Intelligent Design (ECP forum rules apply)*

44 Replies, 1839 Views

*Moderator note: this thread is generally reserved for putting forward evidence for intelligent design. Discussion (or debate over specific points) can occur but according to the same rules that govern the Extended Consciousness Phenomena forum. Members wishing to debate for and against intelligent design from the ground up should do so in other pre-existing threads or through creating new threads.

----
The first gulp from the glass of science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - Werner Heisenberg. (More at my Blog & Website)
(This post was last modified: 2023-07-22, 05:39 PM by Ninshub. Edited 3 times in total.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jim_Smith's post:
  • nbtruthman
The first gulp from the glass of science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - Werner Heisenberg. (More at my Blog & Website)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jim_Smith's post:
  • nbtruthman
I find it a little discouraging that there is so little interest here nowadays in Intelligent Design. I have followed this field and have observed that with newer and newer research (primarily by the DI) there has been a steady increase in the level of certainty of the claim of intelligent design for the origin of at the very least the phyla and classes. This field represents just as dramatic a culture war in  the media and in academia as the paranormal phenomena issues. In fact I think the case for ID has become almost as strong as that for the existence of some sort of spiritual order and the for the bankruptcy of materialism (mind fundamentally does not equal brain). It's too bad that many people discount the value of the research into molecular and evolutionary biology carried out by the DI simply because it is a Christian organization. That fact does not detract from the quality and objectivity of its research work, which they are careful to isolate from religious teachings and beliefs.
[-] The following 5 users Like nbtruthman's post:
  • David001, Ninshub, Valmar, Jim_Smith, Brian
(2023-06-26, 06:55 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: I find it a little discouraging that there is so little interest here nowadays in Intelligent Design. I have followed this field and have observed that with newer and newer research (primarily by the DI) there has been a steady increase in the level of certainty of the claim of intelligent design for the origin of at the very least the phyla and classes. This field represents just as dramatic a culture war in  the media and in academia as the paranormal phenomena issues. In fact I think the case for ID has become almost as strong as that for the existence of some sort of spiritual order and the for the bankruptcy of materialism (mind fundamentally does not equal brain). It's too bad that many people discount the value of the research into molecular and evolutionary biology carried out by the DI simply because it is a Christian organization. That fact does not detract from the quality and objectivity of its research work, which they are careful to isolate from religious teachings and beliefs.
While not a ID proponent myself, I went at the christianforums.net debate section about evolution out of curiosity, and found the arguments and resources there lacking, with points such as ID not having a impact in research or incentiving climate change denial being used by oponents.
[-] The following 1 user Likes quirkybrainmeat's post:
  • Jim_Smith
(2023-06-26, 06:55 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: I find it a little discouraging that there is so little interest here nowadays in Intelligent Design. I have followed this field and have observed that with newer and newer research (primarily by the DI) there has been a steady increase in the level of certainty of the claim of intelligent design for the origin of at the very least the phyla and classes. This field represents just as dramatic a culture war in  the media and in academia as the paranormal phenomena issues. In fact I think the case for ID has become almost as strong as that for the existence of some sort of spiritual order and the for the bankruptcy of materialism (mind fundamentally does not equal brain). It's too bad that many people discount the value of the research into molecular and evolutionary biology carried out by the DI simply because it is a Christian organization. That fact does not detract from the quality and objectivity of its research work, which they are careful to isolate from religious teachings and beliefs.
I find having religion and science in such close proximity to be problematic. I'm aware how Meyer attempts to not to define the intellignet agent as any particular god when he has on his science hat but the way he integrates the two when he put on his  christian hat doesnt leave a lot of room for other forms of spirituality. It's like he is subsuming science into his chistian cosmology.
 It's also interesting how Meyer and Shermer seem to dismiss anything paranormal as not supported by science and usually represents the feild of parapsycology as spoon bending
[-] The following 5 users Like Larry's post:
  • stephenw, Sciborg_S_Patel, Jim_Smith, Valmar, Ninshub
The first gulp from the glass of science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - Werner Heisenberg. (More at my Blog & Website)
If anyone is interested, have a few articles about ID on my blog 

https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-a...subject_id
The first gulp from the glass of science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - Werner Heisenberg. (More at my Blog & Website)
[-] The following 3 users Like Jim_Smith's post:
  • Ninshub, Larry, Sciborg_S_Patel
(2023-06-26, 06:55 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: ...
I have followed this field and have observed that with newer and newer research (primarily by the DI) there has been a steady increase in the level of certainty of the claim of intelligent design for the origin of at the very least the phyla and classes.
...

I agree.

And a lot of scientific evidence supporting ID comes from mainstream science. As science advances they provide better and better evidence for ID. 

The more they learn about biological systems, the more complexity they find, the harder it is to explain how they could evolve in the time available. 

The better they understand biological systems the better designed they find them to be.

Studying the fossil record hasn't solved the problem of missing intermediates it has made it more mysterious.

Studying the origin of life hasn't changed the fact that everything we know about chemistry indicates a natural origin is impossible.

The more genes they sequence the more exceptions to "common descent" they find.

The more they study DNA the less junk they find.

The further science advances, the more they find the existence of life, and particularly the existence of intelligent life that can understand the universe, is dependent on the fine tuning of the universe.

https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-a...subject_id
The first gulp from the glass of science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - Werner Heisenberg. (More at my Blog & Website)
(This post was last modified: 2023-06-27, 01:12 AM by Jim_Smith. Edited 3 times in total.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jim_Smith's post:
  • Ninshub
(2023-06-26, 09:01 PM)Larry Wrote: I find having religion and science in such close proximity to be problematic. I'm aware how Meyer attempts to not to define the intellignet agent as any particular god when he has on his science hat but the way he integrates the two when he put on his  christian hat doesnt leave a lot of room for other forms of spirituality. It's like he is subsuming science into his chistian cosmology.
 It's also interesting how Meyer and Shermer seem to dismiss anything paranormal as not supported by science and usually represents the feild of parapsycology as spoon bending

This is where I'm at too. I've never really looked into this topic, but the associations discourage me a bit. At the same time, my biggest personal roadblock is that I just don't know enough about biology, hard science, etc., to even begin evaluating the claims.

But I'm open and I find it interesting that people here bring up this topic, it makes me curious, and I read their posts with interest. I'm happy to know there's another world here to explore potentially, and the fact that people here (and back at Skeptiko in the old day) whose intelligence I very much respect take the arguments seriously tells me there must be something worthwhile.
[-] The following 4 users Like Ninshub's post:
  • stephenw, Sciborg_S_Patel, Larry, Jim_Smith
Meyer's latest book is "Return of the God Hypothesis"




Here is the full playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...mMWXg_FYaH

The book is about how the first scientists believed studying nature was a way to understand the works of God. But later because Darwin, Freud, and Marx answered the fundamental questions of humanity without God many people became atheists. Now because of the accumulation of scientific discoveries, the evidence for God is convincing.

The evidence he gives is:
  • The universe had a beginning.
  • It is fine tuned for the existence of life.
  • The sudden information bursts needed for the origin of life and macroevolution are best explained by the action of intelligence.


He also points out that there is no conflict between religion and science.
He says:

The early scientists sought to understand God by studying the bible, and they saw nature as another "book" that revealed the mind of God. 

Studying nature was like studying the bible, studying / learning about God.

Science arose in Christian Europe and not in Egypt, China, or Ancient Greece because in Christian Europe:

People believed man was made in God's image, man's mind could understand the works of God's mind.

Original sin: man is imperfect, his mind is imperfect his theories need to be checked against the facts of nature. 

The ancient Greeks thought the world was perfectly logical and all you had to do was think logically and you could understand it from reason alone.

But in Christian Europe they believed the universe was created by God and He made choices in his creation so you had to make observations to see what was really done, you couldn't just theorize. 

The Christians believed universe was orderly because of natural laws made by God that could be understood by man.

Early scientists like Boyle, Kepler, and Newton used theological metaphors describing nature as a book, as a clock (a mechanism that showed evidence of design), and a realm (governed by natural laws).

Newton wrote:
Quote:Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council an dominion of an intelligent an powerful Being."
- General scholium to the Principia
The first gulp from the glass of science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - Werner Heisenberg. (More at my Blog & Website)
(This post was last modified: 2023-06-27, 03:06 PM by Jim_Smith. Edited 2 times in total.)
[-] The following 3 users Like Jim_Smith's post:
  • Larry, David001, Brian

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)