No, your offhand dismissal of ID is ignorant.

Wrong.

First of all, I didn't dismiss it offhand. You just assume that I did.

It just happens to be true that ID doesn't explain anything. It doesn't help. It's not useful information. There is no reason to teach it to anybody, because no man can use knowledge of ID to do anything that he couldn't do without such knowledge.

In fact, a man without "knowledge" of ID can do more.

I do realise that there can be "design" without a diety. That was part of my point. That's why I find creationism (classical such) more intelligent. At least religion has a purpose.

Tell somebody how evolution works and you help him to understand the world and change it to the better.

Tell somebody that G-d created the universe and you help him take his life seriously and maybe help other fellow children og G-d.

But tell him that animals have been "designed" by some "intelligence" and who have taught him nothing. You can "explain" everything, anything, and nothing by claiming that some unidentified entity or non-entity caused it to happen. But it doesn't help.

There is nothing ignorant about understanding what science is for and how it works.

I have been "programmed" by reality. I know that an explanation that I cannot use to change the world is no good.

I agree here. I say either teach both sides or no sides. Equal time or no time. The problem is the Evolutionists have had 100% of only one side for years. Yet they have not been that successful for the amount of attention they have garnered. They have all the tools, texts and teachers yet still most people believe that there is a creator out there in some form or fashion.

Schools should not teach random nonsense or religion.

There is no "equal time" for science and for nonsense. A school is supposed to educate. Phantasy can be taught by the entertainment industry.

Evolutionists have had 100% of the time for decades because they can explain and teach. Nobody else can when it comes to this subject. The theory of evolution explains why there are different kinds of animals and how they came about. Nothing else explains this, not even creationism ("G-d made it happen" is NOT an explanation).

If anybody would come up with an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution (like Lamarck's heredity) which hasn't been proven wrong (like Lamarck's heredity), I don't see how any scientist or teacher would be opposed to teaching it. Afterall, opposing theories are taught in physics too (but none of them are "matter moves because G-d makes it move" or "fire burns because some intelligent entity makes it burn").

But I agree with Leauki as well. I think the ID theory is to try to marry the evolutionists with the creationists by saying there is much more to evolution than meets the eye without saying it's God. Trying to appease both sides.

ID is NOT a theory. And ID supporters don't even understand evolution. (If they did they would not call ID a "theory".)

But ID is indeed trying to bridge the difference between religion and science and that is why it's so dangerous. We have had these discussions hundreds of years ago. There is no reason to go back after all the benefits we have reaped from scientific research.

At the very least proponents of creationism or ID should read a few books about evolution. I know they usually don't because I have listened to creationists and ID supporters.

I recommend "The Ancestor's Tale", which I read at the moment.

I have read the Bible, why shouldn't creationists read scientific works?

(BTW, I believe in G-d, go to shul every week, pray, and follow what I consider G-d's laws. I am not ignorant about religion. I just happen to know the difference between religion and reality, between faith and fact.)

((And I know the difference between faith and fact on the one side and cheap sensationalism on the other. Creationism and science belong to the first group, ID to the second.))

'First of all, I didn't dismiss it offhand. You just assume that I did.'

Umm, come on. You said:

"At least the Bible has a story to offer. But ID has nothing, no explanation, no help, no guide, nothing. You have to be a lot more ignorant than a creationist to be a supporter of "intelligent design"."

If that isn't an outright dismissal, nothing is. Again, you are broadly dismissing ID when what you are really addressing is a single possibility regarding it. If you get your impressions of ID from Pat Robertson or his opposition, that's all you'd see. There's a world of possibilities you dismiss as "nothing".

"And ID supporters don't even understand evolution. (If they did they would not call ID a "theory".)"

Evidently you aren't aware that there are fields of study devoted to things like self-assembling systems, biological genetic networks, etc., and undertaken by people a LOT more schooled in evolution than me or you. You, again, are painting ID as somethign separate from maintream evolutionary theory, which is only SOME people's take on ID.

If that isn't an outright dismissal, nothing is.

It's not my fault that ID has nothing to offer. But I see that ID is more unfalsifiable than I thought was possible.

Not only are its claims unfalsifiable, but even dismissing it suffers from the problem. How can I possibly dismuss ID because it has nothing to offer without my opinion falling into your definition of "outright dismissal"?

Should I make up that I found some claims in ID that can be verified and then dismiss it?

I am dismissing ID _BECAUSE_ it makes no verifiable claims, BECAUSE it has nothing to offer.

Evidently you aren't aware that there are fields of study devoted to things like self-assembling systems, biological genetic networks, etc., and undertaken by people a LOT more schooled in evolution than me or you.

ID is not about self-assembling systems and biological genetic networks.

ID is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process. A "self-assembling system" does not have the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent (that's why it is "self-assembling"). The process could still be started by an intelligent creator but such a question has nothing to do evolution (which does not attempt to explain the cause for life as such).

How you deduce that I am unaware of something just because I disagree that it has something to do with ID is beyond me. Nevertheless anything "self" and ID doesn't work together.

The fact that there are field of study devoted to X, Y, and Z doesn't mean that ID suddenly becomes a scientific theory.

Especially when X, Y, and Z are the opposite of ID.

"A "self-assembling system" does not have the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent (that's why it is "self-assembling")."

Until you realize that a system is intelligently, not randomly, assembled to undertake specific tasks, and that the fundamental parts themselves are not intelligent and don't decide what they are to do beforehand. True science would be open to all ideas about how such comes to be, and wouldn't offhandedly dismiss explainations for questions that have yet to be answered.

You demand intelligence be brain matter, evidently. You remind me of people who insist that if there is life on other worlds, that it must be carbon based and similar to us to be deemed "life". Sorry, but it might be true that things can be alive in ways we can't fathom, and things can be "intelligent" without a brain.

Intelligence isn't so easy to pin down. You simply can't loosen your grip on the idea that "intelligent design" means some anthropomophic "designer" is in charge. Self-assembling networks CAN react and adjust. Genetic material DOES pass through species like a giant network. You'd have us dismiss such things offhand because some sweaty preacher interprets that as a sign of God?

It's like arguing that the sky is blue with someone who uses the word purple for the color blue... You may define "intelligence" narrowly, but there are many definitions, especially given the hunk of inanimate matter you are using to post this. You are accusing me of promoting something I'm not even discussing.

If you want to define ID according to non-scientists and militant atheists, feel free. I don't even bother to acknowledge either, frankly. They don't get to define it for the rest of us, unless people like you allow them to. Feel free to continue to be outraged by the MSNBC brand of Intelligent Design, while the rest of us decide for ourselves what "intelligent" and "design" means.

Again, I would suggest you look at study outside politics and the church.

Until you realize that the system is intelligently, not randomly, designed, and that the fundamental parts themselves are not intelligent.

The system is _self-assembling_. There is no designer involved.

If you are talking about a designer at the start, you are not talking about ID as compared to evolution. You are talking about the start of life, which evolution does not explain.

In ID vs evolution, ID is certainly meant to replace evolution as an alternative. And since evolution explains what is going on WHILE animals already exist, and since your example is a self-assembling system, your example does not constitute an example of ID (because "self" is not the same as caused by an external intelligent entity of some kind).

Again, evolution does NOT explain how life started.

If ID is meant to be an alternative explanation, it must explain the system existing, not the system coming into existence.

If you want to define ID according to non-scientists and militant atheists, feel free. I don't even bother to acknowledge either, frankly. They don't get to define it for the rest of us, though. Feel free to continue to be outraged by the MSNBC brand of Intelligent Design, while the rest of us decide for ourselves what "intelligent" and "design" means.

There is no scientist way of defining ID that is in any way different from mine. And I am no atheist.

And if everybody decides for themselves what "intelligent" and "design" means, there is no point in discussing it. It's like your bad analogy above, except that it fits now. If you use the word purple as you wish and blue as well, then nothing you tell about will have the colour it should have.

I also did look at study outside politics and "the church", that is why I read about evolution and don't believe in pseudo-science.

(Although "the church" does not, in fact, advocate ID or cresationism these days.)

BTW the definition of ID I used is the one used by "The Center for Science and Culture". If that is not the same ID that you are talking about, I would be curious as to what exactly you are calling "intelligent design" and why you are not using the same word as other people for it.

Until you realize that the system is intelligently, not randomly, designed, and that the fundamental parts themselves are not intelligent.

I almost didn't catch the "randomly". I didn't think it would come up again and again. But apparently it is very difficult to get it out of people's minds.

Evolution is not random. There is no "intelligence vs randomness" duality here.

The fact that you use the term makes me think that maybe you didn't know that.

As I said, it is like someone saying "There's no life on Mars" offhand because we don't see people walking around. "Life" to the close-minded means little green men, or at least ants and squirrells. Likewise, "Intelligence" doesn't necessarily mean "brain" or "conciousness", and it MOST CERTAINLY can arise from multiple, separate entities and not a single, bearded man.

A cell in your brain isn't intelligent, but your brain as a whole is considered to be so. A single node in a network isn't intelligent, but a network of nodes can behave intelligently. A single genetic organism outside of drastic mutation is basically "fixed", but genetic communities and ecosystems tend to adapt, and in ways that can't always be explained as "non-intelligent" or simple survival of the genetically predisposed.

Perhaps I'm just ignorant after all these years of reading. Maybe you have better books. If you decide to teach me more about evolution than I learned in college, I'd no doubt be blessed.

The definition you cite from CSC (an organization I'm not thrilled with and who frankly doesn't have any more right than you do decide what the final definition of "intelligent design"):

"1. What is the theory of intelligent design? The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Certain features. I differ with the word "best" because nothing has been explained in concrete fashion on any of the many sides of the debate. You want to narrowly define intelligence. Maybe we'll have to discard the word since people like yourself simply replace it with "God" and call any study of it in terms of evolution "faith".

Leauki:

"I almost didn't catch the "randomly". I didn't think it would come up again and again. But apparently it is very difficult to get it out of people's minds. Evolution is not random. There is no "intelligence vs randomness" duality here. The fact that you use the term makes me think that maybe you didn't know that."

...

"Natural Selection: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Process that results in adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype. Variations that increase an organism's chances of survival and procreation are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous variations. As proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. It may arise from differences in survival, fertility, rate of development, mating success, or any other aspect of the life cycle. Mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift, all of which are random processes, also alter gene abundance. Natural selection moderates the effects of these processes because it multiplies the incidence of beneficial mutations over generations and eliminates harmful ones, since the organisms that carry them leave few or no descendants. See also selection."

In the end, the engine of change is random mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift. Intelligent design simply hypothesizes that such genetic change may not always be random.

If you have some theory as to how new beneficial genetic variance appears without design, and without being random, please feel free to pose it. Until then, there most certainly is a dichotomy here. One side said that the genetic changes that cause preferred characteristics occur randomly. The other hypothesizes that they might occur in a directed fashion in some instances.

Sounds like a genuine difference to me, and not one between smart and stupid people as you would paint it. Natural selection isn't at issue though, and neither frankly is evolution. To me it most certainly a "randomness vs. intelligent design" issue. People just make it "anti-science" to combat it mindlessly.

Jesus became a maggot to show us the way out

Am I to interpret this statement literally, or is it a metaphorical statement?

The answer is YES!! You can take it literally and I'm going to prove it to you. Going back to scripture to get my answer. It's all in there. >BR> Job: 25:1-6 says: How can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon and it shines not, yes the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man that is a worm? And the Son of Man (Jesus) which is a worm? This section is Bildad running out of arguments so he does not attempt to prove Job wrong but simply declares that Job is presumptious in thinking he can argue with God.

What's the world coming to?

"Worm": n; "any of various invertebrates, esp. the annelids (earthworms etc.)"

"Maggot": n; "the soft limbless larva of dipterous insects, esp. the housefly and blowfly", (which is indeed similar to worm)

Talking about choosing which Biblical verses we think are figures of speech, and which are literal statements - I think you're having a laugh with that one, KFC. Either way, this is the "fledgling wavelength of fundamentalism" that I talked about on the other thread, and it sums up the Creationist-wavelength to a tee. It’s truly endearing to me. God bless us all

Schools should not teach random nonsense or religion.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I happen to believe scripture is not fantasy nor nonsense. Pretty strange comment coming from someone who believes in God I must say.

Evolutionists have had 100% of the time for decades because they can explain and teach

So also can creationists explain and teach and do so in Christian schools. They teach about God...not Darwin and his theory.

ID is NOT a theory

Then what is it? Can you prove ID?

At the very least proponents of creationism or ID should read a few books about evolution. I know they usually don't because I have listened to creationists and ID supporters. I recommend "The Ancestor's Tale", which I read at the moment. I have read the Bible, why shouldn't creationists read scientific works?

You've got to be kidding? The only thing the schools push is evolutionary books and views. So how do "we" not read these things? To me Evolution is not only nonsense but a lie to boot.

My son is going for his PH.d in Neuro Science having already graduated with a degree in Molecular Cell Biology and is one of the biggest creation believers I know. This is after going thru the Public School System (government schools) for 13 years pushing the other side at him. He got an 800 (perfect score) on his GRE in math so he's no dummy like many like to paint the Creationists as being.

Basically this whole argument is one religion (evolution) being pitted against the other (creation). And to marry the two together with ID or with Theistic Evolution is just being lukewarm.

Andy,

All I'm saying is in God's eyes or in the big scope of things....we are just worms or maggots...whichever. We like to think ourselves as big and mighty but in reality we are created beings with no special powers. We cannot save ourselves. Jesus came down to be a lowly man and show us the way. That's all.

So you're right in the sense that we are not literally worms like in the ones in the back yard we dig up.

But we are to take the bible literally as much as we can. "If it makes sense seek no other sense" is the principle I go on.

So if the bible says....it's raining like cats and dogs....no I don't take it literally.....

Nice chatting w/ya tho!!

Nice chatting w/ya tho!!

You too KFC! I think it's an interesting topic to discuss.

Thanks for sharing your views, we'll chat again later, no doubt

The time they spend promoting their own BELIEFS is time they are neglecting their jobs.

An emphatic aye unto an intelligent statement.

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant...

Yeah, I didn't care for "War of the Worlds" either.

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant... Yeah, I didn't care for "War of the Worlds" either.

The cleaning has to come from the inside first.

Kinda puts it all in perspective doesn't it?

Good stuff, I like it. No matter how much we strive to keep up our outer, worldly appearances, what really matters is what lies within. In the words of Joseph Benner, "from God's point of view the soul stands forth naked, stripped of all pretence, and has no mask or personality to hide its real nature". The cleansing process indeed has to come from the inside first. Once our soul finds the spiritual riches and healing grace of God's Kingdom, not only is the door opened to better self-acceptance and inner peace, but our outer, worldly appearances and affairs will also prosper and bear fruit. "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all other things will be added unto you", said the Lord. This is a science all of its own, which has little to do with physical laws, and has nothing to do with how we interpret Genesis chapter 1. At the end of the day, we're down here to undertake soul work, and God knows that it takes pain for spiritual transformation and advancement to occur. Integrity and a sincere faith is priceless, from Heaven's point of view.

This is a science all of its own, which has little to do with physical laws,

Now, don't go overboard. You're back to ID as a spiritual thing.

Now, don't go overboard. You're back to ID as a spiritual thing.

yes, it’s a spiritual thing, and I admit I might have sounded over-zealous. But I’m not saying that it’s a science like ID, which attempts to prove spiritual things via traditional scientific methods, like proving the laws of gravity. It can be proved for oneself on a personal level by applying its principles in daily life and in our spiritual life. (This is where materialists will tune out, however, as we’re talking spiritual matters and walking upon subjective grounds. But hey, as Christianity declares - “God is Spirit”, and the Ground of Being is Spirit – so by definition, everything exists on Subjective Grounds, in context with the Mind of God, the ultimate reality.)

While science focuses primarily on the level of physicality, Christianity focuses on the ‘deeper’ level of spirituality, which eludes scientific weighing or measuring. I think that the Creationists and ID-adherents should refrain from trying to “prove” the Infinite via finite methods like materialistic science. They won't get anywhere. And as Neale Donald Walsch said, "If you don't go within, you go without." I believe that God can be found when we undergo an ‘inner transformation’ of the heart, rather than by appealing to traditional science.

I’ve probably gone overboard again, and it won't cut much mustard, but this is the way I see it.

. . . in Jesus’ words: "The Kingdom of God does not come visibly. No one will say 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!'; because the Kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17.21

(an overly used quote by me. But I love that one)

I must be a fundie at heart

While science focuses primarily on the level of physicality, Christianity focuses on the ‘deeper’ level of spirituality, which eludes scientific weighing or measuring. I think that the Creationists and ID-adherents should refrain from trying to “prove” the Infinite via finite methods like materialistic science. They won't get anywhere. And as Neale Donald Walsch said, "If you don't go within, you go without." I believe that God can be found when we undergo an ‘inner transformation’ of the heart, rather than by appealing to traditional science.

May the force be with you......but may it be the Holy Spirit!!!

I must be a fundie at heart

There's always room for one more.....

I believe that God can be found when we undergo an ‘inner transformation’ of the heart, rather than by appealing to traditional science.

The quantum enthusiasts would differ here:they seem to think they are on the verge of poking through the infinitesimal via strings and discovering parallel dimensions. Now that's dealing with the invisible visibly.

in Jesus’ words: "The Kingdom of God does not come visibly. No one will say 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!'; because the Kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17.21

I'm wondering if you're thinking what I'm thinking on this verse.

Do you know when he says here in our version "within you" is better translated "among you?" Remember who he's talking to.

What Jesus was saying is the necessary elements of the kingdom were present and right in front of them and needed only to be recognized. It cannot mean "within you," for the kingdom certainly was completely unconnected with the Pharisees to whom he was speaking (v20). They did not have the spirit of God within them by any stretch. They hated him. See how they demanded to know when this kingdom was coming in v20.

When he said in v20 "The kingdom of God comes not with observation.....he's talking with an outward show like a political coup. Cuz look at v24...he says just like lightning so shall his coming be....it will be visible just not the way they envision it.

See that's what they were expecting....a political takeover....they wanted to be set free from Roman rule and they expected the Messiah to do so when he came. Jesus didn't seem to fit their ideal Messiah.

Happy New Year all!

The quantum enthusiasts would differ here:they seem to think they are on the verge of poking through the infinitesimal via strings and discovering parallel dimensions. Now that's dealing with the invisible visibly.

That’s very true. Traditional science is unable to discern whether God is “good”, or “love”, or not, however. It can’t prove or disprove whether God exists at all, in the sense of an all-knowing, omnipotent God.

Strings and parallel dimensions is an interesting field in science. I think that the parallel dimensions predicted by string theory renders plausible the existence of a Heavenly dimension. It will probably never be proved though, because if Heaven exists then it must exist in another realm or dimension. But I believe that human consciousness can detect God’s existence and the existence of Heaven, whether it be via intuition, or whatever you want to call it. This is what I mean by an ‘inner transformation’, which is really a transformation of consciousness. (There's a lot more depth to human consciousness than science has detected, I'm sure.) I personally adhere to Jospeh Benner’s words: “Spiritual growth results in an expansion of consciousness and opens up a new world, one of which previously the seeker had been wholly unaware, although it had always been present awaiting his recognition.”

This could all be summed up with the Christian phrase to be “born again”.

Do you know when he says here in our version "within you" is better translated "among you?" Remember who he's talking to. What Jesus was saying is the necessary elements of the kingdom were present and right in front of them and needed only to be recognized. It cannot mean "within you," for the kingdom certainly was completely unconnected with the Pharisees to whom he was speaking (v20). They did not have the spirit of God within them by any stretch. They hated him.

That’s an interesting view KFC. It comes down to personal interpretation again, however. What do you believe the Kingdom of God actually is, incidentally?

Even though you’ve concluded that “it cannot mean ‘within you’”, I believe that it can. I think that the Kingdom of God is akin to the realm of Spirit, where God is. During our time on earth, our connection with this realm - God’s Kingdom - resides within us. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is right under our noses, and we don’t have to go anywhere to find it. My interpretation of Jesus' words is something like, “You won’t find it in the things of the world. It will come to you when you become born again and acknowledge it in your hearts.”

You’ll notice that the Bible’s reference to the Kingdom of God is orientated around spiritual matters, or ‘inner things’, (as well as existing 'up there and out there'. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.) St. Paul said, “For God's Kingdom is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of the righteousness, peace, and joy which the Holy Spirit gives.”

In Mark 4.11 Jesus says, “You have been given the secret to the Kingdom of God. But others, who are on the outside … may look and look, but not see; they may listen and listen, yet not understand. For if they did, they would turn to God, and He would heal them.” -

Here, I believe that “others on the outside” refers to those who have opted for a worldly interpretation of life. They look, but do not see. They listen, yet do not understand. They are caught up in worldly priorities and materialistic issues, and believe that the truth can be grasped by the intellect alone, rather than the intellect and the heart combined. They know all about the world, but they know nothing of God.

This all fits in with the issue of parallel dimensions and the spirit realm, too, I suppose.