is your definition of "creation"?
my definition is as much the below I can understand at one time:
Cre·a·tion n
1. the act of God that, according to the Bible, brought the universe and all living beings into existence
2. the universe as created by God, according to the Bible
cre·a·tion n
1. the bringing of something into existence
2. the world and everything on it
3. a product of human imagination or invention
4. an elaborate or striking article of clothing
cre·a·tion sci·ence n
the attempt to provide scientific proof for the account of God’s creation of the world that is described in the Bible
cre·a·tion·ism n
the belief that the Bible’s account of the Creation is literally true
cre·a·tive adj
1. able to create things
2. using or showing use of the imagination to create new ideas or things
3. making imaginative use of the limited resources available
4. employing deceptive methods to distort financial records (ironic)
n
somebody who is responsible for coming up with new ideas and concepts for sales campaigns (informal)
cre·a·tiv·i·ty n
1. the quality of being creative
2. the ability to use the imagination to develop new and original ideas or things, especially in an artistic context
cre·a·tor n
somebody who brings something into existence
Cre·a·tor n
God regarded as creator of the universe
crea·ture n
1. any living person or animal
2. an unpleasant or frightening living thing
3. somebody or something that has been created
4. somebody of a particular type
5. somebody who is under the influence of somebody or something else
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Why did you pick such a juicy topic on a day when I'm too busy to post?
You had better post mister Kevlar!
Btw, Anonymous has reminded me how easy it is for me/us to unintentionally take a polarized stand on a non-polarized topic (via the driveling media). These two topics of creation and evolution actually do coexist and even intermingle a little (especially out here in the country ha ha ha). My initial question persists to you all – now I rephrase – What the heck is wrong with teaching intelligent design in school? Back to evolution, as real as it may be, it’s an old fucker. Intelligent design is a breath of fresh air. Can I say old fucker? Old fucker. It’s fun. Say it. Old fucker. I mean it’s an old topic. A tired old bag of an issue not even worth getting hot over. Hell I’ve evolved since I started writing this driveling post. Maybe not much but there’s progress.
And in a rush, I write:
There's a really terrific book I read some years ago (and then loaned to someone and it's now vanished, but I digress) called "The Science of God" by Prof. Gerald Schroeder, in which he posits that "a properly understood Bible and a properly understood science provide consistent sets of data". (I pulled that directly from Amazon - I don't remember details as well as that.) That's a heck of a quote to set up a book, I might add. Anyone able to back that up deserves a free sandwich.
I found it - the book, not the sandwich - pretty fascinating and highly readable. I'm not qualified to comment upon the accuracy of all the claims and explanations, but I found the whole thing quite illuminating, at least from the perspective of this layman of average intelligence. (Perhaps less than average with regard to some topics, such as matching socks.)
Away I go.
Hot tip - subscribe to Science Fridays free podcast from NPR via iTunes. Here are some of the recent mp3 audio posts:
SciFri Podcasts
2005072912 - Memory and Learning
2005072913 - Evolution and the Catholic Church
2005072211 - Congressional Climate Inquiry
2005072212 - Mapping the Universe
2005072223 - How Taste Buds Work
2005071525 - History of Deep Ocean Research
2005071512 - Parasite Genomes
2005071524 - Bioprospecting
2004080624 - Franklin's Technology
2004080625 - Invention of the Xerox Machine
2005070812 - Cardiac Repair Using Stem Cells
2005070823 - Big Questions of Science / Deep Impact Update
2005070113 - Silicon Valley History
2005070112 - ITER Fusion Project
2005070124 - Deep Impact Comet Mission
2005062424 - Tom Friedman, 'The World is Flat'
2005062413 - Einstein's Relativity Paper
2005061724 - Bees and Beekeeping
2005061723 - Vitamin D and Sun Exposure
2005061712 - Nuclear Energy
2005061711 - Energy Legislation Update
this is why the pinata and vinnissimo are two of my favorite people.
play on.
We are all hombres. Different and yet the same.
I consider you all my favorite hombres - electronically and in the flesh. Of the spirit and in the soul.
Hombres
ride on...
(cue that Clint Eastwood sound)
" What the heck is wrong with teaching intelligent design in school? Back to evolution, as real as it may be, it’s an old fucker. Intelligent design is a breath of fresh air."
Sorry, wrong, As I posted- " ID was first posited in the nineteenth century, it was discredited then as I would now as it attempts to explain and research only so far, then faith takes over."
ID is not a breath of fresh air, it was discredited by scientists and creationists over a hundred and fifty years ago. as the Sen. Santorum article that I posted quoted, even he(obviously as rigid a believer of Creation as any) that ID should not be taught in science classes. So, where molecular biology, DNA data and paleontology point towards evolution, the "scientists" who back ID simply point out, "it is".
I have read Prof. Schoeder's book, it is quite well written and the NG article quotes it. One should not follow their gut reaction to this, they need to do clear research before coming to a conclusion about a scientific matter. Likewise as refutable astrology, as fun as it can be, is not taught in science class neither should refutable (as it is not based on confirmation by observation and experiment-the basis of all scientific achievement) ID be taught in science class. .
Anonymous - you rock! I admit that I was wrong about the new/old thing. I also like what you say about keeping the ID out of science class.
This is really fun.
Is it good for you?
I basically just want (wanted) some anwsers to my question. Not right or wrong and not winner or loser - just some good dialogue.
I think this is really a very interesting topic that I don't know much about. Funnily enough, there is a radio program on in Chicago at this very second with a panel of extremely distinguished professors talking about exactly this top.
One minor nitpicking point with what anonymous has to say...and I will preface this by saying that I do not say these next few sentences with animosity or argument. Well, maybe argument, but argument in good spirit. So here it is:
"it is not based on confirmation by observation and experiment-the basis of all scientific achievement". Well, indeed, observation and experiment is the basis of MOST scientific achievement. But there is science out there that can validate itself, at least I believe there is. As many of you know (who know who I am, and it's not tough to figure out since you got a personal invitation to visit the blog from me), I study psychology. I happen to believe...wholeheartedly, unashamedly...in the unconscious mind, motivations, drives, etc. I believe it is a science. Maybe that's a loose definition of science, but I'm comfortable saying is it. I'm also saying that I've seen the evidence of the unconscious. People often discredit the existence of the unconscious because it can't be measured, and therefore experiments utilizing statistical significance and null hypothesis testing can't be set up to test for the existence of the unconscious. But a century's worth of incredibly reputable psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, teachers, parents, lovers, and friends can give ample evidence of unconscious behavior of individuals. There are scientific models that include ideas and specimens that do validate themselves. Some people are quick to discredit these sciences precisely because they don't fit into traditional models, but that doesn't mean that the discreditors are right. Maybe those people are just inexperienced or uneducated with the science in question. (Note to anonymous: I'm NOT suggesting you are inexperienced or uneducated here. You know way more about ID than me. I'm nitpicking on a different topic and slightly hijacking the thread.)
I happen to believe that there are entire world's worth of sciences right here on this planet that we know absolutely nothing about. And we can't measure that stuff. Because we don't know what it is. And when we find a clue to some of these unknown sciences, we won't know how to measure said sciences, because they won't fit into the models we currently have. We'll figure that out later.
But the Earth is round, and we didn't always know that, nor did we know how to measure it.
There's more to come, and I, for one, want to keep it open-ended on the science front. If something isn't traditionally validated, that doesn't mean I want to discount something completely and totally. My unconscious motivations won't allow it.
Cool, the unknowable exists. I stand by my words, "No scientist in any field worth their diplomas would claim that all is known or even knowable".
Indeed, Theo, much scientific thought starts with the theory, then only afterwards discovers the empirical evidence.
dna I like your handle.
Sweet!
dna...you're right, you said that. a long time ago, in a post i forgot that i read. maybe that's why i was consciously worried about offending you because unconsciously i knew you already had all your shit together. (ha!)
and dna dropped a big fat hint that he/she knows me, which has me intrigued, though i'm a bit SOL on that count, aren't i?
nice thread, people! this is when blogging absolutely moves from self-induldgent silliness (of which I am a fan) and straight into worthwhile, important conversation. thanks!
Anonymous/DNA I have just completed reading the NG article - Was Darwin Wrong and it was very enlightening to me. Thanks for that appropriately weighted pick. You must have been reading most of the time while I was playing video games.
Where earlier I may have been somewhat exalting ID, for misguided fashion reasons, I now have a renewed appreciation on evolution – thanks to you and NG. Not that I think they are mutually exclusive.
I still feel like studying evolution without studying ID is like studying the light bulb and not studying electricity. I feel like I am failing at giving anyone any renewed appreciation for ID.
Did I mentinon that I was a video game junkie?
ha!
For what ever reason - I theorize that a person like you (Anonymous/DNA) has a much better shot at a breakthrough. A breakthrough that we could all benefit from by you entering into a study in ID. I theorize that you studying ID for us might feed/thread your search in a way different from logical scientific method. It’s just a theory. I also theorize that I’m not alone in this theory.
In other words. I can tell you are really smart and while I don’t even know you – I already endorse and even trust what ever you may find.
ID is apparently in the breeze as here is an opinion column from today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html
OK I’ve been reading and googling googling and reading.
Here's more grist for the mill - nothing really new or shocking.
Most "proponents" of the idea of God as a/the creator don’t have a problem with evolution. They have a problem with evolutionism and evolutionists.
Most "opponents" of the idea of God as a/the creator don’t have a problem with creation. They have a problem with creationism and creationists.
Does anyone feel like me in that I find the idea isms and ists counter productive?
what is evolutionism/ists? what is creationism/ists?
I must admit that I do(it is proabaly self-evident) have a problem with creation as related from the Bible and other world culture myths.
dna
I resonate with your words on culture and cultural myths. I both love and I hate culture in these ways: I love it when it's shared with me in a loving way. Ie. We grew up eathing this or singing that... etc. I hate it when it's used as a measure of judgement. Ie. You aren't this or that b/c you don't say this or believe that.
As far as creation goes - another question. Would you consider this statement a cultural myth for me to say- I believe that you, in various ways I can't understand, are a creation?
sure, Vinnissimo, all of us create by simply living day in and day out. the miracle of birth is a form of creation. the metaphor of "creation" can be applied in many ways to many things, almost ot the point of meaninglessness if one is not careful.
still, what is evolutionism/ists? And what is creationism/ists? are they political platforms? party costumes? I am simply curious.
My two cents, if I may:
Is it wrong of me to think that they all are right to some degree?
I say this:
Of course we/all was created. Of course there was intelligence in the process. Of course there is evolution. It all fits together.
Why must one facet of the whole be argued to be all there is to it?
Gary
DNA,
When a fine concept like evolution is studied and shared it’s fascinating, productive, and has the positive consequence of bringing people together in a very nurturing way. When it's modified and becomes an "ism" the new concept polarizes and separates people. Same with God and religion. Groups of people can come together with similar ideas but when they attempt to possess it, contain it, package it, and worst of all – attempt to sell it, the new or modified entity causes a suffering of natural consequence. Ie. Not all “Christian” music is good. Not all Christian’s are good. I try (most of the time) to be a proponent of God through the gift of an interface given to us that God named – not me, not us. I am an opponent of the religious polarizing and separating that has happened as a result of the work of our manmade modifiers. Same with evolution and Darwin. I’m sure I’d buy that guys lunch if I had the chance, however, Darwinism – I’ll brown bag it. Just like I’d do lunch with you. You-ism scares me a little less actually than me-ism. Self-ism is the worst.
Even Jesus spoke harshly against religious people.
Call me a Christian. I just love that guy's spirit.
By the way...
For the most part I've been thinking that DNA was same person as Anonymous .
You can't have a relationship with the ism.
You can have a relationshop with the creator.
Directly. Spirit to Spirit. Better than flesh.
Better than mind. Bigger.
It's connected. Creation and evolution.
To not offer it this knowledge or the seeking of this knowledge of ID at all would not be a crime. To not offer this information in tandem with evolution would not be against the law. It would be ignorant to the biggest part of us. The part that lasts. It would be sad and it is sad. I’m sorry President Bush taints it for you. I’m sorry the church taints it for you. Don’t ignore it because of a broken expression of it.
I don't know. I don't really feel that ID expresses anything validly scientific. Believing in a a supreme creator is a belief system. Science is not based on belief, nor should it. the scepticism is what makes it work. that being said, the unknowable exists, only fools think otherwise whether they come from the scientific or religious fields.
Sorry to continue along this line:
"Of course we/all was created. Of course there was intelligence in the process. Of course there is evolution. It all fits together."
No, "of course" is not valid. There is no clear irrefutable evidence of intelligence so it can not be considered a given. it doesn't rule it out though. It simply can't be proven by what evidence observably exists.
"Why must one facet of the whole be argued to be all there is to it?'
Evolution through out history encompasses a whole lot already. that which remains unknown is simply that, unknown. The unknowable is where science stops and ther rest of the human condition starts. Evolution does not argue that the rest (the unknowable) does not exist just that it is simply unknowable at this time.
Read the NG article if you interested on a clearer (than I can give here) view of evolution.
The NG article is very clear as are you. I loved it. The entire article was available online. So I think we are doing really well or I wouldn't continue with this at all. You have certainly educated me and I dare say I / you too, in some small way - maybe.
Please remember, just to clarify some complexities here:
I agree that ID is not scientific – where I had thoughts otherwise – so thanks. That is progress for me.
ID is not religious either– even though religious people may like it. I think ID could be a great topic for a philosophy class – so there’s an idea. Progress? I think that a non-foolish solution.
I agree with you and have again been reminded that belief systems do not alter the truth, and yes it’s foolish to think otherwise. We’re on the same page there. Where we are different (and that's OK) is where I site that God made the claim to be the creator and that God came before religion and science. Again not scientific but biblical take it or leave it. I just happen to “believe” this. The fact that I believe or doubt doesn’t change the truth of it or the fallacy of it.
I did not say that the source of our origins is ”one” thing. God is not self described as one person. Take it or leave it.
Also, just FYI, and again I restate just to clarify, I don’t see that having an authentic relationship with God (creator or not - for you) as being religion or religious. You can "believe" and not be a religious person. I happen to site quite often that God seems to prefer that - but that is admittedly my ball of wax – and a whole other topic – even though I think it connected. Tuche.
Lastly (I thank God for this) I don’t feel that we have to agree nearly as much as we do! I don’t have a religious agenda. My agenda as I suspect yours is challenging interaction. It does take some effort but I don’t see the effort in restating warranting any apologies. I want you to know that this has been fun for me - interacting with you. For what it’s worth I view the length of this thread fruitful. You have done me a great service. Not only have you reminded me of things I forgot, you have inspired me to probe deeper and find a better understanding. You need not apologize for repeating yourself or expending energy. Every time you did something different was created over here. So thanks again.
Appreciate you DNA
Since I was the one who started this post I feel quite satisfied in signing off on it for now – if you are. You are welcome to add closings too if you like.
Oy vavoy! Vinnissimo has his finger in the wind of current trends.
check out this article from two hours ago (!) on salon
http://salon.com/books/int/2005/08/06/ruse/index.html
DNA
Read the above comment.
You have helped make me a better person :) I want to thank you.
"Tuche"=touche
Unfortunately, I am on a role. having encountering this thread, I have now noticed that ID is everhwere in the media, just like when one learns a new vocabulary word suddenly one starts seeing it all the time. thank goodness for new things! The salon article points out that bad judgement is not the provinence of only Bible-banging wingnuts but also their supposed adversaries too.
Vinnissimo, I will likewise say that the thread has been enjoyable in that your replies to my heated queries have always been conscienciously thought out and sympathetically voiced. I appreciate that too. That you " site that God made the claim to be the creator and that God came before religion and science" is completely and irrevocably off my grid. As you state this, I can take no offense nor be interested, it is simply off my grid. you may weigh in or not on these articles that I seem to find without even looking for as you see fit. If you don't, then I say, "till the next round". it is very satisfying to have a worthy and capable adversary.
DNA
I have a one word response to the ID articles which are blowing in the wind.
Drivel!
Let's do lunch sometime! I could use your mind power more often.
Vinnissimo
sure hon, let's do lunch! >kiss, kiss<
turns on her heel and trots.
uhh...
Now that's off my grid.
ha ha ha
holy shit. i'm just scanning the comments very quickly, as i JUST heard the phrase "intelligent design" used for the first time in my consciousness today.
and then i was prompted by...?? something to check an oldish yahoo account (i have too many addys to count) and found an invite to check out a blog by a friend who had zapped an old blog (that i didn't know he even HAD) and to find this one. cool. i have a blog and love the blogging.
and i find this. intelligent design. i need to do some more research on this... i am beginning to think that it's something inbetween evolution and creationism??
i took this cosmology class once (in the second go-round of college), and there was this idea presented to me (if i understood it correctly) that as the big bang went, how it went down was that as matter formed, it could have only happened in a certain range of time or something. any slower, and it wouldn't have congealed and particles wouldn't have stuck together. any faster, and stuff would have blown apart too fast too quickly into space, and nothing would have turned into solid matter, etc.
then, the guy said that not only did it fall into a very specific range, but it happened to fall exactly in the MIDDLE of that range or something... that some people thing that maybe this was in fact the act of an intelligent... see where i'm going? is THIS intelligent design? maybe i should have googled, but...
this idea that there was something watching over the idea of a big bang, and everything that evolved from it.
i'm a fan of it all. i have a 'higher power,' and i love metaphysics, the stuff behind 'what the bleep..,' psychic stuff, esp, science, evolution, etc.
i'm going to see what intelligent design is about according to the net stuff, and meanwhile, i'll be back at the blog. heady stuff, g monies.
Oh!
i am THRILLED to report that DNA has revealed his/her identity to me. all i can say is that i'm blown away by how much cooler the conversation is to me since i know all the players involved. if thoughtful discussion like this by smart, diverse people like these were ever encouraged on TV, we might have a chance. a chance at what? shit, just a chance.
smussyolay? welcome.
a long but great thread. i'm looking forward to the next one.
play on!
had a blast
Post a Comment
<< Home